If they would have used CGI the movie would have been even worse. I liked the fish and the look of it, I just don't like the fact that a small fish like that could bite a big chunk of the boat and terrorize them. They should have made the fish bigger and the characters not as retarded.
I don't think it was supposed to be just an extra-big fish.
The fact that the pendant was protective and the things the old man and Johnny talked about make me think that it's something tribal, ancient, and definitely vengeful. When they trespassed and invaded its space, messing with its environment, it rose to the surface to set things right.
I was so pleased to see a non-CGI creature used! Hooray, Larry Fessenden, someone who never disappoints me! I'm a huge fan of old-style effects, which I grew up with in the Fifties and Sixties. Some CGI is OK, but cheap CGI usually is pitiful, with no feeling of interaction. When there's nothing there, generally you need decent enough actors to make you think there might be. The majority of actors aren't good enough to convince me they are in immediate danger or in awe of something they see. (The TV series "Primeval" is a very good example of failed responses to the dino or other creature only a few feet away.)
*** The trouble with reality is there is no background music. ***
Hooray, Larry Fessenden, someone who never disappoints me!
Larry Fessenden doesn't disappoint you? You must be easily pleased and this must be the only Fessenden-related movie you've ever watched. Larry's movie Wendigo just had a guy in a deer costume who ran around like he had a flaming corncob stuck up his butt. The Last Winter had CGI moose-ghosts. Hypothermia had one of the worst monster costumes since the 1960s, even as bad as the monsters from Horror at Party Beach. Beneath was the only monster movie by him that had a decent-looking monster.
Also, all his movies sluggishly-paced, gloomy, and have a downbeat ending where everyone dies. And they all have bland or underdeveloped characters. Larry's movies are so bad I think that me, a guy with no experience in movies, could make better horror movies if I had the same budget.
reply share
Also, all his movies sluggishly-paced, gloomy, and have a downbeat ending where everyone dies. And they all have bland or underdeveloped characters.
Sounds good to me. I enjoyed this movie. Not much happened and everyone died.
Larry's movies are so bad I think that me, a guy with no experience in movies, could make better horror movies if I had the same budget.
How could you make this movie better? The budget sets the actors, writers and production crew. So you couldn't really do much differently.
I think this movie is pretty good at being a classic horror movie. It's really quite good I thought, and for the budget it's put together really nicely.
--- Scientologists love Narnia, there's plenty of closet space.
reply share
I was curious enough to watch it off of 'Chiller'; the fish to me resembles a cross between a snake head & the infamously greedy prehistoric sabertoothed tarpon: xiphactinus:
I must be one of the few people who liked the monster.
At last no CGI, it was a real robot fish....yehh !!!!
I liked the fish a lot. I don't think it was a robot. I think it was a well trained giant catfish. Originally they wanted to cast a unicorn seahorse in the role but when this giant catfish turned up at the audition, with half a broken ore sticking out of it's back, the producers decided to go in that direction. Being a method actor the catfish swam around with a broken ore in it's back for a couple of weeks before the audition. I think it worked well because you really couldn't tell the catfish was acting, and you rarely see such dedication to the craft in your average unicorn, so the movie was much better without one.
--- Scientologists love Narnia, there's plenty of closet space.
reply share