Another typically bad junior director movie--more concerned with "atmosphere" and acid-lighting than with actual story, dialog, characters.
Why do they keep doing this? So here are some hints for the junior director/writer the NEXT time he wants to make a movie:
1. LIGHT your scene enough so we can tell what the hell is happening. Much of this film takes place in dark areas, and we cannot make out shapes because we are not NOCTURNAL.
2. SHOW us the objects your characters are holding, looking at, reaching for, etc. The man threw some box down the hill. The acid-lighting showed us what looks like a little box. Later in the movie, they show us crawling toward the box. What is it? Who knows and who cares. The director doesn't tell us.
Also, when someone is reading something small, MAGNIFY the image so we can see it. Knowing her phone went off and seeing some fuzzy characters tells us NOTHING.
3. Have your characters act in PLAUSIBLE ways. It is not plausible, for instance, to have the wife see the man chew his arm over a campfire one night, and the next day only say, "I'm here for you if you want to talk to me".
That's STUPID. That would only make sense if (a) he's done this before and (b) it is a prelude to a common depression which she is aware of. But she didn't even KNOW he was seeing a psychiatrist before this trip. So when you see your husband chewing his own arm, the thing to do is (a) run out there and say, "Honey, what are you doing? Are you okay??" But she goes back to sleep. Then at least at the breakfast table she should say, "Honey, WTF were you doing last night? I saw you chewing your arm at a fire? Why are you sitting at a fire outside at night?" Instead, the dialog is "You can talk to me, honey". What crap writing. Another example: wife finds hubby crumpled in a bloody shower stall. Blood everywhere. She checks his fingers (to see where he's bleeding?). She doesn't ask him ANYTHING like "what happened? Are you bleeding? Where is this blood from?" Instead, she concludes he's in need of major medical attention, then runs out to this boathouse and lightly taps on the window saying "help?" in a mousey voice. Since she's able to get no one, instead of returning to her husbanding in the bloody shower, she STAYS OUT ALL NIGHT. What? None of this is plausible, or even interesting. It's just STUPID and lazy, insensitive writing. Finally, even though she knows the husband is seriously physically ill, instead of trying to convince him to get off the island to see a doctor, or say "I'm going to get a doctor for you", she says, "I'm leaving the island...with or without you." NICE. That's exactly how a loving wife does NOT act once she sees her husband has contracted some serious disease.
Earlier, the wife goes to the dock and sees what looks like a car battery with something on top of it (dark, amorphous, who knows?), but later tells her husband "the battery is missing"! No it's not! It's on the DOCK. We all saw it. Tell him the truth--say, "Honey, why the hell is the car battery sitting on the dock with the boats?" Idiot writer!
4. Explain your characters' motivations, and have them be credible. The best part of the movie was the husband complaining about working long hours, trying to prop up her art career, and feeling resentful. That bit of dialogue makes sense, and even garners SYMPATHY for the husband. And you NEED sympathetic characters for every movie. But that was it. The rest of the movie was him shouting at her, scaring her, and acting weird. I get it--he's turning into some monster. But STILL why have him be such a douche? Makes no sense. Doesn't tie into anything. Instead, he just slowly morphs into some disgusting animal that eats raw flesh, spends time with his rifle, vomits, at times sick and crumpled up, at other times running like he's in perfect health. It's just insane and stupid, and shows that the director has no real ideas--he just wants to gross/freak us out over this "metamorphosis", which has NOTHING over any wolfman movie we've all seen before.
5. Learn fight choreography. Toward the end of the movie, the two hunters are chasing the wife. Then, without showing us the husband coming out of the bushes to tackle one hunter, the very next scene is him on top of one of the hunters, killing him. What? That's it? Worse, the next hunter approaches the woman with a knife--CUT to scene of husband on top of second hunter, killing him. What? That's IT? That's how you show an attack? You leave OUT the attack part? Absolutely crappy fight choreography--lazy, amateurish, and shows what an absolute piece of rubbish this entire movie is--because THIS was supposed to be the climax, the best this movie can be--the fact that, despite his metamorphosis into some animal/monster, he cares ENOUGH about his wife to defend her from psycho-hunters (who, by the way, are also just contrived, cut-out "villains" with unconvincing motivations to go after this couple in the first place--just tacked on). But no--the director ROBS us of any cool "wolf-man jumps from the bushes and lands on the hunter's chesk, ripping his heart out with his teeth" moment. Instead, the director tells the actor, "OK you get on top of him here, and you start pretending to chew into him--ACTION!" Come on, learn how to choreograph violence, you numbskull.
6. If you're going to make someone a "painter"--convince us she's a REAL painter, and convince us a husband would pay all the bills to help her career. Show her leafing through her success photos--galleries, etc. She'd have to have SOME track record, Because NOBODY would become the bread-winner for someone who makes a few art-school chicken scratches for a face on canvas (with muddy charcoal, nonetheless). Bring us INTO her world as a painter, perhaps incorporate it into the plot, instead of just having her come back to find her excrescence destroyed with a hole in the center, and her getting mad. Use flashbacks and hire an actual painter as a consultant of how it would be credible. But as it is, you expect us to believe a spouse would become the breadwinner for someone who quit nursing school to "dabble" in paint? Give me a break!
I turned the movie off after the second hunter was being attacked. This is just a dismal, hollow mess of a movie, with inscrutable actions by the protagonists, dark/dim lighting to where you don't know what is happening, and the ending showed that the director/writer just wanted to make some grim, atmospheric drama, and we're just all supposed to go for it, even though nothing makes any sense whatsoever.
Typical garbage from a neophyte writer/director. Avoid at all costs.
Why do they keep doing this? So here are some hints for the junior director/writer the NEXT time he wants to make a movie:
1. LIGHT your scene enough so we can tell what the hell is happening. Much of this film takes place in dark areas, and we cannot make out shapes because we are not NOCTURNAL.
2. SHOW us the objects your characters are holding, looking at, reaching for, etc. The man threw some box down the hill. The acid-lighting showed us what looks like a little box. Later in the movie, they show us crawling toward the box. What is it? Who knows and who cares. The director doesn't tell us.
Also, when someone is reading something small, MAGNIFY the image so we can see it. Knowing her phone went off and seeing some fuzzy characters tells us NOTHING.
3. Have your characters act in PLAUSIBLE ways. It is not plausible, for instance, to have the wife see the man chew his arm over a campfire one night, and the next day only say, "I'm here for you if you want to talk to me".
That's STUPID. That would only make sense if (a) he's done this before and (b) it is a prelude to a common depression which she is aware of. But she didn't even KNOW he was seeing a psychiatrist before this trip. So when you see your husband chewing his own arm, the thing to do is (a) run out there and say, "Honey, what are you doing? Are you okay??" But she goes back to sleep. Then at least at the breakfast table she should say, "Honey, WTF were you doing last night? I saw you chewing your arm at a fire? Why are you sitting at a fire outside at night?" Instead, the dialog is "You can talk to me, honey". What crap writing. Another example: wife finds hubby crumpled in a bloody shower stall. Blood everywhere. She checks his fingers (to see where he's bleeding?). She doesn't ask him ANYTHING like "what happened? Are you bleeding? Where is this blood from?" Instead, she concludes he's in need of major medical attention, then runs out to this boathouse and lightly taps on the window saying "help?" in a mousey voice. Since she's able to get no one, instead of returning to her husbanding in the bloody shower, she STAYS OUT ALL NIGHT. What? None of this is plausible, or even interesting. It's just STUPID and lazy, insensitive writing. Finally, even though she knows the husband is seriously physically ill, instead of trying to convince him to get off the island to see a doctor, or say "I'm going to get a doctor for you", she says, "I'm leaving the island...with or without you." NICE. That's exactly how a loving wife does NOT act once she sees her husband has contracted some serious disease.
Earlier, the wife goes to the dock and sees what looks like a car battery with something on top of it (dark, amorphous, who knows?), but later tells her husband "the battery is missing"! No it's not! It's on the DOCK. We all saw it. Tell him the truth--say, "Honey, why the hell is the car battery sitting on the dock with the boats?" Idiot writer!
4. Explain your characters' motivations, and have them be credible. The best part of the movie was the husband complaining about working long hours, trying to prop up her art career, and feeling resentful. That bit of dialogue makes sense, and even garners SYMPATHY for the husband. And you NEED sympathetic characters for every movie. But that was it. The rest of the movie was him shouting at her, scaring her, and acting weird. I get it--he's turning into some monster. But STILL why have him be such a douche? Makes no sense. Doesn't tie into anything. Instead, he just slowly morphs into some disgusting animal that eats raw flesh, spends time with his rifle, vomits, at times sick and crumpled up, at other times running like he's in perfect health. It's just insane and stupid, and shows that the director has no real ideas--he just wants to gross/freak us out over this "metamorphosis", which has NOTHING over any wolfman movie we've all seen before.
5. Learn fight choreography. Toward the end of the movie, the two hunters are chasing the wife. Then, without showing us the husband coming out of the bushes to tackle one hunter, the very next scene is him on top of one of the hunters, killing him. What? That's it? Worse, the next hunter approaches the woman with a knife--CUT to scene of husband on top of second hunter, killing him. What? That's IT? That's how you show an attack? You leave OUT the attack part? Absolutely crappy fight choreography--lazy, amateurish, and shows what an absolute piece of rubbish this entire movie is--because THIS was supposed to be the climax, the best this movie can be--the fact that, despite his metamorphosis into some animal/monster, he cares ENOUGH about his wife to defend her from psycho-hunters (who, by the way, are also just contrived, cut-out "villains" with unconvincing motivations to go after this couple in the first place--just tacked on). But no--the director ROBS us of any cool "wolf-man jumps from the bushes and lands on the hunter's chesk, ripping his heart out with his teeth" moment. Instead, the director tells the actor, "OK you get on top of him here, and you start pretending to chew into him--ACTION!" Come on, learn how to choreograph violence, you numbskull.
6. If you're going to make someone a "painter"--convince us she's a REAL painter, and convince us a husband would pay all the bills to help her career. Show her leafing through her success photos--galleries, etc. She'd have to have SOME track record, Because NOBODY would become the bread-winner for someone who makes a few art-school chicken scratches for a face on canvas (with muddy charcoal, nonetheless). Bring us INTO her world as a painter, perhaps incorporate it into the plot, instead of just having her come back to find her excrescence destroyed with a hole in the center, and her getting mad. Use flashbacks and hire an actual painter as a consultant of how it would be credible. But as it is, you expect us to believe a spouse would become the breadwinner for someone who quit nursing school to "dabble" in paint? Give me a break!
I turned the movie off after the second hunter was being attacked. This is just a dismal, hollow mess of a movie, with inscrutable actions by the protagonists, dark/dim lighting to where you don't know what is happening, and the ending showed that the director/writer just wanted to make some grim, atmospheric drama, and we're just all supposed to go for it, even though nothing makes any sense whatsoever.
Typical garbage from a neophyte writer/director. Avoid at all costs.