Powerful

Memorable, crazy movie

Fresh and Exciting

Fantastic!

If you haven't seen the terrible first part from 2012, don't worry. In the beginning you will see a summary so you can enter the hayride. The positive fact is that the horror is better than in part 1. The killings are done on-camera and we do have red stuff here and there but as in the first part it's a long ride throughout all the talking going on.I saw this immediately after the 2012 version and I had the stop button in my hand but people who knew me do know I sit throughout every flick I see. It's not the worst flick I came across but it wasn't a nice flick. Still, it do deliver a few bloody shots. Only for the geeks of low budget slashers.Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 1,5/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5

I'm pretty much a sucker for any kind of slasher flick, no matter how uninspired the killer or story is. Figured I'd pop this on for some Halloween low B fun while I worked out in my gym one day. I think this movie suffered from some kind of identity crisis. It was as if it didn't realize it should just embrace being a low budget slasher flick, and instead it used it's horrible actors to try to force the audience to become touchy-feely on a backstory that wasn't even provided (I doubt watching the original Hayride is going to change my opinion)... and even if it was, it wouldn't have helped them any... because of the previously mentioned horrible acting.The moment between the nurse and one of the brothers dragged on for so long. The sad, dramatic music felt so out of place every time a character died, as the camera panned in on the anguish of the person who witnessed yet another friend die. Nothing wrong with that, if it wasn't for the fact that the writers gave us no reason to care for any of the characters. The music itself also felt off. It didn't feel like dramatic horror film music, but more like it belonged in a war movie. Once again, I have no idea what the creators were aiming for with this film.As with even better low budget horror films, it was filled with plot holes and horror tropes to the max. One of the brothers twice tries to fight off the killer with a small knife, and both times he fails miserably. That might have been the best part of the movie, and the only sliver of a saving grace for me. The hilarity and futility of this "hero's" attempt to attack the killer.

'HAYRIDE 2': Two and a Half Stars (Out of Five)B-horror flick sequel, to the 2012 indie slasher flick 'HAYRIDE'. Both films were written and directed by Terron R. Parsons; and tell the story of a legendary serial killer, named Pitchfork. Most of the original cast actually survived the first film, and returned for this installment; including Jeremy Ivy, Jeremy Sande, Sherri Eakin, Corlandos Scott and Wayne Dean (as Pitchfork). The film is pretty bad; but if you like slasher flicks, you might get a kick out of it. It turns out the escaped killer from the original movie, Pitchfork (Dean), isn't really dead; and he's back to wreak more havoc, in southern Alabama. The Summers brothers, Steven (Ivy) and Corey (Sande), once again have to do battle with the madman. Steven also must, once again, protect his girlfriend, Amanda (Eakin); who's targeted by Pitchfork. Detective Loomis (Scott) is also back, to chase the notorious monster; as he also learns more about his past.The film is about as cheesy as they get; poorly acted and filled with horrible dialogue. It is entertaining though, if you like this type of movie. I never saw the first film, and I don't really think I need to; after seeing this one. I'm sure if you've seen one 'Pitchfork' movie, you've probably seen them all.Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://youtu.be/BpWXjqkP56w

This film is incredibly slow and directionless. The folklore about a mystical, seemingly invincible farmer-serial killer is hardly developed at all, and the way people throughout the film go through trauma only to reconvene and have a slow conversation about childhood and fairy-tales is bizarre. Even fans of horror films will find this movie a waste of time. How did this thing get funded anyway?I guess one could try to make a drinking game out some of the annoying aspects of the film (drink every time someone dies, or every time cops stand around doing nothing), but even then alcohol is not likely to make any of this funny or entertaining.And why would we expect the bumbling hick protagonists to prevail over this invincible farmer? And why did I feel the need to waste more time by writing a really bad movie review about this really bad movie? Dilemmas...