Spoonatects
Am i the only one who thinks........Average?
Whitech
It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.
Numerootno
A story that's too fascinating to pass by...
Staci Frederick
Blistering performances.
mark-04749
I made it to 29 minutes, before I pulled a total "What The Frig" am I watching, and came to IMDB to learn more. This movie is bad, in every possible way.1. The sounds are bad. I make scarier sounds in the bathroom.
2. The sounds are stock, like from 1980 video game stock sounds
3. The insert clips are irrelevant.
4. The acting, oh my, if someone was hoping to launch their career here, that was not going to happen.
5. The locations are cheap.
6. The scriptwriting was an optional extra they did not pay for
7. The outfits are 1980's bad, and likely bought at a thrift shop, assembled by a blind monkey.
8. Did I mention it's not scary?
9. Don't waste your half hour, kelly is correct. Do anything else, ANYTHING. It's better than watching this.Even dying of cancer would be better than watching this movie.
kelly3-274-753993
It never occurred to me that the English were capable of, much less actually producing, bad,low budget horror movies. This film has it all; stock footage completely irrelevant to the story, terrible editing, bad "American" accents, absurd performance by the actors and a general plot incoherence usually attributed to Ed wood films.A woman "American" reporter is sent to England to cover the depredations of a horrible beast savaging the users of the typically well groomed English forest. She gets to share a tent with a big game hunter who resembles a prematurely geriatric looking Bruce Jenner clone. Them some more English forest users get killed and then the movie goes on and on with some very odd twit wandering around the forest spouting nonsensical odes to nature. Trust me, if you're still watching after 38 minutes you are a brave and committed horror movie fan. Seriously, a very bad movie. Read a newspaper, cut the lawn, walk the dog.
