L'histoire d'un agent de la patrouille frontalière à la retraite qui découvre l'existence possible de Bigfoot.L'histoire d'un agent de la patrouille frontalière à la retraite qui découvre l'existence possible de Bigfoot.L'histoire d'un agent de la patrouille frontalière à la retraite qui découvre l'existence possible de Bigfoot.
- Prix
- 1 victoire au total
Avis en vedette
Wow!! I'm left with thinking is there really a Bigfoot?!?
So cleverly written! This movie kept me engaged... Great movie to add to your watch list! The director and team did an amazing job!
A must see!!
I'm not sure if these reviewers are shills or just unaware of how bad this movie really is. The writing is so bad that I almost thought they were writing this as a spoof. The acting is So bad that it makes my Jr. High role as The Scarecrow look like an academy award nominee.
I really hated this film, I found it funny how poor it was but apart from that it didn't have anything redeeming. The protagonist was dull, not particularly likable owing to the fact he had zero character and his lack of chemistry with his wife was daunting.
My biggest critique was the jumbled plot, extreme lack of Bigfoot scenes, the lack of scares and terrible characters. For example, the three main agents meet up with an analytical agent, offer her no information, she offers them none and then they all leave. Why did this meeting happen at a "secret location" (where they all wear black suits and glasses and stick out like sore thumbs) I don't know, but it did. Also, why did the agents at the end break into Dante's parents in law's house and then suddenly do a 180 at the end and shoot at the rogue agent, it was all ridiculous. The director takes himself far too seriously for the tripe he keeps putting out, and the 10 star reviews on IMDB all seem to be from family and friends most likely.
2/10: Apart from some decent natural cinematography there is not much to look forward to here.
My biggest critique was the jumbled plot, extreme lack of Bigfoot scenes, the lack of scares and terrible characters. For example, the three main agents meet up with an analytical agent, offer her no information, she offers them none and then they all leave. Why did this meeting happen at a "secret location" (where they all wear black suits and glasses and stick out like sore thumbs) I don't know, but it did. Also, why did the agents at the end break into Dante's parents in law's house and then suddenly do a 180 at the end and shoot at the rogue agent, it was all ridiculous. The director takes himself far too seriously for the tripe he keeps putting out, and the 10 star reviews on IMDB all seem to be from family and friends most likely.
2/10: Apart from some decent natural cinematography there is not much to look forward to here.
A word consistently comes to mind when I watch this movie: restraint. Don't get me wrong-- I really enjoy the story, I think the acting and editing are great. But I have seen enough monster flicks in which the filmmaker just can't resist overselling and gratuitously showing their creature, which usually turns out to be embarrassing and distracting. Chris is a meticulous and thoughtful filmmaker who used the creature as a setpiece for a story that goes far beyond a simple humans vs monster saga. I LOVE the message about respecting nature, and humans remembering their place in it. I thought Dante was a believable, humble character, and it was refreshing to have a leading man with a heavy past, who wasn't the trendy miserable anti-hero. And-- when you DO see the monster-- he's pretty rad. 😊 Highly recommend.
Oh man, this is a rough one. If you're wondering about the positive reviews here you'd be right to suspect they're authored by friends and family of cast and crew. There's no other explanation. 10 of 10? Get real!
One of the first signs that this might be a struggle was seeing that the director, Chris Simoes, was also the writer, and that he gave himself a plum acting role too. Jack of all trades, master of none. His acting chops were non-existent but they aren't even the worst here. That dishonor goes to Dave R. Watkins, who is as stiff and wooden as they come.
The writing is strictly amateur hour and the direction is no better. This is a tough slog.
Also worth a mention is the music. For whatever reason they insist on shoehorning in some extremely schlocky garage punk band's "greatest hits." I'll give them this - it fits right in with the quality of the production.
One of the first signs that this might be a struggle was seeing that the director, Chris Simoes, was also the writer, and that he gave himself a plum acting role too. Jack of all trades, master of none. His acting chops were non-existent but they aren't even the worst here. That dishonor goes to Dave R. Watkins, who is as stiff and wooden as they come.
The writing is strictly amateur hour and the direction is no better. This is a tough slog.
Also worth a mention is the music. For whatever reason they insist on shoehorning in some extremely schlocky garage punk band's "greatest hits." I'll give them this - it fits right in with the quality of the production.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
Détails
Box-office
- Budget
- 3 000 $ US (estimation)
- Durée
- 1h 17m(77 min)
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant