Released?

I just saw it on TimeWarner Pay per view as a pre-release.(march 11 2009)

I just watched it on OnDemand. Judging by the looks of it--definitely SciFi channel fare. It was ok. Not as bad as Thor or Sharks in Venice.

Hmm. I watched it July 19, 2009 on SyFy. I was flipping between it and the Tour de France. I'm not sure which was more interesting. The plot is thin. The actors, most, are nice eye candy... and that is their strong suit. The scenery and camera work is good. The writing and continuity leave a lot to be desired. People and monsters disappear from one scene to another. (Where did the hounds go?) The makeup looks like I did it. And that's not a compliment. Costumes? I think they got them in a Halloween store. Special effects? C+.

In short, it was a good idea to release this directly to TV/video. It's obvious some money was spent on this film. But not for the actors. They are C list at best but a few show potential. The little brother, Adam Butcher (I think that's his name) plays one of the most engaging characters. He's only 21 so I think he may go places. He's got an impressive filmography.

Hoo boy. I wish the movie had either been better or worse or even took itself with less seriousness. As it was, this movie boring -- B O R I N G. I didn't care who lived and died up to an including the main characters.

Somebody noted that the dialog was bad. It was, it was atrocious, and I think the actors would have needed to be brilliant to pull it off. None of them had the chops for that.

The scenery was okay and the CGI didn't suck (always a nice plus!) I wouldn't have bought this.

I do think the villain was way cuter than the hero, though. Woods was not terrific in this role but he was pretty enough. That works for me.