Page 1 of 2
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:45 am
by Leisher
An indy horror film that is decent enough to put some big studio efforts to shame.
A small squad of British soldiers discover that their war games are over when they find their competition, an English special ops squad, slaughtered. Now, cut off from all civilization, the soldiers have to figure out how to survive the night while a pack of werewolves hunt them.
I love indy films. It's not that they try harder, but they are more passionate. Plus, you never know what you're going to get. Sometimes you'll get the steaming pile of shit you'd expect and sometimes you find gems. This is a gem.
My only real complaint about the film is the writing (of course). Don't get me wrong, the premise was great, but they tried to do too much. For example, one "kill" is telegraphed pretty blatantly during the open scene. On top of that, they really tried to get cute with the plot right near the end and it didn't make sense. It didn't ruin the film for me because the rest is so strong, but it pull me out of my immersion long enough to say "Well, that's just stupid." There are actually two "twists", but the first was expected and hinted at through the movie's first act, so I don't really consider it a twist.
The one writing error aside, I rather enjoyed the film. All the actors do a pretty good job within, although I think the Sarge gives us a slight over performance. The main character is quite good and reminds me of a poor man's Jason Statham.
The special effects were an interestingly mixed bag. They didn't spare any cash doing explosions or gunshots, yet some of the wounds were very obviously done on the cheap. The werewolves themselves were pretty damn good. They weren't Underworld good, but they rank in the top 5 of best werewolves on film.
Overall, if you're a fan of horror, indy films, or werewolves, this is worth a rental.
6 out of 10.
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 10:19 am
by Malcolm
The werewolves themselves were pretty damn good. They weren't Underworld good, but they rank in the top 5 of best werewolves on film.
Seriously? They looked like a garage special to me. Saw this flick a couple of years (& seven thousand forum crashes ago). I was not overly impressed.
As a sidenote, one of the characters is actually named Corporal Bruce Campbell.
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:47 am
by Leisher
Seriously? They looked like a garage special to me. Saw this flick a couple of years (& seven thousand forum crashes ago). I was not overly impressed.
Maybe it caught me in the right mood, but I was entertained throughout. And to be fair, you hate everything.
The werewolves weren't bad at all, so I'm not sure why you think they were garage sale specials. Granted, they didn't do a million close ups. In fact, most shots were silhouettes, really fast face shots, or shadow shots. You do realize that they were based on the English werewolf legends? More lean than our muscular werewolves and very tall.
The laughable special effects were the wounds. They did a couple of gore shots that was too..."goopy" for the types of death scenes they did. The worst was the guy who got gutted and was holding in his plastic guts.
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:52 am
by Malcolm
Leisher wrote:And to be fair, you hate everything.
This theory has been refuted repeatedly.
This wasn't exactly a bad film, but it ain't that great. And even the shadow shots of the werewolves had them moving so clumsily & jerkily it just killed my disbelief.
I suppose I'll cut them slack for the small budget, & it was certainly better than some films I can think of, but I can't give commendations for beating those as it's like handing out prizes for breathing in & out.
Edited By Malcolm on 1185206419
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:19 pm
by Leisher
This theory has been refuted repeatedly.
I must've been out sick the day that happened.
As for the movies you quote, I agree, all are varying shades of ass with Cabin Fever, IMHO, being the asshole itself. However, I must point out that all are big budget feature films.
That makes Dog Soldier[/b[ that much better.
I don't remember jerky, and I wouldn't call them clumsy...I'd go with stiff. They moved very stiffly.
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:33 pm
by GORDON
Malcolm wrote:Leisher wrote:And to be fair, you hate everything.
This theory has been refuted repeatedly.
This is like saying the sky isn't blue since sometimes it is cloudy.
Malcolm... do you deny that of our little group, you are the hardest to please?
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:49 pm
by Malcolm
Leisher wrote:I don't remember jerky, and I wouldn't call them clumsy...I'd go with stiff. They moved very stiffly.
Use whatever adjective you want. I can't give that detail a free pass & call it a decent flick.
Maybe a decent horror flick, but that's it. I almost think I'm going to start reporting two star ratings in my reviews, one relative to others in the genre & one absolute. Probably will be using ten stars as the ceiling since I find myself all too often handing out 2.5 or something. Why use fractions when I can just multiply all my troubles away?
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:53 pm
by Leisher
Use whatever adjective you want. I can't give that detail a free pass & call it a decent flick.
Considering the amount of screen time they got, I'm really having a hard time understanding why this, of all things, would turn you sour towards a film.
Still...
Maybe a decent horror flick, but that's it.
From you, that's high praise.
I almost think I'm going to start reporting two star ratings in my reviews, one relative to others in the genre & one absolute. Probably will be using ten stars as the ceiling since I find myself all too often handing out 2.5 or something. Why use fractions when I can just multiply all my troubles away?
You've the only reviewer I know who starts his review scores in the negative numbers.
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:58 pm
by Malcolm
And to be fair, you hate everything.
I must've been out sick the day that happened.
Things I hate.
Things I do not hate.
Edited By Malcolm on 1185213613
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:01 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:Malcolm... do you deny that of our little group, you are the hardest to please?
With respect to the rest of the world doing things, yea, probably.
If China would send me a case or two of decent beer per year, I wouldn't be so harsh towards them.
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:03 pm
by GORDON
Malcolm wrote:GORDON wrote:Malcolm... do you deny that of our little group, you are the hardest to please?
With respect to the rest of the world doing things, yea, probably.
If China would send me a case or two of decent beer per year, I wouldn't be so harsh towards them.
I just wanted to make sure you weren't in denial.
We love you and your mental health is important to us.
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:06 pm
by Malcolm
Leisher wrote:Considering the amount of screen time they got, I'm really having a hard time understanding why this, of all things, would turn you sour towards a film.
Perhaps I was in an exceptionally bad mood when I watched it, but Christ, I just couldn't take anything seriously when I saw the first non-shadow/shade/whatever shot. Even the fleeting glances I caught were so fucking bad. The final "twist" also made me grimace w\ disgust.
If this was being played as anything resembling tongue-in-cheek, I could forgive the costumes. The special effects make-up probably didn't brighten my disposition, either.
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:14 pm
by Leisher
Perhaps I was in an exceptionally bad mood when I watched it, but Christ, I just couldn't take anything seriously when I saw the first non-shadow/shade/whatever shot. Even the fleeting glances I caught were so fucking bad. The final "twist" also made me grimace w\ disgust.
If this was being played as anything resembling tongue-in-cheek, I could forgive the costumes. The special effects make-up probably didn't brighten my disposition, either.
I really don't get your viewpoint unless you're confusing them with another movie because they weren't that bad.
If anything, the quick close ups looked more like an actual stuffed wolf's head than something fake or plastic.
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:15 pm
by Malcolm
A stuffed wolf's head does look fake.
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:20 pm
by Leisher
Not when it's splattered with blood, it's jaw is moving, and you only see it for 1/2 a second.
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:26 pm
by Malcolm
Leisher wrote:Not when it's splattered with blood, it's jaw is moving, and you only see it for 1/2 a second.
I dunno exactly how to explain this, but I did not find the monsters in any way, shape, or form effective. The muppets from Ghoulies or puppets from Puppet Master were more imposing. At least when I saw them, my mind registered them as "little daemons in this movie," not "badly-done costuming someone should be shot for."
I'm not entirely sure why this is the case, but it is. I do give them props for not exposing such weakness & doing frequent full frontals of the werewolves, though. Most modern monster flicks fuck up when they give you a clear shot of whatever tenth-generation Frankenstein's creation they've thought of.
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:48 pm
by Leisher
he muppets from Ghoulies or puppets from Puppet Master were more imposing.
C'mon, that's shit.
Had you said Gremlins or even Tremors, I would've agreed, but Ghoulies and Puppet Master suck. You might as well have cited the Tribbles as an example.
And again, indy film!!! Hell, I give them a bonus for effectively using what they had on no budget and no CGI. I think the monsters worked and I'm pretty nitpicky about films normally. You don't think they worked and you're the same as I am with films.
So let's just say that overall it's a fine job done by some creative indy talents, and while the viewers' experiences may vary, they've got to give the film makers props for making a film more entertaining than most of the mainstream Hollywood drivel that passes for horror these days.
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:55 pm
by GORDON
Oh man, once I saw the play Our Town and it totally sucked because they didn't even use real props.
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:04 pm
by Malcolm
Leisher wrote:So let's just say that overall it's a fine job done by some creative indy talents, and while the viewers' experiences may vary, they've got to give the film makers props for making a film more entertaining than most of the mainstream Hollywood drivel that passes for horror these days.
I'll concede that. Could've been better, though.
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:09 pm
by Leisher
I'll concede that. Could've been better, though.
Had we been sitting in a pub, I would've broken a bottle over your head once you uttered those words. (I wouldn't have meant it maliciously though, just out of frustration.)
Of course it could've been better. It's an indy. You can't name a single major release that couldn't have been better let alone an indy.
Edited By Leisher on 1185217840
