Thaneevuth Jankrajang I always have faith in English films. English storytellers tend to be more serene and less anxious than the Americans. Their jokes are usually more subtle, effective, and quite long-lasting. Same as their scare tactics in horror films. Their so-called Grade B films show different classes of the society rather than different qualities. However, this film is an exception. It starts promisingly enough, then gets watered down steadily towards the meaningless ending. You could have seen the film in reverse in the Benjamin Button style and you would get a fine film. Investment in the character, earlier in the film, gets wasted. Nightmares and psychological episodes of Sophie get forgotten for the most part. Little flashbacks here and there do not help. We have seen several examples of good scary low-cost films. Today film-making equipments are of lower price, and filmmakers' skills are not tied with the money. I can watch John Carpenter's Halloween or George Miller's old version of Mad Max several times, and still have no clue what made them so good and so long-lasting, with such a low cost in a time of high-cost filmmaking. People behind this film should play less games, watch less choppy presentations, and return to the classics. It is all there to learn. I realize that there are a lot of people out there who care for moneymaking over filmmaking. But if you can achieve both, why not? Humankind should crave for betterment.

Michael 'Hallows Eve' Smillie This movie starts off okay but then it turns in to a horror movie cliché. I have to admit there are some good parts in this film, but they do not save this film from becoming average and meaningless. Yes the story wasn't too bad but the director failed to deliver what could've been a pretty good film. The acting wasn't bad but in saying that it wasn't good. The characters didn't make me want to care for them either way, in fact I didn't care if they lived or died. As for the 'beast', well it wasn't what you would expect, almost a let down, although not too predictable. The movie wasn't a complete failure but it wasn't, for me, a success. So in saying that I give it a 4 out of 10. Have seen worse.

jmbwithcats The movie had some good oldschool Jeckyl and Hyde / werewolfy atmosphere, and some good story elements, but the elements I liked the most were left unexplored and undeveloped which means the atmosphere fell flat about halfway through. The girls were very easy on the eyes, but ultimately there was little left keeping me watching by the hour marker, but with 30 minutes left I decided to give the rest a chance.One figures out the movie within the first moments you meet Gavin, so the reveal is pretty droll... the gore and music were very mediocre and no opportunities were taken advantage of, in fact I don't think they even had some syncing action in the film with the music... because everything was flat... The acting was okay, the script thin, but with potential, no decent music score of orchestration, no interesting dialog, and didn't really care much for the characters beyond the physical... so I'd have to say, poor showing:2/10

Cbor1 I saw this film at the English premiere and felt compelled to write. This review contains spoilers.Synopsis: The film begins reasonably enough with a young girl ('Sophie') hiding from a monster that enters her room at night. I liked the way this scene was handled and felt there was a palpable sense of fear. However, I felt it went down hill from there. The film fast-forwards to the present day, where the girl has become a 'goth-lite' (to use a character's phrase) woman who enlists a group of her friends to go off in search of a mysterious animal that is terrorising livestock. The good: The locations looked suitably spooky, and I felt that unusually good use was made of the backdrop in the camping scene. Holly Weston ('Sophie') was able to convey most of the emotion of the part, particularly at the end, even if she looked a little too physically perfect (in my opinion). Stephen Martin Walters playing the saner brother, Gavin, was able to engage sympathy. The best part of the film is his final speech.The bad: Some of the dialogue is clunky, particularly between the teen group at the beginning. Some of the acting (particularly from the avenging priest) is extremely wooden. I'm a total coward, yet after the first five minutes, I didn't find this film even remotely scary - too many close-ups on people drooling just made it seem silly to me. I found the supporting teenagers to be too stereotypical for words, though 'Dean' did at least gain sympathy. and finally (here is the main spoiler)I found the film unbelievably crass. To recap: the film is about some kids who go off to find an animal that is attacking people/livestock. They find out that this animal is actually a human who has lived with dogs for years. This human is at times apparently superhuman, sometimes apparently not, for unexplained reasons. The final scene shows the lead character's 'real' motivation was that she had reinterpreted her own childhood sexual abuser (her father) as the demon-type monster in her dreams. I felt that this ending seemed tacked on to the film to give it gravitas, and that because the rest of the film is so light and frankly silly in places, it seemed completely inappropriate. At least films like Last House on the Left keeps a level tone to justify themselves. I watch some pretty hardcore horror, yet because of the sheer ineptness of execution, this is the one I consider to be in questionable taste. Films earn 'worth' through good execution - skillful storytelling and acting - not by having a serious issue stuck on the end up justify the stuff in the middle. I felt it actually made a mockery of the serious things it was trying (through flashbacks etc) to discuss.