PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Frances Chung Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Cassandra Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

TheLittleSongbird I enjoyed the original Pumpkinhead, but the three sequels are not as good. The best for me was this one, though Ashes to Ashes isn't bad either. Blood Wings was severely lacking for me. What I did like about Blood Feud was that it wasn't too bad visually. The effects are a little better than they were in Ashes to Ashes, the scenery is appropriately eerie as well as looking beautiful and the photography is thankfully not as frenzied. The music is haunting, what ties this movie with the original are used well and while the titular character doesn't show up for at least 40 minutes, while not having the impact he makes in the original, he is at least frightening. Lance Henrikssen is very good, he puts a lot of effort into the role and it shows. However, I was largely uninterested with what was going on until he showed up. The story of the Hatfields and McCoys is clichéd and often unbelievable, and is further hampered by plodding character exposition, and even then the characters felt under-written. The writing is rather trite and sometimes cheesy and most of the acting apart from Henrikssen is poor, sometimes even amateurish. All in all, the best of the three sequels but also could have been much better. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Boba_Fett1138 It was a bit surprising to note that this fourth movie from the Pumpkinhead franchise was the best of the sequels to watch. Not that that means that it was a great movie though but it featured a decent enough story, that stays true to the Pumpkinhead-franchise but is not as predictable and clichéd as its predecessors. The characters are all better and the movie also features a decent enough amount of gore to pleasure the genre-fans.The movie has the same look and feels as the third movie "Pumpkinhead: Ashes to Ashes" and also seems to be shot at the same locations. This isn't a very positive thing though. It got shot in Romania, which is of course nothing like the South of the USA, which made the first Pumpkinhead movie such an atmospheric one.The movie features some pretty good effects, which also provides the movie with some nice gory moments. It also uses the monster at the right moments and it doesn't make the mistake of featuring it as prominently as any of the other earlier sequels.Yet again the movie features Lance Henriksen, who had played the main character almost 20 years prior to this movie, in the first Pumpkinhead movie from 1988, directed by Stan Winston. He also reappeared in "Pumpkinhead: Ashes to Ashes" but his role in that movie was rather small and pointless. In this movie his character doesn't make a totally redundant impression and it's a pleasure to watch him in this movie. It still gives the movie a certain bit of more overall professionality over it, despite its overall obvious low-budget look and feel.A decent enough movie and certainly the best out of the so far three sequels made.5/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Tim Hayes Pumpkinhead was in itself a decent 80s horror flick. No classic by any means, but an enjoyable piece of fluff. Why then, have we now been treated to a fourth film in this franchise is beyond me. As in previous sequels, there's nothing here to really connect the films except for the monster, the witch and Ed Harley (Lance Henriksen). This time out we follow the feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys. Part of the film is a Romeo And Juliet romance as a young McCoy boy and his Hatfield lover decide to run away to be together. Soon, however, they are torn apart and the boy's sister is killed. The boy escapes to the woods and gets the witch to resurrect Pumpkinhead for some vengeance. The acting is passable at best, amateurish at the worst. The titular demon doesn't even really show up for almost forty minutes and when it does its a pale comparison between it and the original design. Overall, Blood Feud fails to impress. It may be worth a watch once, but certainly not an addition to the collection.

Phillemos I realize it's a small statistical sampling (8 votes as of this posting), but 5.9 out of 10? I'm giving this movie a 3 and even that's generous. I've tried to watch this movie three times now (the Saturday night 9 p.m. premiere on SciFi Channel, and the Saturday night at 1 a.m. and Thursday night re-broadcasts) and I've fallen asleep all three times before the movie ends. Which leaves me with a laundry list of unanswered questions. For example, is Lance Henriksen that strapped for cash that he has to keep playing supporting roles in these god-awful "Pumpkinhead" sequels? Is Henriksen contractually banned from doing any non-"Pumpkinhead" movies? Can't the creators of this franchise do better than a monster that looks like a geriatric, emaciated "Alien" who walks like he has a stick jammed up his a**? When are the hick characters in these movies going to realize that handguns and rifles don't hurt the "Pumpkinhead?" Why don't they try jamming another stick up this thing's a** instead? And, lastly, are the writers of this movie so creatively challenged that they couldn't come up with names for the two feuding families more original than the Hatfields and the McCoys? While you're at it, why not write a screenplay about a fictional president and name him George Bush? Someday I may have the mental stamina to watch this movie all the way through without drifting off to sleep. Until then, if somebody has the answers, please let me know.