sunkan_72
*** This review may contain spoilers ***This is clearly one of the worst movies I have seen (and I have seen a lot of movies). Jim Caviezel is normally a very good actor and it isn't his fault that this movie sucks and not really the other actors either.The director and the person that wrote the script had to be on a pretty bad "trip" while doing this movie. I simply can't find anything positive to say about what they created.It's slow It doesn't make sense. The story is thinner than a piece of paper and the dialog, well not anything interesting either. The special effects. They really doesn't show anything, but still it's bad.It's a complete waste of time, see something else....anything really.
Ang L
Carla and Peter whose relationship is on the rocks go on a surfing camping trip and upset nature. The movie is really not that interesting and has a weak plot. It's not scary either. I think it had a simple premise and it stuck strictly to the moral message it wanted to convey which made it quite bland and a little ridiculous at times. Spoiler alert - The movie is pro-life and is actually saying that abortion is against nature - I am not saying that's what I think, just what the movie is saying (I will also point out there are animals that can spontaneously abort their pregnancies and others that engage in infanticide that's nature weighing in.). Peter is the first to tick off nature by lampooning a sea cow (because that's the animal every woman wants to symbolize her) and orphaning its child. Which is representative of the fact that his wife Carla had been pregnant and didn't tell Peter about it. She had an abortion because she didn't think he could handle it or something like that. Basically, Carla is a would be mother feeling lampooned by Peter. Later, Carla destroys the egg of an eagle that attacked them (yes an eagle attacks them and somehow Carla obtains its egg, I dunno, call the director to complain) and well, it's pretty obvious that destroying a fertilized egg is representative of her own abortion. Nature goes haywire and Peter and Carla suffer the consequences. By the way, when an endangered eagle attacks you, who destroys its egg as revenge?
dhartio
The film tells the story of a troubled couple in spending a weekend in a far-off beach, having to deal with the consequences of their reckless actions toward nature. The plot may seem a bit poor, but it does have its tense and intense moments. It's not scary at all, just somewhat eerie.While acting is pretty straight, characters are really poor. Carla, the wife, is just unbelievably annoying. Impetuous, whinger and harassing. Unbearable. Peter, the husband, is not much better, reckless and arrogant. They obviously don't get along very well, and, as soon as the problems start to show up, rising the mystery behind the plot, their reactions just overbore it. I would say more than a half of the film nothing happens other than their constant argument. Thus, the plot develops very slowly. Maybe if there were more characters it could have been much better. Their dog is far the most likable character on the entire film.Filming is o.k., it manages to rise the tension of the plot. Scenery is great, but it does get monotone after a while.
mail-3876
Depressing and pointless remake. The one dimensional characters and clumsy direction soon become a chore to sit through. There is questionable continuity and any moments of tension or suspense are rushed through. It looks like the "suspense" scenes were hacked up in the editing room to try and make it more exciting, as even though this is a short film, it's still padded out with repetitive scenery shots. The eco message is conveyed in a series of cheap clichés that reminded me of a first year film school project. I guess people got paid for making the movie, so it was probably worth it for the families of the crew, but entertainment it is not. Spend the 85 minutes asleep, it will be more beneficial.
AD
