Animal (2014) Poster

(I) (2014)

User Reviews

Review this title
98 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
An homage to old-school, campy, monster movies.
lnvicta25 May 2015
Animal doesn't have much substance as a horror movie. It's your typical "teenagers lost in the woods and are getting picked off one by one" story, except instead of a machete wielding maniac chasing them it's an Alien-Predator-hybrid animal that has a taste for human meat. For what it is, it's a fun watch - it's exactly what you'd expect from a B-movie called "Animal".

I can't score it any higher because it gets zero points for originality and I can't score it lower because it doesn't try to be anything more than a schlocky monster movie. It's surprisingly cohesive writing-wise, and is definitely more watchable than half the F13 entries. Elizabeth Gillies' ear-piercing screams are annoying yet hilarious and add some extra zest once her friends become fodder to this unstoppable beast.

Overall Animal achieves exactly what it sets out to, but its sights weren't aimed high in the first place. It's a clear homage to old-fashioned monster movies with lots of campiness, cheesy special effects, blood and guts aplenty, and a handful of scares that catch you off-guard. All you can ever want in a B-movie romp-fest.
79 out of 94 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Actually a nice creature feature...
paul_haakonsen29 June 2014
"Animal" is actually a fairly decent creature feature. Sure, the movie doesn't offer anything new to the genre. In fact, everything here has been seen before in other similar creature features.

But still, the movie was entertaining and thrilling. And when the movie offers nothing new and is essentially fully a movie much similar to every other creature feature, then what makes it stand out? Well, because the movie follows the "how to make a creature feature" to the point. But it is the creature itself that makes the movie so interesting.

The creature in the movie is unique in appearance and the special effects team did manage to pull it off quite nicely. The creature looked like a strange mutation between a rodent and human of sorts. It did look realistic and was adding a great sense of terror to the movie.

While the creature alone would make for a boring movie, then the people on the cast were doing great jobs with their given roles and characters. And it is especially great that no one is safe and out of harms way. The movie does offer that sense of unpredictability, which adds to the suspense of the movie.

The movie is visually great, but also audibly great. The score is nice and very appropriate to the movie. But the sounds that the creature was making proved to be quite interesting, not to mention unnerving.

It would be great to have another movie made with this particular breed of creature. I can recommend "Animal" if you enjoy a good old fashioned styled creature feature horror movie.
45 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Surprisingly good (but not good enough)
wpredari-937-29735730 September 2014
A strange creature attacks a group of friends visiting the woods. They run for their lives and find refuge in an abandoned dwelling where other people are waiting to be rescued. They think they are safe, but the creature seems to be intelligent enough to find a way in the house.

While writing the plot, I had the feeling to reveal too much because the movie itself does not offer much else. However, the acting and the cinematography are above average, and so are the special effects. There are few scenes that can make you literally jump out of your seat, and this is good, because the story is pretty boring and not different from something already seen. The actors are really good in their roles, and this is probably the only reason why I kept watching it. The score is nice, too. The only thing that really annoys from the start to end is the plot, too plain and simple. I think the audience needs to know more about these creatures and less about the sexual affairs of the characters. Unfortunately there are too many movies alike out there. The first that comes to my mind is Descent, which, of course, is far superior to this one.
19 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Unrealistic
lkinforyou4 February 2018
They're in the house not holding ANY weapons in their hands whatsoever when the creature is scoping it the first time. Not even a sharpened stick. How totally stupid and unrealistic. Only later on did they grab anything. So you're telling me in that house there's no kitchen with knives or anything? The tiny boards on the windows look 100 years old and don't look like they'd hold out a five year old.
15 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"We're Gonna Be Fine! That's A Promise!"...
azathothpwiggins18 December 2018
A group of five twenty-somethings head out into the deep woods for what seems to be a hundred mile hike. When night falls, they realize that something big, hairy, and extremely dangerous is in the forest with them. Blood-spraying death soon follows.

Finding an occupied, barricaded cabin, the hikers take refuge with the three already inside, while the beast terrorizes them. Of course, all is not as it appears to be, and secrets are being kept.

ANIMAL is a monster movie, plain and simple. The plot is basic. The characters are disposable. What makes this movie watchable is the -practical effects!- creature of the title. Underused, it is a welcome sight whenever it shows up to grab another tasty human to snack on!

For lovers of the genre...
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Useless plot lines, stupid story
Pnkprinses30911 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Did you know Drew Barrymore produced this? That makes me sad.

The gay cheating plot and the pregnancy plot seemed just thrown in for dramatic affect...they added nothing. I wouldn't be against these plot points if they made sense to the ongoing plot. And this guy's whole personality is songs? Yeah that makes sense.

There's so much more that could have been done with this story. You had a cabin, a creature, teens, and a mentally twisted villain. Still, somehow, you messed it up.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
I guess they needed the money
siderite9 November 2014
It's not that it is really bad, it's that it is a cliché from start to end. You've got the group of young people in the woods, all the archetypes in: manly guy, gay guy, black girl, smart person, bitchy person, insane person, etc, their characters barely sketched. And then a nondescript monster, bipedal, bald head, with really long and probably ineffectual teeth, a mane!, nobody bothering to even explain where it came from.

And then it starts, the story I mean. Only there is no story. They all act like it's "just an animal" so their solution is not to trap it and kill it, instead to just go out and try to "run for it". Their only displays of courage is when they have to fight each other.

Bottom line: the same movie, the same lame effects, the same script, the same bad actors. You've seen it before unless you are really young. And then you should watch something better, just because there are so many better genre films.

The only possible reason one would watch this is to see Eve (yeah, the singer) being killed in the beginning of the film.
23 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Decent Monster Flick.
Jonny-ironica31 March 2015
Horror movie opening: The Lesbo from Chasing Amy, That Guy From Soap Operas, and a Blatino(whom I'd love to sit on my face) watch a female rapper get torn to shreds by what we can only assume is Predator without the laugh.

And then, ever so unexpectedly: A Beefcake and Eyebrows Plucked to Hell head out to the woods with Chilli, Peter Pan, and Sassypants McGee where they have a run in with Predator's mentally challenged cousin, and barricade themselves into a middle class version of the cabin from The Evil Dead. Joining forces with The Lezzie,Soap Opera DILF, and the Blatino(who becomes Senor Douche-bag), the movie dives headfirst into Dwindling Party Trope as Preda-dur-dur-dur picks them off one by one.

See: Reinforce The Barricades, Try to Outsmart the Beast, The Asshole Won't Let Us Back In, Someone's Pregnant, "There used to be more of us", etc.

Those things aside, the movie does break away from some of the conventions and the Typical Horror Movie Idiot Conversation is often balanced with some witty humor from Sassypants, who unfortunately Outs a Dead Guy(RUDE!) in fear.

If more horror films balanced the humor and drama as well as this film did, the genre probably wouldn't be as much of a piñata for critics. And although in the end, it only ends up being a few notches above average, it's worth watching for horror fans.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Yawn
chubbydave7 January 2018
This movie has been made and remade over and over again. A group of young people in the woods (or jungle or island or exotic land or wherever) stalked and attacked by a mysterious woodland creature. These are all low budget movies so the effects are pathetic.

The only high points (and this is curious because they can do better than this) are Keke Palmer, Elizabeth Gillies and Joey Lauren Adams. Keke we've known for a long time from Akeelah and the Bee and True Jackson VP. Elizabeth was in the Nick show Victorious. Both young likable young actress who you hope would have good careers. Joey is a veteran actress who has been showing her breathtakingly beautiful face in films for decades. I don't know why any of them agreed to do this movie. The money couldn't have been very good, and it certainly isn't a career boost. All three of them could easily get other projects.

Anyway, this is just a pathetic remake of a remake of a remake. If you like Elizabeth or Keke, there are plenty of other projects they've done where you can see them. Skip this.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A cheesy monster movie without any nudity. What gives?
BA_Harrison3 December 2014
Five twenty-somethings—two loved-up couples and a stereotypically camp gay guy—go hiking in the woods where they are hunted by a ravenous, bipedal creature equipped with with huge fangs and very sharp claws. Whilst running for their lives they chance upon a ramshackle cabin where they meet three other people who have already encountered the beast; after barricading all the doors and windows to keep the monster at bay, the desperate group try to figure out the best way to survive their ordeal.

Exec produced by none other than Drew Barrymore, this backwoods creature feature offers very little new in terms of plot but proves very enjoyable nonetheless, director Brett Simmons making the most of the cookie cutter script and largely forgettable cast, offering up some tense action scenes, several well-timed jump scares, a decent man-in-a-suit monster and a bucket or two of splatter. Where he does go wrong, however, is in introducing the 'animal' way too early—before we have had a chance to get to know the young hikers properly, but more importantly, before busty brunette Mandy (Elizabeth Gillies) has had the opportunity to go skinny dipping, as suggested by her boyfriend Jeff (Parker Young). Isn't director Simmons aware of the basic rules of making a cheesy monster movie?
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Animal takes few risks
kerstinw9421 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Granted I wasn't expecting much after the first fifteen minutes. but its new to netflix streaming so what the hell right? Well the reviews do not lie, the bones of the film are solid, the cinematography, audio and the special effects were good. End of list. If you have seen any form of creature feature film, or monster movie even, you've seen this movie. If you haven't seen anything like this, stop and look up The Host, (korean) Grabbers, honestly so many more.

The leads were consistent with most creature feature horror flicks, bad decisions were made, someones past is delved into and little attempt is made at working together, albeit for the commiserating silencing of the token villain..the dude from prison break. Yet, unlike many of its predecessors, to a fault - our protagonists reject any form of defense against the monster, save for a wall in between them. How long was that initial group there? i may have missed it but it seemed like the lay down and die approach was taken.

Another issue i had was the lack of discussion regarding what the hell the creature is!? Everyone seems fine with believing it to be some woodland creature, common to the woods of wherever the hell this film takes place. While this device could have served as a commentary to the genre, in that a trope of creature features is the initial utter denial of the apparent danger or supernatural/otherwordly presence...the film chose to not really address it at all. overlooking the obvious opportunity for parody, the film instead sticks to its roots and merely chocks their insistence to denial up to stupidity and ignorance.

Don't waste your time, with a little research there are some worthy genre pieces from which Animal borrows heavily.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Do not feed the animal
Frederique1426 June 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I'm probably to big a Liz Gillies fan to give a non-biased review, but then, no review is ever objective is it. But I absolutely love this movie. I already watched it five times and it's still entertaining. I don't like really traumatizing horror (like The Ring) so I'm glad Animal is scary, but not too horrible. I love how the movie starts kind of nice and funny, and gets scarier as the film goes on, with the most action and horror saved to the last scenes. The end is my favorite part, it's so full of action and I love how Mandy (played by Liz Gillies) looks when she's about to get revenge on the monster animal that killed her friends. In short a movie I would recommend to everyone, it won't disappoint you.
40 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A Nice Showing From Chiller
gavin694227 January 2015
When plans for a weekend vacation hit a dead end, a group of close-knit friends find themselves stranded in unfamiliar territory, pursued by a menacing, blood thirsty predator.

When Chiller debuted, horror fans the world over were ecstatic. And when they started making original films, they became even more excited. Well, at least those who could find the channel. Unfortunately, many cable providers still do not carry it even when SyFy seems to be standard from coast to coast.

With "Animal", Chiller shows it knows what it is doing. Start with a really good creature, constructed from practical components, and throw in a bunch of teenagers or young adults to handle the situation. This formula worked wonders in the 1980s and to some extent still works wonders today. If you add some B-level talent (here we get Eve and Joey Lauren Adams), you add name recognition and save on the cost of hiring Hollywood's flavor of the week.

Yet, reviews have been harsh. Shock Till You Drop stated that the movie was "a waste of a good, old-fashioned creature." We Got This Covered commented that "Animal has enough carnage to appease more forgiving horror fans, but despite a quick pace and brutal kills, it's repetition that truly kills this beast." Let us tackle these two.

STYD has a bit of a point. The creature is very well done, but loses a bit of its luster once it gets too much screen time. This is a tough balance -- you want to show off the goods, but not wear it out. Also, some may find the humanoid shape of the monster a bit disappointing, as it will make it clear that we are dealing with a man in a suit.

WGTC is partially right. The repetition within the film is very minimal, and should not be a problem for most viewers. The bigger, perhaps "meta" repetition is the feeling this has all been done before. This is very much a slasher film with a killer replaced by something that could have been in "Feast". There is, almost literally, nothing new about this plot at all.

And that is where viewers will divide. Some will say that most horror films these days are the same thing and deal with it, enjoying the top-notch creature effects and better-than-average production values. Others might grow bored. If you can watch fifty 1980s slasher films without getting sick of them, this might be for you. But if you think one slasher is all you ever need, and the rest are just copycats, you might be let down.

If nothing else, it was great to see Joey Lauren Adams, who seems to have flown under the radar since the mid-1990s.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The Usual Storyline Again
claudio_carvalho18 June 2015
Five friends travel to the woods for hiking. They find the entrance closed but they trespass the gate. Soon they stumble with a predator and they run to an isolated cabin, where they meet survivors from another group. Along the hours, they have friction with the nasty Douglas (Amaury Nolasco), while the creature hunts them down.

The overrated "Animal" is an awful movie with the usual storyline ("a group of teenage friends go to somewhere and stumble with a threat that kills each of them; but in the end one of them manages to escape, leaving something alive behind for a possible sequel"). If you replace the predator for example by the Bigfoot, you have "Exists". "Animal" has in addition, an unpleasant character performed by Amary "Sucre" Nolasco; the terrible screams of Elizabeth Gillies to bad acting and fake reviews. My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): "Animal"
16 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
No surprises but passably entertaining.
sstetsko18 June 2014
Passable acting, passable action, passable script. Plot... well, it is a predatory animal in the forest survival horror, and how much of a plot would you usually expect? As usual the heroes (fodder) are a little on the dim side, forgoing (as is too often the case) arming themselves and trusting far too much in defense, defense, DEFENSE as they get picked off, but while there is nothing exceptional here there is also nothing that is a total deal breaker for the genre. The only really redeeming thing is there is a decent job of effects. Considering the low budget they did not do a bad job with that. All in all it is worthy of a watch if you are bored and have nothing better to do, but don't take that as a recommendation either... in the end it is still just passable.
14 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
"These woods are lovely, dark and deep"
Wuchakk20 October 2017
RELEASED IN 2014 and directed by Brett Simmons, "Animal" is about a group of people who find shelter in an abandoned house in the remote Connecticut woods staving off some kind of mutated predator that picks 'em off one-by-one.

Cabin-in-the-woods horror has been done to death with a multiple different kind of monsters/creatures/villains (zombies, Jason, Bigfoot, vampires, wild dogs, mutated bears, flying creatures, psychos, etc.). I like these kinds of movies but to be effective they have to (1.) feature the proper staples and (2.) contain interesting subtext/mindfood. If they don't have the latter then they'll have to be exceptional with the former to make it worthwhile. The kinds of staples I'm talking about include excellent locations, great monster/creature/antagonist, quality characters, at least one alluring female, notable score/soundtrack and effective suspense build-up.

"Animals" features some of the requisite staples: quality sylvan locations (Connecticut); a superbly vicious-looking creature (which is a man-in-a-suit and not CGI); a decent cast; and curvy Elizabeth Gillies in a cute get-up (Keke Palmer too, if you prefer black women). While these attributes are good, they're not enough to elevate "Animal" from its hackneyed status (particularly since it's missing some of the required 'staples').

Yet it's not just the movie's staleness that holds it back. There's also dubious acting (note the unconvincing conversation of the white/black couple during the early hike), obvious plot holes (the flimsy wooden barricades that the formidable animal could obviously break through at any time), predictableness (like when the foil buys the farm), eye-rolling drama (the gay confession), clichés (the "final Friday girl" and the climactic scene) and not enough suspense build-up, although it has some.

The sad thing is that "Animal" was produced by Drew Barrymore and therefore had more funds than the typical cabin-in-the-woods slasher. If you haven't seen many of these movies then "Animal" is worth checking out. If not, I encourage you to see superior ones, even if several of them have much lower budgets, e.g. "Night of the Living Dead" (1968), "Friday the 13th I & II" (1980/1981) (actually, any of the Friday flicks), "Sasquatch Hunters" (2005), "Sasquatch Mountain" (2006), "The Lonely Ones" (2006) and "Flu Bird Horror" (2008) to name a handful ("The Lonely Ones" is a no-budget indie, but it's great in some ways; stay away, though, if you can't handle barely-a-budget horror). One thing's for sure, "Animal" is vastly superior to the lame, trashy "Cabin Fever" (2002).

One last thing: Some have criticized the movie on the grounds that the creature's origins are never revealed. No, there are two blatant clues revealing its genesis.

THE FILM RUNS 86 minutes and was shot in Hartford & Manchester, Connecticut. WRITERS: Thommy Hutson & Catherine Trillo. ADDITIONAL CAST: Parker Young, Jeremy Sumpter, Paul Iacono, Joey Lauren Adams, Thorsten Kaye and Amaury Nolasco.

GRADE: C
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Feast was a tad bit better.
Patient44417 June 2014
This coming from one who quite hated Feast: had budget, potential, managed to pick some good actors, but the execution there was laughable in a very bad way.

So why is this one even worse? Well it does create the impression that the crew will stick together, the acting will try to be at least average, but the script doesn't allow much beyond it. It is a used idea, badly executed, looking like a cheap movie instead of being a solid B horror. The perfect dumb decisions taken throughout the movie, the characters not smart enough to survive, the "natural" reactions coming from the situation, the night that is not dark enough to cover the movie and make it easier on us.

Animal is a bad movie in the end, sorry to say so, but you won't find nothing new here. To be honest, I once saw a movie "Grizzly Park" that I found to be so much better than Animal. You get a few laughs at that one and a ending that kinda makes it worth while. This one tho, a total time waster, minutes you will want back.

Try something else, you will do better easily!
18 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Animal is bloody, mildly effective and entertaining enough.
guillermobosque10 December 2014
Summary: Animal is bloody, mildly effective and entertaining enough. 64/100 (B-)

When plans for a weekend vacation hit a dead end, a group of close- knit friends find themselves stranded in unfamiliar territory, pursued by a menacing, blood thirsty predator. Holed up in an isolated cabin, tensions mount as long-buried secrets are revealed. As the body count rises, the group must put their differences aside and fight for survival. "Animal" surprised me so much, I was expecting a crappy horror movie with an ex-nickelodeon cast, but ultimately the film was very enjoyable, bloody and sometimes smart. I also have to give some credit to the cast, I know them from other movies and a few TV shows, all of them are very likable and talented, they also bring some charisma to the film.

Also, Drew Barrymore produced this film and I had no idea; that's impressive. Moving on, the opening scene is quite simple, pretty passable. Also on the downside, the first minutes of the movie are dull character development, everything is so predictable because they are a group of teenagers into the woods and we all know how it ends. Animal doesn't offer anything new to the genre and it's sometimes cheesy, however I enjoyed it so much, and the jump scares were very effective and unpredictable to me. The human drama also works, that's one of the most interesting things about this little flick and I like how some characters felt the necessity of confess their most intimate secrets before dying.

For a low-budget movie like this one, the sound design, the production and the special effects are great. The creature itself is also scary and very well done, although its appearance may remind you to another monsters from some classic horror films, but... who cares? It is still scary and original enough. The violent scenes are unexpected and explosively bloody. It may be an awful film for some people and I actually have to admit that the script has a lot of flaws, but as a horror fan I was completely satisfied, especially with the ending, that ending was great. My final verdict is that Animal is bloody, entertaining and boasts a great cast. Keke Palmer and Elizabeth Gillies did a really good job. (B-)
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
No
enricoshapka4 June 2020
People must have really low standards. The actors are good but cmon be serious, this movie is absolutely trash from the middle to the end, the beginning was still good. One of the cheapest movies I've ever seen.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Where are the animals coming from?
Filmaniac12327 June 2014
Warning: Spoilers
As a "B/C" graded horror movie this is a good,entertaining, tensed movie.

The movie has its flaw, of course. The costume of the monster is quite laughable to be honest, and the movie didn't explain where these monsters are coming from. When I started believing that the monsters are turned from human (because they walk on two feet, they are familiar with the cottage and they seem extremely clever to trick human race!), the story kind of end in a rush.

Like a lot other B/C horror movies I didn't recognise a single name in the cast. That didn't put me off from watching and at the end I thoroughly enjoy it.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Why is Eve in this?
jeremyse82 July 2022
Pure trash. But I don't understand why Eve would be in this movie for 30 seconds. That is my biggest takeaway. The acting is really bad and so are the effects which is why the movie is set at night.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Surprisingly good!
frederiquepeters20 June 2014
I'm not really a big horror fan, but this one surprised me and I actually like it a lot. Although it's a typical horror movie in a way, with a group of youngsters chased in a dark wood, there are some really original findings in it. I also liked that not all questions were answered in the end, which make you think about the movie after wards and adds just that extra. For a low budget movie the effects are really good, the monster was well created and a unique kind of creepy. For me Elizabeth Gillies absolutely stood out as the best actress of the bunch. The looks she can give are brilliant and of course she looks stunning, too. I hope to see more of her in the future!
67 out of 106 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Seen this before, but wasn't that bad ...
peterp-450-2987169 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Chiller Films delivers another horror/slasher from a decent level. Don't expect something extraordinary and original. The ultimate story, the setting and the end of "Animal" is already used infinite times and won't ensure that the seasoned horror buff will raise his eyebrows. The title alone indicates a total lack of inspiration and sounds pretty dull. Although it covers the complete movie and from the outset you already know what you can expect. A bloodthirsty beast that moves amazingly quickly through the forest, making multiple victims. If you're not really a fan of such movies and you can't stand gore scenes, you can rest assured, because that is totally absent in this film. Perhaps that's because Drew Barrymore was the "Executive Producer" and has ensured that the rough edges were smoothed.

You'll get a lot of clichés as you encounter them often in these movies. Again there's a group of people who are planning to carry out an elated and relaxed recreational pastime and then accidentally get stuck again after which they are being hunted by an unknown creature. The group is also a collection of colorful characters, each with their qualities and shortcomings. Also you can expect a car that won't start, splitting (always a bad idea) of the group, stumbling people with some disastrous consequences, a villain who acts out of self-interest and stupid decisions.

The group of people that went to this forests is a gang of teenagers with Jeff (Parker Young) and Alissa (Keke Palmer), brother and sister, who are the actual creators of this venture. When they were younger, they came regularly to this forest. Now this forest is threatened to disappear. So they return to this forest once again with their friends to make a hiking trip. The others are Matt (Jeremy Sumpter), Alissa's friend, Mandy (Elizabeth Gilles) the girlfriend of Jeff and Sean (Paul Icano) a mutual friend I suppose. Obviously it's a mixture of the ever recurring archetypes: Jeff is the handsome,tough guy with a beautiful and lascivious girlfriend Mandy, who wears throughout the complete film a wide open lumberjack shirt, so you can stare at her natural outcroppings the whole time. Not that I have anything against it, but I found it a bit overdone. That's why the creature, hungry for meat, eagerly went after them, I guess. Alissa is the nice looking sister who's probably smarter than her brother and becomes the initiator to save themselves. Matt is the intellectual and sporty boyfriend with a profound desire to sacrifice himself for the good cause. And Sean is the dork of the group who's more occupants about his hairstyle and probably has rubbed his skin with some protective creams, so he won't get a rash from some plant. A typical gay-character role who runs around with a panicky scrawny scream or makes an attempt to come across as tough while screaming "Eat this, bitch ..." Ultimately this horror/slasher is not that bad, despite it follows paths that are walked on already before in this genre. You see from afar how it plays out. But it's brought quite good and there's no "found footage" crap. No annoying swaying images so you become miserably seasick. It all looks exciting and menacing, and it's edited in a solid way so you get a blazing-fast whole and you won't be bored for a second. And in spite of the fact that it's mostly filmed at night, the image quality is still acceptable. So in terms of production, it's successful.

The only thing this film lacks is originality. There's nothing new to discover in this film. Even if the group enters a wooden cabin that has been converted into a fortress, and where there are three other persons hiding. We saw a glimpse of them in the beginning of the film. These people cause a crucial development, but won't provide an original twist. I read somewhere that this looks actually like a kind of "Feast" situated in a forest. I've never seen the latter, but judging by the cover of this film, I know what inspired the creators of this movie. Despite that the monster sometimes looks like a guy walking around dressed up like a monster, the close-up shots were successful and terrifying. Granted, it's not a "Predator" or "Mother" from "Alien", but at least it looked better than the teddy bear on steroids in "Evidence". Especially the impressive row of sharp teeth looked realistic and are clearly designed to tear up a victim into shreds.

There were also some illogical things. The fact that some simple shelves,cabinets and doors pushed against a window could keep out the creature, was a bit absurd. And why didn't they use the canister again after it was proved to be effective? Also unfortunate was the lack of any explanation of the origin of the creature. Was it alien? Was it created by a chemical substance? Was it a military project that has gone wrong? There is no statement on the matter. Not that this is necessary. But it would be an interesting addition.

Conclusion: a typical monster movie with a cleverly written script that still has a surprising twist or two. It's also directed by Brett Simmons who directed "The Monkey's Paw" in the past. It's a movie for fans of this genre and it's definitely worth a look.

More reviews at http://opinion-as-a-moviefreak.blogspot.be
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Better off watching Feast again
performpail17 June 2014
I went into this film expecting very little, and that's what I got back. Do not get me wrong, I'm not one of those movie goers hating on horror, or low budget films. I love them both, but this film, there's no love.

I was bored! The acting was bad, and not in a campy way. The attempts to create any tension were tedious and insulting. The story line was a rip from numerous horror films before hand (Night of the living dead, Feast, Dog Soldiers etc).

I will give the film Kudo's for it's practical effects, whilst the creature resembled beasts like Feast, Raw Head Rex, Pumpkin head and The Secret of Nihm. It wasn't CGI, thankfully.

I can't help but feel that Drew Barrymores involvement was intended to create another cult horror flick such as Matt Damons, Ben Afflecks and Wes Cravens produced film Feast (2005). It fails, it lacks the creative direction. Though it had all the correct ingredients, it just felt under prepared, and then over cooked.

I didn't hate this film, but I rolled my eyes, and asked why so many times! It's a no brainer, if you want to waste 90 minutes then watch. If you don't, then watch one of the films it was trying to be, simple.
19 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Don't bother
khillikat20 June 2014
I think my 2 rating may even be a tad generous.

Have a guess- group of teenagers get stuck in the woods and seek out a hiding place. The 'animal' is intent on killing them all.

I'm not sure what genre of movie this should come under but it is not a horror film, as there is no anticipation, no fear, no scary moments. This is not a slasher movie, as barely any blood/gore.

I usually enjoy naff horror films but this is not worth wasting time on, unless you want to play guess who dies in which order...

Maybe I'm just expecting too much from a movie. i.e. entertainment

Save yourself the effort.
18 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed