Red Riding Hood (2003) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

Now here's a perfectly plausible premise. A twelve year old American girl is abandoned in Rome, left only with a crust of bread, a magnificent apartment, and credit cards without spending limits. How can she endure the harshness of her existence? She turns to people-watching. As she observes more and more people, she sees more and more sins - shoplifting, infidelity, you name it. She realizes that the police can do nothing about these activities, so she herself is determined to be the angel of vengeance.

Of course, all angels of vengeance need a theme, so hers is "little red riding hood", and she has an imaginary friend who looks like a really high-tech "big bad wolf." Either she or the author seem to be a bit confused about what a "red riding hood" is, because she actually wears a black hood, but I guess it's OK, because she wears red boots. Together the girl and the imaginary wolf travel through Rome with a box of power tools, bringing shoplifters and other petty criminals to the grisly deaths they so justly deserve.

... until Red Riding Hood's grandma shows up to spoil all the fun. Get it? Riding Hood likes the wolf, hates the grandma. Oh, that's good stuff.

Anyway, Red overcomes the meddling grandma obstacle in a direct manner - by carving up granny with some of her power tools.

Then another guy shows up to spoil her fun. This is a man who sees that she's insane and tries to change her. Although he's a good samaritan, he's the world's stupidest samaritan and tries to trick Red by dressing up as her imaginary friend. I've tried this plan many times myself, and have found that it has a critical flaw: I don't know exactly what other people's imaginary friends look like! Drat the luck! Despite that obvious shortcoming in his scheme, he almost manages to pull it off - he puts on a disguise and looks exactly like the imaginary friend. Luckily for the film's exposition, he is such a perfect match that the audience can't tell the difference!

Red, however, has no trouble telling them apart, and carves the imposter up with power tools.

A woman named Antonella Salvucci showed up just long enough to take a shower. If you know how slasher films work you'll realize that this isn't good for her continued health. In these films, cleanliness is next to godliness, at least in the sense that those who take a shower will soon be next to God. Salvucci was, therefore, in the film long enough to got scrubbed up on camera. and then ...

Well, do I need to mention the power tools? This thing should have been sponsored by Sears. What an opportunity for a product placement that could have given Craftsman some exposure in Europe! Assuming, of course, that anyone ever saw the movie.

Anyway, I sort of lost interest at that point. I think maybe Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi got directly involved in the escalating violence in the Roman streets, and was just about to solve it when he was mysteriously cut up by power tools.

Hmmm. I wonder who did it?



  • No features except the original theatrical trailer
  • the transfer is not anamorphically enhanced, and is not especially vivid



Antonella Salvucci did a shower scene. There are clear topless shots and blurry, unfocused lower body action.

The Critics Vote ...

  • There are no major reviews online

The People Vote ...

The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by genre fans, while C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-.

Based on this description, it's a C-. It fits the "C-" description perfectly. I thought it was utter crap, and most people agree (3.5 at IMDb), but genre fans think it was pretty good.

Return to the Movie House home page