Once again, this site's viewers got it all wrong. The rating should be much higher.
If nature doesn't care then why would it take revenge? The notion that ghosts of millions-of-years old fossils would decide to take revenge on man is a bit too preposterous, even for a horror film. Why would they care about man polluting the Earth? No clues are given as to why fossils/oil would protest against them/it being used to fuel economies around the world. Does it physically hurt the fossils/oil hurt when they're/it is being turned into energy? Or are they upset because they didn't get a cut of the profits? Maybe if Perlman had offered this living oil a percentage they'd been fine with the plans to drill... Perhaps those dragons aren't so much anti-business as they're just plain greedy. On the other hand, dragons have their families to support, too, hence a few dollars from Exxon and the like might help them lead a more luxurious life... No idea. E-mail me what you think the dragons were upset about here, or if you think they were merely being a**holes.
Forget the somewhat cheesy ending with the ghost-dragons. And forget the somewhat problematic premise about nature "taking revenge" on man, i.e. the way this idea was conceived. This is a great movie. I haven't seen such beautiful scenery since "Holy Smoke", plus there is a highly effective build-up of atmosphere that reminds me for some reason of a movie like "Safe". The cast is very good, the dialogue intelligent and realistic, the soundtrack quite suitable.
Some people wrote that the movie starts off like "The Thing". What, just because of the polar setting in a horror film? (OK, not polar but Alaskan setting: same damn thing.) Does that mean that "Lord Of The Rings" is like "Excalibur" because there are many things happening in castles? Someone even mentioned that "The Shining" was being ripped off. What, just because a person is found frozen in the snow? That makes it a rip-off of Kubrick's film? Using this logic, "Braveheart" was a rip-off of every other movie with battle-scenes in which people die from stabbing. Perhaps "2001: A Space Odyssey" was a rip-off of "Plan 9 From Outer Space"? After all, both movies have STARS IN THEM! Honestly, some people...
TLW may not be 100% original - but what movie today is? The terrific photography, an adult script (especially for a horror film), and a cast devoid of amateurs like Ashton Kutcher or over-actors such as John Travolta and Nicholas Cage, ensure that this film sticks out from the piles of filmic rubbish that are released in their dozens every week. Plus, it always helps to have a beautiful woman in the cast, this time one called Connie Britton.
As for the ending, sure it could have been better. Revealing the threat to be mere dragons mucking about in the snow was hardly an optimal conclusion to the mystery, but people who feel that the ENTIRE movie was ruined by a couple of mythic lizards are far too demanding. These are probably the same people who will accept all the illogical baloney in a De Palma or Hitchcock movie, but decide to nit-pick through TLW for some reason. Perhaps they do that because a modestly-budgeted film like this hasn't been over-hyped? Some people need to be dazzled by excessive marketing in order to feel as though nit-picking should be skipped...
Is it me or is Ron Perlman the long-lost twin-brother of Tom Waits?...
If nature doesn't care then why would it take revenge? The notion that ghosts of millions-of-years old fossils would decide to take revenge on man is a bit too preposterous, even for a horror film. Why would they care about man polluting the Earth? No clues are given as to why fossils/oil would protest against them/it being used to fuel economies around the world. Does it physically hurt the fossils/oil hurt when they're/it is being turned into energy? Or are they upset because they didn't get a cut of the profits? Maybe if Perlman had offered this living oil a percentage they'd been fine with the plans to drill... Perhaps those dragons aren't so much anti-business as they're just plain greedy. On the other hand, dragons have their families to support, too, hence a few dollars from Exxon and the like might help them lead a more luxurious life... No idea. E-mail me what you think the dragons were upset about here, or if you think they were merely being a**holes.
Forget the somewhat cheesy ending with the ghost-dragons. And forget the somewhat problematic premise about nature "taking revenge" on man, i.e. the way this idea was conceived. This is a great movie. I haven't seen such beautiful scenery since "Holy Smoke", plus there is a highly effective build-up of atmosphere that reminds me for some reason of a movie like "Safe". The cast is very good, the dialogue intelligent and realistic, the soundtrack quite suitable.
Some people wrote that the movie starts off like "The Thing". What, just because of the polar setting in a horror film? (OK, not polar but Alaskan setting: same damn thing.) Does that mean that "Lord Of The Rings" is like "Excalibur" because there are many things happening in castles? Someone even mentioned that "The Shining" was being ripped off. What, just because a person is found frozen in the snow? That makes it a rip-off of Kubrick's film? Using this logic, "Braveheart" was a rip-off of every other movie with battle-scenes in which people die from stabbing. Perhaps "2001: A Space Odyssey" was a rip-off of "Plan 9 From Outer Space"? After all, both movies have STARS IN THEM! Honestly, some people...
TLW may not be 100% original - but what movie today is? The terrific photography, an adult script (especially for a horror film), and a cast devoid of amateurs like Ashton Kutcher or over-actors such as John Travolta and Nicholas Cage, ensure that this film sticks out from the piles of filmic rubbish that are released in their dozens every week. Plus, it always helps to have a beautiful woman in the cast, this time one called Connie Britton.
As for the ending, sure it could have been better. Revealing the threat to be mere dragons mucking about in the snow was hardly an optimal conclusion to the mystery, but people who feel that the ENTIRE movie was ruined by a couple of mythic lizards are far too demanding. These are probably the same people who will accept all the illogical baloney in a De Palma or Hitchcock movie, but decide to nit-pick through TLW for some reason. Perhaps they do that because a modestly-budgeted film like this hasn't been over-hyped? Some people need to be dazzled by excessive marketing in order to feel as though nit-picking should be skipped...
Is it me or is Ron Perlman the long-lost twin-brother of Tom Waits?...