It's 2011 & you would not expect to see a more rediculous creature - it takes a man in a suit to a new level...if you can't afford to do a cgi creature & have to resort to a man in a suit then don't even bother...anyone aggree ? .
shareNo I disagree. If done right it can work great (alien anyone?) CGI can actually ruin a movie if overused. It will be interesting to see how this works. I liked the original movie so an apparent remake works for me.
I disagree too. Why be so be so unimaginative and limiting ("the monster MUST be cgi or the film sucks")? Sometimes cgi is appropriate whereas sometime a man in a suit is quite effective (e.g. "The Beast of Bray Road" and "Sasquatch Mountain"). If the filmmakers lack skill both can fail and incite laughter & mocking rather than horror or serious viewing ("Yeti: Curse of the Snow Demon").
Whether the man in a suit works for this remake of "Snowbeast," only time will tell.
I agree with both sides here in the sense that sometimes a man in a suit can work in a movie. But, in the case of this movie it was terrible and a shame because i also really enjoyed the original movie and was excited about a remake...The man in the suit monster ruined the whole film for me.......
Victims...........arent we all.
I've been wanting to see this remake but it hasn't appeared yet on Syfy (and don't know if it ever will). I know it's out on dvd but I don't want to risk buying it if it's not worth it.
Even if it's bad, is it so bad it's good? Does it have any redeeming qualities to make it worthwhile?
It certainly isn't the worst film i have ever seen but it's not great either. I paid £7 for it in my local Tesco's i really dont think it's worth that so if i were you Durrkk i would wait until it's in a bargain bin . It does have a good actor in it in the shape of John Schneider and it also has a gorgeous woman in it. However the monster is terrible and actually made me laugh.
Victims...........arent we all.
Re: "and it also has a gorgeous woman in it."
Make that TWO gorgeous women. There's the daughter, Emmy, and the young colleague, Marci. Both totally gorgeous in different ways.
Yes, it has John Schneider & Jason London in it... they make almost any film worth watching...
... the hardest thing in this world is to live in it...
I finally saw the film last night on Syfy. John Schneider's such a likable protagonist, isn't he? You can't go wrong with him.
The cast in general was very likable, although most of them bit the dust, which is to be expected.
I especially enjoyed the two women: The girl who played Schneider's daughter, Emmy, and Schneider's young brunette colleague, Marci, who he wanted to start dating. Both totally HOT in different ways.
Yeti: Curse of the Snow Demon which was also on last night I think had a poorer creature because they mixed a man in a suit with some grade-school CGI effects.
shareYeah the monster CGI in "Yeti" was some of the worst I've seen in a movie. As for the yeti costume; it looked good and malevolent from far away, but up close it was super fake-looking. At least that's how I remember it (it's been a few years).
shareIt's streaming on Netflix right now. Freeze frame at approximately 1:06:02 when the Snow Beast is leaping up to pounce on gorgeous John... (singsonging) someone forgot to put on the monster foo - ot...! The guy in the suit is wearing heavy black boots with a very visible boot-heal.
It's face looks more like a gargoyle than what might be considered the typical yeti face; if there is such a thing.
As to CGI being better than costumes and makeup. I'd have to disagree with that one. CGI is getting better but most of the time, at least to me, the CGI images seem more like cartoons or drawings than the live-action "creature" they are attempting to create. CGI is coming along, but a really great costumer and makeup artist can make any creature come to life. Again, IMHO.
Jason London wasn't in it near long enough for me. Schneider is always bitable, but what were they thinking with his hair? It almost look like he was wearing a "piece" in some scenes.
shareThis may be old news for you, but if you can catch in on Netflix streaming in the UK, it's on their lists right now.
I didn't realize this was a remake. I'll have to see if I can find it. IMHO the cinematography on this is really great. The Beast is a bit cheesy, especially if you freeze frame, the flaws are fairly easy to see. But who does that on a first viewing anyway, right?
This one can't be watched or taken too seriously, it's definitely a "B" film, but fun if you can laugh that the "goofs" and sometimes bad acting.
If you've seen it already, how did you like it?
I agree that a CGI monster wouldn't be good, but the monster suit in this looked like it was picked up used for $200. Hairy slippers, a zipper down the back, and ugly rubber face. Not scary, just ugly. Not my idea of a yeti.
And the actor in the suit was bad. A cross between a monkey and a clown.
But then, all acting was bad, except for maybe the daughter. Probably due to bad script and directing.
It's perfectly possible for a guy in a suit to make a truly terrifying movie monster. The original 1977 "Snowbeast" was pretty scary for most of the movie's length, for one example. Another is 1976's "The Creature from Black Lake," another killer-bigfoot-on-the-loose movie: Never in the history of cinema has a movie monster looked more like a man in an off-the-rack gorilla suit, and never in the history of cinema has it mattered less. Clever direction and a tight script can make a guy in a suit terrifying.
Based on the tralier for the 2011 "Snow Beast," neither seems present here.
The face actually looked good, it was the fur that made it look like a costume to me.
shareWatching it right now - and the fact I'm posting on IMDb about it rather than paying attention to the movie probably says everything you need to know about how engaging it is!
The costume itself isn't terrible. The face is good, and the overall creature isn't bad at all. supergrrlx is right about the fur being what doesn't seem right. I was trying to put my finger on WHY it looked so bad when there was technically nothing wrong with it... It looks too white, too clean... And then I realised it only looks that way because the film is shot in such an overlit and artless way.
Everything in the film takes place in bright light (never good with a suit) and when the creature is on-screen there's literally no attempt at any artistry in the framing or the camera angles - so it just looks like exactly what it is: a guy in a suit, in broad daylight, stood in the middle of the frame.
They didn't put any dirt on the fur to make it looked lived-in. It looks like it just came back from the dry-cleaners.
They even shoot the creature quite often from an angle that's slightly above, and frame it so that the whole creature is visible within the frame, which of course has the effect of making it look small. Not good when it's supposed to be a big scary monster.
It's just ineptly filmed. In sympathetic lighting, with well-chosen camera angles and framing, and some talent behind the camera, the suit could've looked just fine. Even the Alien suit would've looked bad if it had been shot like this.
You know when you see behind-the-scenes footage from films like this? Footage shot on video, with stark lighting, and the actors standing around in their monster suits? And the whole filming process is laid bare - you're essentially seeing all the same on-screen elements that you see in the movie, except shot in a plain, flat way with none of the art or illusion that goes into making a movie look and feel like a movie? That's what this whole movie looks like.
I agree about the yeti costume. The face (mouth, eyes) looks good but the body of fur looks fake. Like you say, it didn't look lived-in. It looked "like it just came from the dry cleaners," lol.
shareWatching it right now - and the fact I'm posting on IMDb about it rather than paying attention to the movie probably says everything you need to know about how engaging it is!
Everything in the film takes place in bright light (never good with a suit) and when the creature is on-screen there's literally no attempt at any artistry in the framing or the camera angles - so it just looks like exactly what it is: a guy in a suit, in broad daylight, stood in the middle of the frame.
I have yet to see a CGI monster that I've taken seriously. the new spiderman came close, but it was still a cartoon. It doesn't take much to do a very convincing man in suit. Watch 'dog soldiers', or 'American werewolf in london' or 'the fly'(1986) even the old fly (1958) wasn't too silly. Predator (1988?) was also man suit. Shoot, george romero's zombies with extra's who were paid with a movie t-shirt, used green makeup and chocolate syrup for blood were far more effective than the fancy cgi zombies in the $200million zombie movie 'i am legend' with will smith.
shareI agree with you. Will Smith's I Am Legend and I, Robot were both CGI monster disappointments.
I had more fun watching "Independence Day" and "MIB" their special FX were far more superior even with the second one being a comedy. BTW the original Snowbeast is on Youtube.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
The man in a suit was fairly bad in this movie. But I have seen worse. If only they wouldn't show the figure in such definition. Even so, I would still rather see a man in a suit, no matter how bad, than a whooshing CGI figure appearing from nowhere.
share