99 reviews
Animal doesn't have much substance as a horror movie. It's your typical "teenagers lost in the woods and are getting picked off one by one" story, except instead of a machete wielding maniac chasing them it's an Alien-Predator-hybrid animal that has a taste for human meat. For what it is, it's a fun watch - it's exactly what you'd expect from a B-movie called "Animal".
I can't score it any higher because it gets zero points for originality and I can't score it lower because it doesn't try to be anything more than a schlocky monster movie. It's surprisingly cohesive writing-wise, and is definitely more watchable than half the F13 entries. Elizabeth Gillies' ear-piercing screams are annoying yet hilarious and add some extra zest once her friends become fodder to this unstoppable beast.
Overall Animal achieves exactly what it sets out to, but its sights weren't aimed high in the first place. It's a clear homage to old-fashioned monster movies with lots of campiness, cheesy special effects, blood and guts aplenty, and a handful of scares that catch you off-guard. All you can ever want in a B-movie romp-fest.
I can't score it any higher because it gets zero points for originality and I can't score it lower because it doesn't try to be anything more than a schlocky monster movie. It's surprisingly cohesive writing-wise, and is definitely more watchable than half the F13 entries. Elizabeth Gillies' ear-piercing screams are annoying yet hilarious and add some extra zest once her friends become fodder to this unstoppable beast.
Overall Animal achieves exactly what it sets out to, but its sights weren't aimed high in the first place. It's a clear homage to old-fashioned monster movies with lots of campiness, cheesy special effects, blood and guts aplenty, and a handful of scares that catch you off-guard. All you can ever want in a B-movie romp-fest.
"Animal" is actually a fairly decent creature feature. Sure, the movie doesn't offer anything new to the genre. In fact, everything here has been seen before in other similar creature features.
But still, the movie was entertaining and thrilling. And when the movie offers nothing new and is essentially fully a movie much similar to every other creature feature, then what makes it stand out? Well, because the movie follows the "how to make a creature feature" to the point. But it is the creature itself that makes the movie so interesting.
The creature in the movie is unique in appearance and the special effects team did manage to pull it off quite nicely. The creature looked like a strange mutation between a rodent and human of sorts. It did look realistic and was adding a great sense of terror to the movie.
While the creature alone would make for a boring movie, then the people on the cast were doing great jobs with their given roles and characters. And it is especially great that no one is safe and out of harms way. The movie does offer that sense of unpredictability, which adds to the suspense of the movie.
The movie is visually great, but also audibly great. The score is nice and very appropriate to the movie. But the sounds that the creature was making proved to be quite interesting, not to mention unnerving.
It would be great to have another movie made with this particular breed of creature. I can recommend "Animal" if you enjoy a good old fashioned styled creature feature horror movie.
But still, the movie was entertaining and thrilling. And when the movie offers nothing new and is essentially fully a movie much similar to every other creature feature, then what makes it stand out? Well, because the movie follows the "how to make a creature feature" to the point. But it is the creature itself that makes the movie so interesting.
The creature in the movie is unique in appearance and the special effects team did manage to pull it off quite nicely. The creature looked like a strange mutation between a rodent and human of sorts. It did look realistic and was adding a great sense of terror to the movie.
While the creature alone would make for a boring movie, then the people on the cast were doing great jobs with their given roles and characters. And it is especially great that no one is safe and out of harms way. The movie does offer that sense of unpredictability, which adds to the suspense of the movie.
The movie is visually great, but also audibly great. The score is nice and very appropriate to the movie. But the sounds that the creature was making proved to be quite interesting, not to mention unnerving.
It would be great to have another movie made with this particular breed of creature. I can recommend "Animal" if you enjoy a good old fashioned styled creature feature horror movie.
- paul_haakonsen
- Jun 28, 2014
- Permalink
A strange creature attacks a group of friends visiting the woods. They run for their lives and find refuge in an abandoned dwelling where other people are waiting to be rescued. They think they are safe, but the creature seems to be intelligent enough to find a way in the house.
While writing the plot, I had the feeling to reveal too much because the movie itself does not offer much else. However, the acting and the cinematography are above average, and so are the special effects. There are few scenes that can make you literally jump out of your seat, and this is good, because the story is pretty boring and not different from something already seen. The actors are really good in their roles, and this is probably the only reason why I kept watching it. The score is nice, too. The only thing that really annoys from the start to end is the plot, too plain and simple. I think the audience needs to know more about these creatures and less about the sexual affairs of the characters. Unfortunately there are too many movies alike out there. The first that comes to my mind is Descent, which, of course, is far superior to this one.
While writing the plot, I had the feeling to reveal too much because the movie itself does not offer much else. However, the acting and the cinematography are above average, and so are the special effects. There are few scenes that can make you literally jump out of your seat, and this is good, because the story is pretty boring and not different from something already seen. The actors are really good in their roles, and this is probably the only reason why I kept watching it. The score is nice, too. The only thing that really annoys from the start to end is the plot, too plain and simple. I think the audience needs to know more about these creatures and less about the sexual affairs of the characters. Unfortunately there are too many movies alike out there. The first that comes to my mind is Descent, which, of course, is far superior to this one.
- wpredari-937-297357
- Sep 29, 2014
- Permalink
They're in the house not holding ANY weapons in their hands whatsoever when the creature is scoping it the first time. Not even a sharpened stick. How totally stupid and unrealistic. Only later on did they grab anything. So you're telling me in that house there's no kitchen with knives or anything? The tiny boards on the windows look 100 years old and don't look like they'd hold out a five year old.
- lkinforyou
- Feb 3, 2018
- Permalink
A group of five twenty-somethings head out into the deep woods for what seems to be a hundred mile hike. When night falls, they realize that something big, hairy, and extremely dangerous is in the forest with them. Blood-spraying death soon follows.
Finding an occupied, barricaded cabin, the hikers take refuge with the three already inside, while the beast terrorizes them. Of course, all is not as it appears to be, and secrets are being kept.
ANIMAL is a monster movie, plain and simple. The plot is basic. The characters are disposable. What makes this movie watchable is the -practical effects!- creature of the title. Underused, it is a welcome sight whenever it shows up to grab another tasty human to snack on!
For lovers of the genre...
Finding an occupied, barricaded cabin, the hikers take refuge with the three already inside, while the beast terrorizes them. Of course, all is not as it appears to be, and secrets are being kept.
ANIMAL is a monster movie, plain and simple. The plot is basic. The characters are disposable. What makes this movie watchable is the -practical effects!- creature of the title. Underused, it is a welcome sight whenever it shows up to grab another tasty human to snack on!
For lovers of the genre...
- azathothpwiggins
- Dec 17, 2018
- Permalink
- Pnkprinses309
- Jan 10, 2020
- Permalink
It's not that it is really bad, it's that it is a cliché from start to end. You've got the group of young people in the woods, all the archetypes in: manly guy, gay guy, black girl, smart person, bitchy person, insane person, etc, their characters barely sketched. And then a nondescript monster, bipedal, bald head, with really long and probably ineffectual teeth, a mane!, nobody bothering to even explain where it came from.
And then it starts, the story I mean. Only there is no story. They all act like it's "just an animal" so their solution is not to trap it and kill it, instead to just go out and try to "run for it". Their only displays of courage is when they have to fight each other.
Bottom line: the same movie, the same lame effects, the same script, the same bad actors. You've seen it before unless you are really young. And then you should watch something better, just because there are so many better genre films.
The only possible reason one would watch this is to see Eve (yeah, the singer) being killed in the beginning of the film.
And then it starts, the story I mean. Only there is no story. They all act like it's "just an animal" so their solution is not to trap it and kill it, instead to just go out and try to "run for it". Their only displays of courage is when they have to fight each other.
Bottom line: the same movie, the same lame effects, the same script, the same bad actors. You've seen it before unless you are really young. And then you should watch something better, just because there are so many better genre films.
The only possible reason one would watch this is to see Eve (yeah, the singer) being killed in the beginning of the film.
Horror movie opening: The Lesbo from Chasing Amy, That Guy From Soap Operas, and a Blatino(whom I'd love to sit on my face) watch a female rapper get torn to shreds by what we can only assume is Predator without the laugh.
And then, ever so unexpectedly: A Beefcake and Eyebrows Plucked to Hell head out to the woods with Chilli, Peter Pan, and Sassypants McGee where they have a run in with Predator's mentally challenged cousin, and barricade themselves into a middle class version of the cabin from The Evil Dead. Joining forces with The Lezzie,Soap Opera DILF, and the Blatino(who becomes Senor Douche-bag), the movie dives headfirst into Dwindling Party Trope as Preda-dur-dur-dur picks them off one by one.
See: Reinforce The Barricades, Try to Outsmart the Beast, The Asshole Won't Let Us Back In, Someone's Pregnant, "There used to be more of us", etc.
Those things aside, the movie does break away from some of the conventions and the Typical Horror Movie Idiot Conversation is often balanced with some witty humor from Sassypants, who unfortunately Outs a Dead Guy(RUDE!) in fear.
If more horror films balanced the humor and drama as well as this film did, the genre probably wouldn't be as much of a piñata for critics. And although in the end, it only ends up being a few notches above average, it's worth watching for horror fans.
And then, ever so unexpectedly: A Beefcake and Eyebrows Plucked to Hell head out to the woods with Chilli, Peter Pan, and Sassypants McGee where they have a run in with Predator's mentally challenged cousin, and barricade themselves into a middle class version of the cabin from The Evil Dead. Joining forces with The Lezzie,Soap Opera DILF, and the Blatino(who becomes Senor Douche-bag), the movie dives headfirst into Dwindling Party Trope as Preda-dur-dur-dur picks them off one by one.
See: Reinforce The Barricades, Try to Outsmart the Beast, The Asshole Won't Let Us Back In, Someone's Pregnant, "There used to be more of us", etc.
Those things aside, the movie does break away from some of the conventions and the Typical Horror Movie Idiot Conversation is often balanced with some witty humor from Sassypants, who unfortunately Outs a Dead Guy(RUDE!) in fear.
If more horror films balanced the humor and drama as well as this film did, the genre probably wouldn't be as much of a piñata for critics. And although in the end, it only ends up being a few notches above average, it's worth watching for horror fans.
- Jonny-ironica
- Mar 30, 2015
- Permalink
This movie has been made and remade over and over again. A group of young people in the woods (or jungle or island or exotic land or wherever) stalked and attacked by a mysterious woodland creature. These are all low budget movies so the effects are pathetic.
The only high points (and this is curious because they can do better than this) are Keke Palmer, Elizabeth Gillies and Joey Lauren Adams. Keke we've known for a long time from Akeelah and the Bee and True Jackson VP. Elizabeth was in the Nick show Victorious. Both young likable young actress who you hope would have good careers. Joey is a veteran actress who has been showing her breathtakingly beautiful face in films for decades. I don't know why any of them agreed to do this movie. The money couldn't have been very good, and it certainly isn't a career boost. All three of them could easily get other projects.
Anyway, this is just a pathetic remake of a remake of a remake. If you like Elizabeth or Keke, there are plenty of other projects they've done where you can see them. Skip this.
The only high points (and this is curious because they can do better than this) are Keke Palmer, Elizabeth Gillies and Joey Lauren Adams. Keke we've known for a long time from Akeelah and the Bee and True Jackson VP. Elizabeth was in the Nick show Victorious. Both young likable young actress who you hope would have good careers. Joey is a veteran actress who has been showing her breathtakingly beautiful face in films for decades. I don't know why any of them agreed to do this movie. The money couldn't have been very good, and it certainly isn't a career boost. All three of them could easily get other projects.
Anyway, this is just a pathetic remake of a remake of a remake. If you like Elizabeth or Keke, there are plenty of other projects they've done where you can see them. Skip this.
- chubbydave
- Jan 6, 2018
- Permalink
Five twenty-somethings—two loved-up couples and a stereotypically camp gay guy—go hiking in the woods where they are hunted by a ravenous, bipedal creature equipped with with huge fangs and very sharp claws. Whilst running for their lives they chance upon a ramshackle cabin where they meet three other people who have already encountered the beast; after barricading all the doors and windows to keep the monster at bay, the desperate group try to figure out the best way to survive their ordeal.
Exec produced by none other than Drew Barrymore, this backwoods creature feature offers very little new in terms of plot but proves very enjoyable nonetheless, director Brett Simmons making the most of the cookie cutter script and largely forgettable cast, offering up some tense action scenes, several well-timed jump scares, a decent man-in-a-suit monster and a bucket or two of splatter. Where he does go wrong, however, is in introducing the 'animal' way too early—before we have had a chance to get to know the young hikers properly, but more importantly, before busty brunette Mandy (Elizabeth Gillies) has had the opportunity to go skinny dipping, as suggested by her boyfriend Jeff (Parker Young). Isn't director Simmons aware of the basic rules of making a cheesy monster movie?
Exec produced by none other than Drew Barrymore, this backwoods creature feature offers very little new in terms of plot but proves very enjoyable nonetheless, director Brett Simmons making the most of the cookie cutter script and largely forgettable cast, offering up some tense action scenes, several well-timed jump scares, a decent man-in-a-suit monster and a bucket or two of splatter. Where he does go wrong, however, is in introducing the 'animal' way too early—before we have had a chance to get to know the young hikers properly, but more importantly, before busty brunette Mandy (Elizabeth Gillies) has had the opportunity to go skinny dipping, as suggested by her boyfriend Jeff (Parker Young). Isn't director Simmons aware of the basic rules of making a cheesy monster movie?
- BA_Harrison
- Dec 2, 2014
- Permalink
- kerstinw94
- Mar 20, 2015
- Permalink
- Frederique14
- Jun 25, 2014
- Permalink
When plans for a weekend vacation hit a dead end, a group of close-knit friends find themselves stranded in unfamiliar territory, pursued by a menacing, blood thirsty predator.
When Chiller debuted, horror fans the world over were ecstatic. And when they started making original films, they became even more excited. Well, at least those who could find the channel. Unfortunately, many cable providers still do not carry it even when SyFy seems to be standard from coast to coast.
With "Animal", Chiller shows it knows what it is doing. Start with a really good creature, constructed from practical components, and throw in a bunch of teenagers or young adults to handle the situation. This formula worked wonders in the 1980s and to some extent still works wonders today. If you add some B-level talent (here we get Eve and Joey Lauren Adams), you add name recognition and save on the cost of hiring Hollywood's flavor of the week.
Yet, reviews have been harsh. Shock Till You Drop stated that the movie was "a waste of a good, old-fashioned creature." We Got This Covered commented that "Animal has enough carnage to appease more forgiving horror fans, but despite a quick pace and brutal kills, it's repetition that truly kills this beast." Let us tackle these two.
STYD has a bit of a point. The creature is very well done, but loses a bit of its luster once it gets too much screen time. This is a tough balance -- you want to show off the goods, but not wear it out. Also, some may find the humanoid shape of the monster a bit disappointing, as it will make it clear that we are dealing with a man in a suit.
WGTC is partially right. The repetition within the film is very minimal, and should not be a problem for most viewers. The bigger, perhaps "meta" repetition is the feeling this has all been done before. This is very much a slasher film with a killer replaced by something that could have been in "Feast". There is, almost literally, nothing new about this plot at all.
And that is where viewers will divide. Some will say that most horror films these days are the same thing and deal with it, enjoying the top-notch creature effects and better-than-average production values. Others might grow bored. If you can watch fifty 1980s slasher films without getting sick of them, this might be for you. But if you think one slasher is all you ever need, and the rest are just copycats, you might be let down.
If nothing else, it was great to see Joey Lauren Adams, who seems to have flown under the radar since the mid-1990s.
When Chiller debuted, horror fans the world over were ecstatic. And when they started making original films, they became even more excited. Well, at least those who could find the channel. Unfortunately, many cable providers still do not carry it even when SyFy seems to be standard from coast to coast.
With "Animal", Chiller shows it knows what it is doing. Start with a really good creature, constructed from practical components, and throw in a bunch of teenagers or young adults to handle the situation. This formula worked wonders in the 1980s and to some extent still works wonders today. If you add some B-level talent (here we get Eve and Joey Lauren Adams), you add name recognition and save on the cost of hiring Hollywood's flavor of the week.
Yet, reviews have been harsh. Shock Till You Drop stated that the movie was "a waste of a good, old-fashioned creature." We Got This Covered commented that "Animal has enough carnage to appease more forgiving horror fans, but despite a quick pace and brutal kills, it's repetition that truly kills this beast." Let us tackle these two.
STYD has a bit of a point. The creature is very well done, but loses a bit of its luster once it gets too much screen time. This is a tough balance -- you want to show off the goods, but not wear it out. Also, some may find the humanoid shape of the monster a bit disappointing, as it will make it clear that we are dealing with a man in a suit.
WGTC is partially right. The repetition within the film is very minimal, and should not be a problem for most viewers. The bigger, perhaps "meta" repetition is the feeling this has all been done before. This is very much a slasher film with a killer replaced by something that could have been in "Feast". There is, almost literally, nothing new about this plot at all.
And that is where viewers will divide. Some will say that most horror films these days are the same thing and deal with it, enjoying the top-notch creature effects and better-than-average production values. Others might grow bored. If you can watch fifty 1980s slasher films without getting sick of them, this might be for you. But if you think one slasher is all you ever need, and the rest are just copycats, you might be let down.
If nothing else, it was great to see Joey Lauren Adams, who seems to have flown under the radar since the mid-1990s.
Five friends travel to the woods for hiking. They find the entrance closed but they trespass the gate. Soon they stumble with a predator and they run to an isolated cabin, where they meet survivors from another group. Along the hours, they have friction with the nasty Douglas (Amaury Nolasco), while the creature hunts them down.
The overrated "Animal" is an awful movie with the usual storyline ("a group of teenage friends go to somewhere and stumble with a threat that kills each of them; but in the end one of them manages to escape, leaving something alive behind for a possible sequel"). If you replace the predator for example by the Bigfoot, you have "Exists". "Animal" has in addition, an unpleasant character performed by Amary "Sucre" Nolasco; the terrible screams of Elizabeth Gillies to bad acting and fake reviews. My vote is two.
Title (Brazil): "Animal"
The overrated "Animal" is an awful movie with the usual storyline ("a group of teenage friends go to somewhere and stumble with a threat that kills each of them; but in the end one of them manages to escape, leaving something alive behind for a possible sequel"). If you replace the predator for example by the Bigfoot, you have "Exists". "Animal" has in addition, an unpleasant character performed by Amary "Sucre" Nolasco; the terrible screams of Elizabeth Gillies to bad acting and fake reviews. My vote is two.
Title (Brazil): "Animal"
- claudio_carvalho
- Jun 17, 2015
- Permalink
Passable acting, passable action, passable script. Plot... well, it is a predatory animal in the forest survival horror, and how much of a plot would you usually expect? As usual the heroes (fodder) are a little on the dim side, forgoing (as is too often the case) arming themselves and trusting far too much in defense, defense, DEFENSE as they get picked off, but while there is nothing exceptional here there is also nothing that is a total deal breaker for the genre. The only really redeeming thing is there is a decent job of effects. Considering the low budget they did not do a bad job with that. All in all it is worthy of a watch if you are bored and have nothing better to do, but don't take that as a recommendation either... in the end it is still just passable.
Had it not been for the unnecessary drama in the cabin this could have been a have decent creature feature. Instead to was reduced to every cliché of every horror movie. Why do writers get so lazy?
RELEASED IN 2014 and directed by Brett Simmons, "Animal" is about a group of people who find shelter in an abandoned house in the remote Connecticut woods staving off some kind of mutated predator that picks 'em off one-by-one.
Cabin-in-the-woods horror has been done to death with a multiple different kind of monsters/creatures/villains (zombies, Jason, Bigfoot, vampires, wild dogs, mutated bears, flying creatures, psychos, etc.). I like these kinds of movies but to be effective they have to (1.) feature the proper staples and (2.) contain interesting subtext/mindfood. If they don't have the latter then they'll have to be exceptional with the former to make it worthwhile. The kinds of staples I'm talking about include excellent locations, great monster/creature/antagonist, quality characters, at least one alluring female, notable score/soundtrack and effective suspense build-up.
"Animals" features some of the requisite staples: quality sylvan locations (Connecticut); a superbly vicious-looking creature (which is a man-in-a-suit and not CGI); a decent cast; and curvy Elizabeth Gillies in a cute get-up (Keke Palmer too, if you prefer black women). While these attributes are good, they're not enough to elevate "Animal" from its hackneyed status (particularly since it's missing some of the required 'staples').
Yet it's not just the movie's staleness that holds it back. There's also dubious acting (note the unconvincing conversation of the white/black couple during the early hike), obvious plot holes (the flimsy wooden barricades that the formidable animal could obviously break through at any time), predictableness (like when the foil buys the farm), eye-rolling drama (the gay confession), clichés (the "final Friday girl" and the climactic scene) and not enough suspense build-up, although it has some.
The sad thing is that "Animal" was produced by Drew Barrymore and therefore had more funds than the typical cabin-in-the-woods slasher. If you haven't seen many of these movies then "Animal" is worth checking out. If not, I encourage you to see superior ones, even if several of them have much lower budgets, e.g. "Night of the Living Dead" (1968), "Friday the 13th I & II" (1980/1981) (actually, any of the Friday flicks), "Sasquatch Hunters" (2005), "Sasquatch Mountain" (2006), "The Lonely Ones" (2006) and "Flu Bird Horror" (2008) to name a handful ("The Lonely Ones" is a no-budget indie, but it's great in some ways; stay away, though, if you can't handle barely-a-budget horror). One thing's for sure, "Animal" is vastly superior to the lame, trashy "Cabin Fever" (2002).
One last thing: Some have criticized the movie on the grounds that the creature's origins are never revealed. No, there are two blatant clues revealing its genesis.
THE FILM RUNS 86 minutes and was shot in Hartford & Manchester, Connecticut. WRITERS: Thommy Hutson & Catherine Trillo. ADDITIONAL CAST: Parker Young, Jeremy Sumpter, Paul Iacono, Joey Lauren Adams, Thorsten Kaye and Amaury Nolasco.
GRADE: C
Cabin-in-the-woods horror has been done to death with a multiple different kind of monsters/creatures/villains (zombies, Jason, Bigfoot, vampires, wild dogs, mutated bears, flying creatures, psychos, etc.). I like these kinds of movies but to be effective they have to (1.) feature the proper staples and (2.) contain interesting subtext/mindfood. If they don't have the latter then they'll have to be exceptional with the former to make it worthwhile. The kinds of staples I'm talking about include excellent locations, great monster/creature/antagonist, quality characters, at least one alluring female, notable score/soundtrack and effective suspense build-up.
"Animals" features some of the requisite staples: quality sylvan locations (Connecticut); a superbly vicious-looking creature (which is a man-in-a-suit and not CGI); a decent cast; and curvy Elizabeth Gillies in a cute get-up (Keke Palmer too, if you prefer black women). While these attributes are good, they're not enough to elevate "Animal" from its hackneyed status (particularly since it's missing some of the required 'staples').
Yet it's not just the movie's staleness that holds it back. There's also dubious acting (note the unconvincing conversation of the white/black couple during the early hike), obvious plot holes (the flimsy wooden barricades that the formidable animal could obviously break through at any time), predictableness (like when the foil buys the farm), eye-rolling drama (the gay confession), clichés (the "final Friday girl" and the climactic scene) and not enough suspense build-up, although it has some.
The sad thing is that "Animal" was produced by Drew Barrymore and therefore had more funds than the typical cabin-in-the-woods slasher. If you haven't seen many of these movies then "Animal" is worth checking out. If not, I encourage you to see superior ones, even if several of them have much lower budgets, e.g. "Night of the Living Dead" (1968), "Friday the 13th I & II" (1980/1981) (actually, any of the Friday flicks), "Sasquatch Hunters" (2005), "Sasquatch Mountain" (2006), "The Lonely Ones" (2006) and "Flu Bird Horror" (2008) to name a handful ("The Lonely Ones" is a no-budget indie, but it's great in some ways; stay away, though, if you can't handle barely-a-budget horror). One thing's for sure, "Animal" is vastly superior to the lame, trashy "Cabin Fever" (2002).
One last thing: Some have criticized the movie on the grounds that the creature's origins are never revealed. No, there are two blatant clues revealing its genesis.
THE FILM RUNS 86 minutes and was shot in Hartford & Manchester, Connecticut. WRITERS: Thommy Hutson & Catherine Trillo. ADDITIONAL CAST: Parker Young, Jeremy Sumpter, Paul Iacono, Joey Lauren Adams, Thorsten Kaye and Amaury Nolasco.
GRADE: C
- Filmaniac123
- Jun 26, 2014
- Permalink
This coming from one who quite hated Feast: had budget, potential, managed to pick some good actors, but the execution there was laughable in a very bad way.
So why is this one even worse? Well it does create the impression that the crew will stick together, the acting will try to be at least average, but the script doesn't allow much beyond it. It is a used idea, badly executed, looking like a cheap movie instead of being a solid B horror. The perfect dumb decisions taken throughout the movie, the characters not smart enough to survive, the "natural" reactions coming from the situation, the night that is not dark enough to cover the movie and make it easier on us.
Animal is a bad movie in the end, sorry to say so, but you won't find nothing new here. To be honest, I once saw a movie "Grizzly Park" that I found to be so much better than Animal. You get a few laughs at that one and a ending that kinda makes it worth while. This one tho, a total time waster, minutes you will want back.
Try something else, you will do better easily!
So why is this one even worse? Well it does create the impression that the crew will stick together, the acting will try to be at least average, but the script doesn't allow much beyond it. It is a used idea, badly executed, looking like a cheap movie instead of being a solid B horror. The perfect dumb decisions taken throughout the movie, the characters not smart enough to survive, the "natural" reactions coming from the situation, the night that is not dark enough to cover the movie and make it easier on us.
Animal is a bad movie in the end, sorry to say so, but you won't find nothing new here. To be honest, I once saw a movie "Grizzly Park" that I found to be so much better than Animal. You get a few laughs at that one and a ending that kinda makes it worth while. This one tho, a total time waster, minutes you will want back.
Try something else, you will do better easily!
- Patient444
- Jun 16, 2014
- Permalink
Summary: Animal is bloody, mildly effective and entertaining enough. 64/100 (B-)
When plans for a weekend vacation hit a dead end, a group of close- knit friends find themselves stranded in unfamiliar territory, pursued by a menacing, blood thirsty predator. Holed up in an isolated cabin, tensions mount as long-buried secrets are revealed. As the body count rises, the group must put their differences aside and fight for survival. "Animal" surprised me so much, I was expecting a crappy horror movie with an ex-nickelodeon cast, but ultimately the film was very enjoyable, bloody and sometimes smart. I also have to give some credit to the cast, I know them from other movies and a few TV shows, all of them are very likable and talented, they also bring some charisma to the film.
Also, Drew Barrymore produced this film and I had no idea; that's impressive. Moving on, the opening scene is quite simple, pretty passable. Also on the downside, the first minutes of the movie are dull character development, everything is so predictable because they are a group of teenagers into the woods and we all know how it ends. Animal doesn't offer anything new to the genre and it's sometimes cheesy, however I enjoyed it so much, and the jump scares were very effective and unpredictable to me. The human drama also works, that's one of the most interesting things about this little flick and I like how some characters felt the necessity of confess their most intimate secrets before dying.
For a low-budget movie like this one, the sound design, the production and the special effects are great. The creature itself is also scary and very well done, although its appearance may remind you to another monsters from some classic horror films, but... who cares? It is still scary and original enough. The violent scenes are unexpected and explosively bloody. It may be an awful film for some people and I actually have to admit that the script has a lot of flaws, but as a horror fan I was completely satisfied, especially with the ending, that ending was great. My final verdict is that Animal is bloody, entertaining and boasts a great cast. Keke Palmer and Elizabeth Gillies did a really good job. (B-)
When plans for a weekend vacation hit a dead end, a group of close- knit friends find themselves stranded in unfamiliar territory, pursued by a menacing, blood thirsty predator. Holed up in an isolated cabin, tensions mount as long-buried secrets are revealed. As the body count rises, the group must put their differences aside and fight for survival. "Animal" surprised me so much, I was expecting a crappy horror movie with an ex-nickelodeon cast, but ultimately the film was very enjoyable, bloody and sometimes smart. I also have to give some credit to the cast, I know them from other movies and a few TV shows, all of them are very likable and talented, they also bring some charisma to the film.
Also, Drew Barrymore produced this film and I had no idea; that's impressive. Moving on, the opening scene is quite simple, pretty passable. Also on the downside, the first minutes of the movie are dull character development, everything is so predictable because they are a group of teenagers into the woods and we all know how it ends. Animal doesn't offer anything new to the genre and it's sometimes cheesy, however I enjoyed it so much, and the jump scares were very effective and unpredictable to me. The human drama also works, that's one of the most interesting things about this little flick and I like how some characters felt the necessity of confess their most intimate secrets before dying.
For a low-budget movie like this one, the sound design, the production and the special effects are great. The creature itself is also scary and very well done, although its appearance may remind you to another monsters from some classic horror films, but... who cares? It is still scary and original enough. The violent scenes are unexpected and explosively bloody. It may be an awful film for some people and I actually have to admit that the script has a lot of flaws, but as a horror fan I was completely satisfied, especially with the ending, that ending was great. My final verdict is that Animal is bloody, entertaining and boasts a great cast. Keke Palmer and Elizabeth Gillies did a really good job. (B-)
- guillermobosque
- Dec 9, 2014
- Permalink
People must have really low standards. The actors are good but cmon be serious, this movie is absolutely trash from the middle to the end, the beginning was still good. One of the cheapest movies I've ever seen.
- enricoshapka
- Jun 3, 2020
- Permalink
I'm not really a big horror fan, but this one surprised me and I actually like it a lot. Although it's a typical horror movie in a way, with a group of youngsters chased in a dark wood, there are some really original findings in it. I also liked that not all questions were answered in the end, which make you think about the movie after wards and adds just that extra. For a low budget movie the effects are really good, the monster was well created and a unique kind of creepy. For me Elizabeth Gillies absolutely stood out as the best actress of the bunch. The looks she can give are brilliant and of course she looks stunning, too. I hope to see more of her in the future!
- frederiquepeters
- Jun 19, 2014
- Permalink
- peterp-450-298716
- Jul 8, 2014
- Permalink
Pure trash. But I don't understand why Eve would be in this movie for 30 seconds. That is my biggest takeaway. The acting is really bad and so are the effects which is why the movie is set at night.
I went into this film expecting very little, and that's what I got back. Do not get me wrong, I'm not one of those movie goers hating on horror, or low budget films. I love them both, but this film, there's no love.
I was bored! The acting was bad, and not in a campy way. The attempts to create any tension were tedious and insulting. The story line was a rip from numerous horror films before hand (Night of the living dead, Feast, Dog Soldiers etc).
I will give the film Kudo's for it's practical effects, whilst the creature resembled beasts like Feast, Raw Head Rex, Pumpkin head and The Secret of Nihm. It wasn't CGI, thankfully.
I can't help but feel that Drew Barrymores involvement was intended to create another cult horror flick such as Matt Damons, Ben Afflecks and Wes Cravens produced film Feast (2005). It fails, it lacks the creative direction. Though it had all the correct ingredients, it just felt under prepared, and then over cooked.
I didn't hate this film, but I rolled my eyes, and asked why so many times! It's a no brainer, if you want to waste 90 minutes then watch. If you don't, then watch one of the films it was trying to be, simple.
I was bored! The acting was bad, and not in a campy way. The attempts to create any tension were tedious and insulting. The story line was a rip from numerous horror films before hand (Night of the living dead, Feast, Dog Soldiers etc).
I will give the film Kudo's for it's practical effects, whilst the creature resembled beasts like Feast, Raw Head Rex, Pumpkin head and The Secret of Nihm. It wasn't CGI, thankfully.
I can't help but feel that Drew Barrymores involvement was intended to create another cult horror flick such as Matt Damons, Ben Afflecks and Wes Cravens produced film Feast (2005). It fails, it lacks the creative direction. Though it had all the correct ingredients, it just felt under prepared, and then over cooked.
I didn't hate this film, but I rolled my eyes, and asked why so many times! It's a no brainer, if you want to waste 90 minutes then watch. If you don't, then watch one of the films it was trying to be, simple.
- performpail
- Jun 16, 2014
- Permalink