Hatfields and McCoys: Bad Blood (2012)

Maybe this movie suffered from the misfortune of my already having seen Kevin Costner's version of the Hatfields and McCoys because it caused me to want to learn more about the events that actually occurred. Sadly, this version failed to make it even to "B" status. This version was so pared down that they messed with a lot of the facts: -Johnse Hatfield did not stay with Rosanna McCoy but under pressure from his family abandoned the relationship. He later married her cousin Nancy McCoy who then left him for Bad Frank Phillips -Randall's wife did not get killed when the house was attacked by Jim Vance; she was driven insane -Ellison Hatfield was not stabbed by two McCoy's but 3 (Tolbert, Pharmer and Bud), who were all then summarily shot by Jim Vance and company upon his death -Bad Jim Vance was not killed by Anse but by Frank Phillips I could go on but I think you get the point. The ending with Johnse showing up with a pregnant Rosanna was just the icing on the cake, trying to have a happy, fairy tale ending where they are one big happy family. The best thing about this version is that they did NOT extend the movie to go onto other events such as Floyd Hatfield's hog, Cottontop being hanged for Alifair McCoy's murder, the Battle of Grapevine Creek, etc.As far as the acting went, there were no winners here. A lot of the dialogue seemed forced and it failed to stir the least bit of emotion in me to identify with anything the characters went through. Given the choice between the two, go with the Costner version every day of the week.

To enjoy this movie, first, disregard any facts you may possess about the Hatfields and McCoys and, second, release any expectations of realism. Then just take the ride. I did appreciate the acting, the Kentucky scenery, and the wonderful music. I thought Jeff Fahey and Perry King were very good as the family heads. This is not the real story of the feud, but it is a story. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end. It makes sense and is easy to follow--because it is a condensed, pared-down, dummied-down, made-for-TV kind of movie. It uses the bare minimum of family members, relationships, and events. Don't bother comparing it to the outstanding Kevin Costner mini-series. Just take it for what it is, and you might see it as the hour and a half of escapism that it is. Not terrible. . . .

It was as if the director picked the worst actors he could possibly find and then told them they only needed to give 10%. The best actor was the mute girl. The best part about the movie was the fact that the producers ran out of money and could only afford to stretch the film to 75 minutes. Christian Slater needs to stop doing western movies. He is actually ruining what could be good shows. I don't know if Sean Flynn or Kassandra Clementi have ever attended an acting school but if they did they need to get their money back and possibly sue the university. I would recommend this movie to anyone who has at least 200 hours a week to spare.

Having no idea if the intent of this production is to ride the coattails of the History Channel's "Hatfields & McCoys" mini-series one has to think so. Obviously that one raised the current day brand recognition to an all time post WWII height, why not make a few lousy dollars? Sadly, this seems to be the the purpose of this "K-Mart" version of the tale. I suppose if it wasn't up against the superior History Channel treatment it may look like a much crisper (almost too clear 16:9 production reeks of HD videotape, i.e., no film soft grain) 1970's ABC "Movie of the Week", but since many viewers will be watching this after seeing the far superior Kevin Costner version it pretty much is laughable.In addition to the bargain basement production values we get a much different story. I know from research that The History Channel deviated somewhat, but here we have a very topical story with seemingly even more deviation. There just ain't any meat on these bones and the bones themselves are broken. In the back of my mind I get the feeling Jeff Fahey might have been quite good if given more to work with...That's about all I can say as the other performances were less than "phoned-in" to coin a phrase.O.K., it's watchable if somewhat laughable. That's the only reason I give it a 3 (full disclosure: If I had paid to see it the rating would be less). I don't know how much they paid Christian Slater for his meager role here, but seriously are infomercials next?