Reviews

Wow, 20 years on from the film being made and mine is the first review!

Two 30-something married couples going into the desert for a hiking/camping and re-bonding exercise after some years apart. One couple is poor, the husband a recovered alcoholic, and the other couple is rich but lost their baby in a tragic bathing accident through their neglect. Oh, and to top it off, one husband used to date the other wife. The scene is set.

The film starts off huggy-kissy and but gradually their backstories and individual resentments begin to bubble to the surface and the sniping and bickering takes it's toll on each individual, amplifying their resentments and leading to a moonlight encounter at the 'Love Shack' (hiker's cabin) that triggers a fateful series of tragedies.

I enjoyed the film, the acting was good, the script and dialogue believable, the pacing just right and no one was too stupid. The two couples were also attractive in an ordinary way, looking 'lived-in' and subdued by their life experiences. No loud jocks here thank goodness.

So, just above average and worth a watch on Amazon Prime.

I say in the headline that one came out, but maybe two did, but you will have to watch the film to find out.

An LGBT film funded under the diversity banner so lots of outrage and accusations of homophobia for reviews that give low scores; but honestly this film deserves low scores. All the lesbian daughter has to do it tell her parents and relatives over a Christmas meal about her relationship with another woman, not an easy thing I grant you. However, her attempts are so long winded and inept that they give lots of excuses for misunderstandings, interruptions and diversions. Combined with the dreary sub-plots this rambling mess meanders slowly forward to a damp-squid climax of positive acceptance that makes lettuce seem interesting. Terrible script, acceptable acting that seemed similar to a feelgood Hallmark film.

I watched this on Amazon Prime, but if you want a great gay film that is full of real emotion and is not simply a vessel for LGBT virtue-signalling, then watch 'Victim', the first, and like Jaws, the best. Great plot, great acting, great script, and free on YouTube.

This is not a good film though fairly entertaining in a bad-is-good sort of way. It is a budget film and it shows in many ways that are relatively good and bad. Nothing wrong with a budget film, in fact applause to those involved in such films for taking on the might of Hollywood. I have great respect for them.

The Good: 1. Using snippets of US and foreign stock-footage of armed forces (and weapons testing results on decommissioned warships) is quite an effective way of getting 'hardware' on a budget. It was highly inaccurate, disjointed, laughable, and often did not reflect what was happening, but that does not really matter to the casual viewer and it effectively served it's purpose. Having a military advisor would have improved military reality no end though and made it a better film.

2. The nuclear part was well done and was quite chilling in showing civilian populations going about their daily business quite unaware of their fate. The footage of actual nuclear explosions was well chosen and frightening.

3. The fate of the main protagonists was left to the imagination and allowed the viewer to visualise and think about the end of civilisation.

4. Fairly current in terms of world politics though not the predictive film some suggest given the plot line.

The Bad: 1. The acting is entirely unconvincing, particularly the main action hero and FBI agent. Granted neither had much to work with, but they were both awkward and stilted, which is forgivable for the FBI agent actor as he has only this film to his credit, but is less forgivable for the action hero actor as he has many films under his belt.

2. Terrible dialogue. Overall the dialogue speaks in clichés, and both action man and FBI agent seemed to speak in sort of sound bites from other poor-dialogue action films. The dialogue was massively unrealistic, e.g. The action man giving away all of that information to a stranger on the phone claiming to be FBI, and the mother getting a phone call from the son as he about to join the first wave ashore!

3. The action scenes are laughably terrible, such as the action-man-for-all-seasons hero being involved in a very loud and extremely explosive fight for the woodland tree line and then having the enemy airbase 1.5 'clicks' away being completely unaware of it!

The Ugly: 1. The film is about the lead up to a nuclear war orchestrated by a shadowy figure within the US hunched over a computer. This plot line brings the film in to the realm of conspiracy theory's and undermines the realism of the film's story arc and any claims to be predictive. It would have been better by far to have shown the progression to nuclear war through current political and geographical realities. This would have required more imagination and thought on how it could happen, but paid dividends for the films narrative.

2. Who are the real aggressors here? From one standpoint the aggressor is the US over-reacting and taking military action with little thought and escalating things for no valid reason and no excusable outcomes. This has been happening, particularly in the Middle East, with the US and Western allies since the 60s, so maybe the film is reflecting that to show how one day things might go too far.

I will not describe the storyline, but lots of poor reviews on here; not unjustifiably so, though not sure what viewers expected. I am surprised they were surprised. As it was 'free' I selected on Amazon Prime with no expectations. The acting could have been better, the script more convincing. I still watched and quite enjoyed it, though no T&A for those that way inclined. The location was sufficiently stark and menacing and cabin one we would all like to have.

It is what it is:

It was the best of films, it was the worst of films, it was a film of wisdom, it was a film of foolishness, it was the film of belief, it was the film of incredulity, it was a film of light, it was a film of darkness, it was a film of hope, it was a film of despair.

In other words the film was average for a teenagers-in-the-woods horror. Just be thankful no one suggested splitting up or went out into the darkness to investigate a sound in the woods.

Two points:

1. When shooting the 'bad guy' I found it astounding that Heather, the self-proclaimed crack shot, always hesitated sufficiently in-a-badly-acted-way to allow the 'villain' to kill one of her friends before she pulled the trigger. In her first shot attempting to save Kaylee Williams she had the rifle pointing to the side of the 'villain', even though she was about 5 feet away. I found this doubly annoying as Kaylee Williams was my fave character due to fancying her.

2. Really? Whose bra would remain on during a night of first-time intimacy in bed? Perhaps the most unrealistic element of the film.

Others have reviewed this most languid of films both fairly and comprehensively, and I have little to add concerning plot, dialogue, script, acting, or comparisons to original 70s film (which was better).

The four central characters were poorly written, and were very slow in both their thought processes and survival instincts. Studying nature but lacked even the basic curiosity to examine a strange creature that showed up briefly on their cameras. Marci on her kamikaze mission to photograph a branch; she got what she deserved but dear old dad never got to enjoy the action she dangled in front of him.

The father/daughter relationship was hackneyed, unnecessary, and wasted time that could have been better spent on building suspense, fear or improving the snowbeast action.

Poor old Rob, he was the best of the four and was the only one of the four that deserved to live. He died because of the poor decision making of the dad (should have powered along the proper road instead of the inevitably disastrous shortcut) and the daughter's emotional blackmail.

I quite liked Barry, he had some brains, and was the only one to realise something untoward was going on. He even had flags stuck in a map and was well ahead of the three scientists. He deserved to live, but should not have got out of that vehicle.

Probably worth watching on a wet afternoon, with some Maltesers to munch on, although watch the original if you can. Both are on Amazon Prime.

As a side note, in these films why do men walk 100 yards in to the woods to relieve themselves when really we would only walk 2 yards behind the nearest tree/bush?

FEEL THE TERROR!!!!

ENDURE THE DARK SIDE OF NATURE!!! RED IN TOOTH & CLAW!!!

SUFFER THE HEARTACHE!!

CHEER THE HUMAN WILL TO SURVIVE!!!

MARVEL AT THE CREATURE's MAJESTY!!!

BASK IN THE VERDANT SCENARY AND CLEAR BLUE WATERS!!!

EMBRACE THE NAKED EXUBERANCE!!!

From the opening 10 minute scene I was hooked: Beautiful babe, hot guy, witty dialogue, thrilling motor ride, strangely ominous backdrop flashing by. The film grabbed me by the throat and demanded my attention. It never let go and lead me on a journey from gentle amity to stark terror, redemption, and finally....acceptance.

The film further entices the viewer at the poignant initial meet up at the pond, introducing an eclectic cast of arresting characters that the lucky viewer KNOWS heralds a film with the social awareness of The Graduate and the slowly enveloping primeval fear of Alien. Additionally, yes there is more, one of the actors personifies a homage to Led Zeppelin - how cool is that??!!

Artistic merit aside, this film shows it how it is, there is no compromise and the director exquisitely withholds from the viewer cheap bourgeois clarity. Night so dark that chaos, fear and panic must be imagined, doomed people acting strangely without logic or sense, cheap and tawdry sex in isolated and vulnerable places, a creature that subverts the form and holds up to the face of the viewer a man in a cheap homemade costume. This film embraces and exalts the power of negativity, and exemplifies an ode to 'not expensive' and 'not great expectations'...

If you go down to the woods today, You'd better not go alone!

It's lovely down in the woods today, But safer to stay at home!

Wise words that these four clowns would have been wise to heed. I will not repeat the words of others, but honestly, why are these films made? I suppose they must generate a profit, or be a tax write-off, but why can't the writers/directors/actors put a bit of thought into these films or try and avoid the stereotypes? It would not be hard to do. For instance, why didn't the actor running 10 miles for help say to the director: 'would he really run in flip-flops?'. It makes you think the cast and crew are as stupid as the characters.

The ending made me think of Baldrick joyfully exclaiming to Captain Blackadder "Hurrah! We've survived the Great War....1914 to 1917!"

The plot is quite similar to that much better film 'Exists'.

Some comments have stated that the diesel launch featured in this film is the director's steam yacht used in his film Ghost boat. It is not. However, his steam yacht does appear a couple of times. In some cabin scenes there is a wall mounted picture outline of a steam yacht. That is his steam yacht used in Ghost Ship.

Back to the film; a man murders his wife in an interesting way and concocts an inventive, if slightly risky and far-fetched, alibi. The initial scene with his mistress more than adequately revealed why murder was necessary, at least to this viewer.

The affable, rotund, pipe-smoking, investigating inspector, is determined to break the husband's alibi, and like a terrier with a bone, never lets up in his investigations. He will get his man! I feel he and his soon-to-be-married sergeant (1st date Double Indemnity) would have made an excellent TV detective series, not unlike Morse and Lewis.

I thought in an inventive tale, that holds the attention, with good supporting characters (particularly the French ones), and some nice locations thrown in. All it was missing was a shower scene. Recommended.

I watched this on a DVD, luckily from a charity shop, which contained two 'extras' about the making of the film with the director and the actors. It is astounding to realise that they actually believe they are making a really good film with a really good plot line and excellent dialogue. I have seen this mass delusion by actors/directors many times, most recently on 'Crawl', and it never ceases to amaze me. Do they actually believe what they are saying?

Anyway, the film is dreadful in all the ways reviewers have been saying, poor acting, script, story et etc. Many characters attempt to more-or-less mirror the original, however, in DBS Saffron Burrows created a flawed but interesting character (who also looked great in a bikini) whereas in DBS2 'Misty' is there just to provide the heaving breasts and be a one-dimensional heroine; the actress playing her never went further than that (the way she zipped up her wetsuit to leave an ample cleavage made me laugh). Ditto the rest of the cast, who lacked the exuberance and acting skills of the original cast and therefore did not create one single memorable or interesting character.

But I think that is the modern way, as although (e.g.) 'Shallows' is slightly better, it still suffers from poor acting, terrible CGI and a ludicrous storyline. In modern films the directors/producers concentrate too much on CGI at the expense of the script and the acting. But that is where the money is.

I have read the book and loved the book. Bryson's wit, humour and whimsy shine throughout. It is also agreeably informative in a way that is not didactive; another of Bryson's talents. For the film I always saw a more serious John Candy play Katz and a younger Richard Dreyfuss play Bryson.

Reading other comments I knew that the film did not particularly reflect Bryson's book, and was therefore primed to dislike it.

True, the two main actors are far too old for their parts and are physically unconvincing, which is perhaps why the title of the book/film is taken literally by the director (no demanding hiking here). It is also true that too much of the film is made up and does not reflect the book. Bryson's wit is also largely absent (would some narration of his thoughts have got across his wit?).

Having said all of that, if the viewer regards the film merely as inspired by the book, then this can be a pleasurable and reasonably amusing viewing experience. I quickly adopted that mindset and consequently enjoyed the film for what it was, a light-hearted ramble of physical and mental exploration for two old men reconnecting for a last hurrah.

I was hoping for a good film, but the opening scenes with the daughter winning swimming competitions I knew that at some point she was going to outswim an Alligator, and that the film would not be that good. As many others have said, the script was very poor, and frustratingly, yet again another family member searching for another family member, which has become so tedious and done to death. The good thing was the dog. I liked that dog.

Of more interest was the behind the scenes extra on the DVD. It was interesting how the set was constructed and how the actors and crew moved around in it. However, to me, the director, writers and actors are so delusional. For instance, the writers said that it was about a family coming together and that made it "interesting". Erm..no..every single disaster type has that storyline in it, and is now a dreaded cliché that steers a film up a predictable cul-de-sac. Sam Raimi talks about how realistic it is - what??!! The director claimed that by the end of the film the audience will know that the father and daughter will have a much closer relationship in the future. Did anyone think that? Not me, I was just glad when the film ended. I could write much more about these delusions and what they think an audience wants, but it would take too long. Sadly, I have heard the same delusions on many other 'extras' on DVDs of poor films.

There is actually very little imagination on disaster/creature/horror films now, which is why they are all so similar. Not recommended to buy, and I will now donate the DVD to a charity shop where hopefully it will sell for 50p to some other soon-to-be-disappointed hopeful.

God, this film was boring. The first half centres around the main character, Kurt, banging on about a not very believable and pretty uninteresting ancestor that he wanted to make a film about, and trying to persuade a certain actress that he was fixated on to play the female star in his move. There did not seem to be any good reason why Kurt needed this actress, competent though she is, and it did not add anything except irritation. The alternative actress they met on a beach would have done just as well. Kurt's backstory and ancestor could have been adequately fleshed out in 10 minutes, and that, combined with using the beach actress, would have saved 45 minutes of watching a self-absorbed bore do....very little. Note to directors; self-absorbed and selfish characters are never likable and never even remotely interesting

Second half, movie organised and actress in place, is the Tasmanian journey to the place where Kurt's ancestor did something unspeakable (left a journal for Kurt to read, IMHO). Que lots of arguing whilst hacking through jungle, past waterfalls and around cliff edge paths. Due to fear of heights, when his mate found it difficult to shuffle along the cliff-edge path clutching his large rucksack, did anyone else yell at Kurt " Take his rucksack from him you selfish git!"? When they reached the place Kurt wanted to film, the remainder of the film was discussions on character motivations, but mainly hand held cameras rushing around at night, everyone split up, chasing or trying to find each other, just like the Blair Witch Project. It was just dire. The ending was dire though the church location was interesting, if not a prop. In 25 years this type of found footage has not advanced one step since BWP, the very first. Also annoying was Kurt selfishness and unwillingness to go back, despite everybody's pleas, and they all just followed him to their doom. Their weakness and obedience became really irritating quite soon.

Do yourself a favour and move on if you see this film in Amazon Prime or whatever.

To be honest, the only reason I stayed with this film was because of the hot science officer called Aurora, who had a twinkle in her eye. The fact she was an android made her more alluring still, especially in those revealing overalls. A natural rival for the hot and humorous female android in Jason X. Aurora is the reason for the 3 stars. She is too good for this film, apart from when she is limping.

As others have commented, the acting (apart from Aurora's) is very poor as is the script. The Major would struggle to command a Poodle, and the marines were about as intimidating and hard as a cream puff. I will not dwell on the Special Effects or rationales; the scene where Aurora has a bit of stone sticking out of her thigh and she winds a bandage around her thigh defies all logic, particularly when she, an android, starts grimacing in pain.

Actually, apart from the ravishing Aurora, the film was also interesting in one other way (OK, stretching it...) and that was catching the large number of films it pays homaaaage to (aka copies). My personal favourite is when the team were standing outside and one says "Wow, I felt a tremor", and another says "Yes, definitely a tremor", and a third says "What's causing the tremors?", and suddenly out of the earth bursts forth a large Graboid type creature! I am guessing this is the reason the other dinosaurs stayed on the rocks where possible. I half expected someone to exclaim "If we can capture that thing we will definitely be bringing home the bacon..."

So my advice; watch the first 10 minutes, if you like Aurora then continue watching, if not then switch off, unless you like a bit of fun.

Teenagers in the woods; a description to strike fear intro the heart of any horror fan. However.....there was no drinking, no drugs, no jocks, and actually I enjoyed this cheaply made but quite spooky horror. It contains no great acting or great dialogue, but the ghost's appearances were creepy and effective and the deaths imaginative enough and not always welcome; well the water death at least. The film does contain those annoying behaviours beloved of horror directors, e.g. to take a leak and have a fag one character walks up a hill and 100 yards or more into the woods; but overall not enough to ruin the film. A bonus is seeing two of the female characters in the shower; unfortunately not the particular female character I wanted to see and waited for in breathless anticipation......! All things considered, I would recommend this not unsatisfying little picture.

I watched the trailer first; I could see the film was poor and instinctively knew that I should choose another, better, film; perhaps something like Lesbian Vampire Killers. I ignored that instinct and paid the price.

Others have commented on the poor acting, poor direction and poor script, so I will not add to that. I will say that I have never seen such a nauseating family; the husband and wife were literally incapable of any form of conversation that did not revolve around "how can I be so lucky"; "No, I am the lucky one"; "I love you baby"; "I love you more"; "No, I love you so much more and I am so lucky to have a perfect husband like you"; "No, what did I do to deserve a wife like you?"; and so it went on and on and on. They even spoke to their wimpy son in similar vein. If ever a family needed breaking up that family did. Enter the sister, even better a seemingly bereaved vulnerable sister; even better than that, a scheming sister utterly trusted by simpleton wife only too willing to dress her scheming sister as sexily as possible and throw her at the nauseating husband.

So to compound the terrible dialogue and acting, the main protagonists were so awful and the ending so telegraphed that is was difficult to care about them or the plot, and I for one would have enjoyed the bad-sister being triumphant in the end, just to provide one spark of originality.

I do not recommend you watch this film. Watch Basic Instinct instead......or The Waltons.

Interesting location in Spain, nice and sunny, however, it was a bit bland (and obvious) and I never felt any tension or anxiety throughout. Sadie Frost as the governess was mediocre at best, although she had a certain sexiness and wanton look about her which tied in with the underlying sexual tension. There is a full frontal of her, which although attractive, moves the film further from any unsettling atmosphere. The other actors were fine with Lauran Bacall taking the acting honours.

An example of why it did not generate any feelings of nervousness was the appearance on the water, which was so badly done and so obvious in how it was achieved. Contrast that with the same appearance in The innocents, the 1963 version of Turn of the Screw, where the appearance was genuinely creepy and unsettling.

So although worth watching, The Innocents remains the best version of The Turn of the Screw, as the acting of all, particularly Flora, and Miles with his knowingness, is far superior (apart from Lauran), and is a genuinely creepy and unsettling film.

I find it difficult to understand why directors and writers make and write films like this. It is well known that most film goers do not enjoy found footage films that pretty well consist of the actors screaming and shouting at each other whilst doing incredibly stupid things. The viewer feels no empathy, just irritation with characters. The viewer does not feel suspense or fear because fear and suspense are swamped by irritation and annoyance. The viewer wants the characters to die.

And so it is with this Asylum-esque teen-scream (almost) offering. The incredibly stupid thing here was so unbelievable in it's stupidity that it would have been a kindness and relief for the film to have ended there. I wanted Megan to die.

In the main the viewer wants an intelligent script, good acting, plausible behaviours,intelligent decisions and mature likable characters. Why directors not understand this? Why is it that they do not take lessons from Jaws or The Reef? Why do they take lessons from Asylum films? It is a mystery.

Oh..the sharks were good though, particularly in the suddenness of one death where one shark was a stalking horse!