i had to go get chocolate and a coke half way through this because with each blink my eyes were getting heavier and heavier. i carried on watching it because of the short review here saying it "has a slow start", but picks up pace for a "great ending". the ending was probably the worst part about the movie.
avoid avoid avoid
SPOILERS AHEAD
Yes, I must admit that the first part of the movie is actually the best part. When the creatures show up, things just get downright stupid. First of all, they are horribly animated and look pretty bad at times. Secondly; they are just not scary. The scariest part is the whole drugging down/buried alive concept. The perpetrators themselves, although fast and efficient at the beginning, look like they belong in the ocean, dragging their bodies along the ground like turtles without scales. And then the kicker; they melt in sunlight. Seriously. Why not just put bolts at their necks and humpbacks? A plot to take over the world perhaps?
Lame.
[deleted]
Hmmm... I didn't find it boring at all.
It was a well made monster movie.
The ending worked for me... pointing out that there was more than one group of monsters haunting the plains.
I'll agree that the monsters weren't all that terrifying once you got a look at them... but most monsters aren't.
Still, what they did was pretty creepy... and the fact that they dissolved in the sunlight suggests something supernatural going on... or that the critters might not have originated on Earth.
Really, the most horrifying scene for me was when the 'hero' gets back to the army camp at the end and realizes what's happened while he was gone.
I totally agree with you. that ending was the best part of the film as well as the realization that the french speaking Indians where gonna use Parcher for bait (little fish). I never truly figured out what happened to Callaghan. did his leg become gangrenous, or did the soldiers charged him with treason and where inflicting torture on him for the disappearances of the others (hence victors remark that Callaghan was delirious). I know the ending was full of irony.
shareI LOVED this movie. I thought the ending was AMAZING but only if you take the time to consider all the "ingredients". The movie takes place in 1740's in the Dakota terratories, where there was a LOT of racial tension against the natives. The ending in kind of a foreshadowing for American history and the abuse/atrotious mistreatment of the people who were here first. As Venus did say, it does suggest the concept that the burrowers aren't the only "monsters" out there. However, I feel that the movie was a great monster movie. I had watched the "making the monster" segment and must give the effects people HUGE props for using every kind of effect they had.
As far as a monster movie goes, it follows almost all the "rules". They only show little bits of the monsters until they really need to. admitted, the monsters weren't that scary, but i think it was more the concept that they can infect you, and bury you alive (a terrible phobia for countless people) before finally feasting on your "soft parts".
I actually LOVE this movie
It takes place in 1879. There weren't any white people living in the Dakotas in the 1740s except for fur trappers.
The Divine Genealogy Goddess
I thought the movie was exceedingly well done. Yes, it did have problems with pacing (though to be truthful, I prefer slower paced movies), but the other aspects were surprisingly effective.
The setting, the creatures and their method of feeding, and the characters all combined to make a pretty interesting movie. I'm also surprised by how vulnerable the monsters really were. Horror movies have a tendency to make monsters that are virtually impossible for a human to kill, but these were pretty decent.
---
Pleased to meet you.
[deleted]
Yeah, the thing about those Sci-Fi ones though, is that they are funny. I thought this movie was really just forgettable. Not bad enough to be campy and fun, and not good enough to be anything special. There's only a couple things I actually didn't like about it though. I thought the monsters being killed by sunlight didn't really fit with the feel of the rest of movie, and I thought they kind of played down the effects of stepping into a bear trap lol. That guy should'nt have been walking let alone carrying an Indian down a hill. Other than that I thought it was pretty well made, if a little slow.
shareDId they run out of money??? What type of ending was that? This movie bored me senseless!. And Robert Richard was nowhere in this film.
sharei really quite enjoyed the movie. sure, it had problems, and it certainly wouldn't have done well in theatres, but i thought they did good. the pacing was a little off at times, but the over-all story was intriguing. and the creatures' method of killing was just straight-up horrifying. and while the credits were rolling, getting to hear the creatures chomp down on the buried kid... just beautifully nasty. i watch pretty much every horror film that comes out and i truly believe this one deserves a spot in the top 20%.
shareI picked it up at Walmart for $14 (lucky I didn't order it from Amazon at $25) and I didn't think it was boring at all.
It was pretty good, well acted and beautifully filmed.
I thought the monster design was good, but not executed very well. A little too rubbery for me.
The movie had a great premise, and while everything was going well for the first part, it completely falls apart for the second half. Simple as that, and the pre-premiere hype it inexplicably got is really not deserved in the least.
shareI just want to say that those agreeing with the title of this thread are all wet. This was a really good movie. The pacing was good, the plot twists led to a good climax, and it was a good horror movie as well. My only complaint is that I found I needed subtitles to catch some of the more subtle dialogue such as the poisoning at the end. I had the DVD so I was able to watch it more than once and catch a lot of the twists that I just don't think are obvious the first time through. This board really helped as well.
share