This one is the most scariest movie for me this year.Finally a movie without screaming teens and fountains of blood,but with very thrilling moments and lots of good acting.You need a good movie for a cold dark winternight without a moon?It`s the best choice!!10 out of 10!!!!!!!
shareAnd let us not forget Ron wetting the bed... For a horror/thriller, I nearly laughed! (I smiled at that scene; I laughed later when they bust in the door and he was sleeping on the floor!)
shareI agree!:)!!
shareActually, I thought that scene was great. Fessenden doesn't make a big deal of it, and it's a nice, subtle (yet empathetic - let's be honest, who hasn't had an "accident" at some point among us here?) way to show he's getting scared and the creepy goings-on are piercing all his macho bravado.
share[deleted]
im with big al, not exactly the scariest movie of the year! it was ok but that was it. just ok. 5/10.
shareWhat is so scary about it? It dosen't have any monsters in it!
shareYeah I didn't think this movie was very scary. It just seemed to lag on and got really boring. I think it sucked, personally.
-
I'll F* you with a loaf of french bread,eventhough you're on atkins,im like tough actin tinactin
It isn`t scary,because there are no monsters?Ha!!!!Are there any monsters in Stanley Kubricks Shining?No!But it`s one of the scariest movie`s of all time!!
shareI'm with you, Cronos303! This film uses dread and atmosphere better than any horror film in quite some time. I was riveted throughout. By far Larry Fessenden's best movie!
share[deleted]
The only thing I'm dreading is watching the rest of this movie. I am a horror fan. not just the monsters, but the thrillers as well. There was NOTHING thrilling about this movie. I think it would have been more interesting to actually move to northern alaska and live for a year staring at the snow. The only reason I can even think of that someone would call this movie scary is because the graphic nature of some death scenes might disturb some people. If you're in desperate need of going to sleep, and find yourself lacking sleeping pills, this movie will suffice.
share[deleted]
yes, the evil had lurked within quite finely, to 'say'.
shareComparing this sucky movie to "The Shining" is the scariest of all, retard.
shareThe only sucking thing in this discussion is yourself!I don`t compare this movie to The Shining,if you can read.But i think you can`t,and so you have to die silly!The Shining is one of my alltime favourites and is not comparable to another movie.And what`s our problem with retards?Don`t you like them?So go and hate yourself!
shareWhat?? This movie did make a terrible attempt at having "monsters." Those frog-elk looking things seemed like they were there to be scary or something. I'm not positive though as I don't see how anyone could ever think they were remotely scary. And nothing was ever explained! Why were people going crazy because of the drilling? They dismissed sour gas. This movie had potential for the first ten minutes, then it just tried waay too hard to create suspense. Its like the director didn't know when to cut away and the suspense just turned into boredom. I just want the two hours of my life back I spent watching this horrible movie.
shareAgreed, the monsters were lame- they were (translucent) hardly even THERE!
shareExactly!!!
AK-47's are the real weapons of mass distruction!
[deleted]
yes, because a movie with NO SCREAMING, NO BLOOD and nothing else but snow and moose ghosts is sooo scary.
The only thing scary is a man who pisses in his bed and wears stud earrings at the same time.
Yes! It does not have to be "Dawn of the dead" to be scary! Slasher movies are NEVER scary, though the can be cool!
The scariest movies are the ones that makes you use your own imagination! It is just sad that most people need CGI and super-hollywood-block-buster-movies to be entertained...
AK-47's are the real weapons of mass distruction!
i do not agree, after seeing the trailer, in which the movie was described 'scary as *beep* i had high expectations... after seeing it i was very disappointed, mostly because of the retarded ghost deers thigs, or whatever they were. also there wasn'tenough suspense in the movie in my opinion. the acting was solid though...
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I watched this movie last night and my girlfriend and I were actually laughing. So so so bad. I can't believe people thought this was scary. OH MY GOD! A GHOST MOOSE!!! Ridiculous.
shareSo some unkillable villain with a mask and a chainsaw, or whatever, is less laughable? I feel like the psychological nuance given the characters here, the quality of performances, the sheer filmmaking imagination/wit, and surprising plot turns surpassed the need for graphic fantasy FX and monsters--both of which emerged a hell of a lot less satisfying than the suggestive human-drama stuff leading up to it. I find this movie's character dynamics fascinating, the atmosphere terrifically creepy, the eco-political undertow very deftly integrated.
People who don't like this movie seem to expect it to be a conventional slasher-style horror movie. Instead it's more detail-oriented, complex and ambiguous--a psychological thriller with supernatural overtones--not at all strictly focused on genre thrills. I'm not saying everyone needs to love it, but that the haters couldn't appreciate something more subtle if it bit them in the arse.
If you're looking for "Halloween Part 28," then by all means you should rent it. This movie has a different agenda. I think it's terrifically tense, funny and atmospheric.
[deleted]
Attention, OP and ofumalow: I seriously believe you two watched a different movie than I did.
Yes, I rented a DVD entitled "The Last Winter" that starred Ron Perlman and was about an oil scouting company in Alaska, but what I watched definitely did NOT have any "psychological nuance," "filmaking imagination," "surprising plot turns," or "terror."
What I watched was an overlong, boring survival/horror rehash with one-dimensional characters, a laughable plot, and trite eco-political messages delivered with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer to the face.
Yes, I agree that a movie does not need fancy special effects and lakes of blood to be scary. A thriller, when done correctly, doesn't need gruesome deaths or a high body count. A good filmmaker can terrify with atmosphere, tension, and character personality.
The Arctic wastes are a perfect place to set a thriller: cold, isolated, little chance for survival when exposed to the elements. Think of how many good horror stories are set in a frozen environment. "The Thing." "At The Mountains of Madness." "Alien Vs. Predat.." well, maybe not, but you get my point.
*SPOILERS*
I had doubts when the movie opened with a convienient documentary that basically laid out all of the exposition of the movie in four minutes. Who needs dialogue and character development to explain a story? Just have it narrated to the audience in the first four minutes and skip all that crap!
Then we have our flat, boring characters. Mr. Ron "I am a company man and don't believe in no global warmin'" Perlman's moustache did battle with Mr. Crazy Hippy's beard over a hideous slut who could not act while Ms. Fat Indian and Mr. Bored Indian and Mr. Cokehead and Little Boy "I Don't Want to Disappoint Daddy" don't really do anything worthwhile except get killed.
Seriously, though. The plot of the movie involves mankind being punished by the ghosts of his fossil fuels? Is this supposed to be a joke making fun of enviromentalists? Who came up with this idiotic idea and thought it was good? I kept expecting to see Al Gore pop up out of a snowbank and tell me to stop driving my car.
When the movie was not numbingly boring, it was hysterical. Sulfide gas causes people to get naked? They should pump that into dance clubs! Ghost deer are rampaging across the tundra? And the North company must buy their equipment from junkyards and not repair it, because nothing in the movie works. Every horror movie cliche of a vehicle that won't start is in here, along with a randomly crashing plane and a snowmobile that inexplicably loses all of its
oil at once.
Also, the movie had no budget, which was painfully shown by its large amounts of stock footage and that laughable ending in which a lady is terrified of a puddle and some vague siren sounds. I know the director wanted to show a post-apocalyptic scene, but couldn't afford the set because they wasted all of the FX budget on...
...the lizard-moose-ghost thing, which I assume was the Wendigo, that all-purpose Native American horror movie bogeyman. That thing was so hilarious that my girlfriend and I kept rewinding to see it again, not believing that anything that stupid could ever get into a movie.
So, I do not know what you were watching, OP, but it was not "The Last Winter," because that is the year's worst/most boring/best comedy, not the year's scariest movie. If I want eco-propaganda thinly masked as entertainment, I will watch "Ferngully."
Well, that's one opinion, and it's legitimately yours. Other people I know weren't that thrilled with the movie. But I maintain it looks great, the "stock footage" was used as journalistic inserts (so what's the problem?), and the characters/performances are really intriguing. (What, they're more one-dimensional than in your average horror film? C'mon.) I agree the climatic CGI (and ambiguous fadeout) are somewhat disappointing. The "hysterical" credibility issues you mention played for me as supernatural mystery...guess I wasn't looking for literal-minded explanations in this context.
No budget? What are you expecting, Matrix 4? You must not see any indie movies. This was highly polished for a non-major-studio-funded feature.
Alright guys, that's enough bickering. You two have your opinions and neither of them will change the other's mind, I'm sure.
But I'm no mediator, I'm just a guy. Personally, I found my feel for the movie somewhere in between you both.
Essentially, I think ofumalow WOULD have been right, if the movie was more fleshed out. It's got solid acting, and an interesting plot, but I felt the actual execution was just a little... I dunno, random? First scary thing you see is Maxwell's film, really, aside from a few unsettling moments before that. That got me thinking this was gonna be similar to The Descent, pairing psychological thrills in with some sort of supernatural/extranatural creature or ghost or what-not. Which was cool.
But then people just kinda started popping off one by one, for what seemed like completely different reasons. I get the idea of "You can come to your own conclusions", and it's an effective movie tactic sometimes, but here, it just seemed to only further confusion, and not in the good way.
And by the end, I wouldn't say I was laughing at the ghostie thing, but I certainly wasn't gripping my couch armrest in terror. Rather, I raised my eyebrows somewhat and thought "Huh, that's pretty weird. Let's see where this goes."
And where it went seemed very strange, random, and sudden. All in all, I can't say I'd recommend this to anyone, but it was worth a watch.
I've rambled way too much, might as well have posted this up as a review :P
Good review. I understood your viewpoint much more than others who dissed it for simply not being conventionally genre blunt or gory enough.
sharegod they were caribou ghosts you idiots! have you ever seen what a moose looks like? guess not. the idea was that the gas was messing with their minds like a strong hallucinogenic drug, and they started seeing crazy things and ended up killing themselves out of the madness!
this was basically what "The Happening" should've been more like. i'm not saying this was a great great film or anything (although it did have exceptional acting and a very eerie musical score), but it was certainly better than almost all of those crap movies Hollywood pitches at us staring half-witted actresses like Jessica Alba.
blacklight
That is one of the funniest, and best, reviews I have read on IMDB in a long time. And I agree with every word.
The only thing that surprised me is that Ron Perlman didn't die of overacting.
you have to be 13 years old to think that movie was scary (just kidding!!) but seriously. what exactly was scary about this movie? it started well and it ended like crap with aweful special effects... i love RON Perlman... i'll forgive him for this crap of a movie and watch him in Hellboy.
think for yourself first - for others last
I don't see how this film could scare anyone.
It's almost to mellow to be frighten anyone except for some global warming enthusiasts
who could find this alarming.
But for me this movie was too slow and a bit boring to be much of a thriller.
It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.
Voltaire
Agreed. Anyone who actually found this POS to be the least bit scary has obviously never seen a scary movie. I'm mad I wasted my time of this lame excuse for a horror movie.
share