Cryptid

Not a fan. At first it opens up pretty intense and intriguing, but then the movies starts to drag. Def a makes you wonder what's going on kind of movie. The acting is not the greatest and in the middle of the movie i started To have a little hope it was going to get interesting but the acting just got worse. It's def a little creepy and mysterious but it's just too slow with nothing to hold onto until you actually find out what's going on. So with that said I honestly don't understand what the high rating is for. Film quality seems good. But I'm repeating myself now. The acting is super cheesy.

So monster movies in sleepy little remote towns are a staple of B movie land. And yeah - most hurt your head, even if you are a B movie afficionado like me. But - Cryptid was actually a decent little film.

Max is a freelance reporter for the local paper. And despite having all the skills of a good investigative journalist, he has been down on his luck and on brink of being fired. He comes upon an accident scene being overseen by Charlie the sheriff (with whom he has some history as he raised Max's deceased fiance). Charlie is a rock, and Max presses him about the accident - labeled as a presumed bear attack. Charlie is clearly bothered by the incident, but won't share with Max. As more people end up dead from the presumed bear attacks, Max smells the story of a lifetime and enlist help from his coworker and best friend Harriet. Together, the two dig and uncover ... well, that it's NOT a bear.

The acting was pretty solid. And there was some character development and emotional scenes and side stories, rather than just one bloodbath after another. The cinematography was decent, although the monster itself could have been done better. The movie is not scary and pretty predictable. But a decent watch .... So make some nachos and enjoy.

So yeah. If there's one thing i despise about hack writers and directors, it's when they have a genuinely interesting story and monster, but lack of intelligence prevents us from getting a decent film. I can go with the b level acting. I can go with a lower budget film. What I cannot abide is stupid writing. If as a novice hunter myself , I can see mistake after mistake after mistake of supposed seasoned hunters, then you really have to wonder what kind of person gets a job writing a film that deals with hunting. Nothing in a film is creepy or scary about an idiot getting him or herself eaten or put in intense situations. You spend more time yelling "WTF ARE YOU DOING!?" or shaking your head in frustration and disgust at what you are being presented with in a horror film. So. Idiot writer, idiot characters. What's worse is it sets up a sequel. God help us.

I'm not sure why this film is getting such a high rating. Maybe friends and family are bombarding the sight to up the rating. The film is filled with unlikable characters, especially the main protagonist. I was was hoping that the reptilian monster would get him so we'd all breathe a sigh of relief. The special effects are not retro, they're laughable. The editing is extremely choppy, especially when the monster shows up. How many dogs were killed in this movie? Isn't there a better way to move the story forward? Also, why is it raining every night. Every single night. Oh, brother. Sloppy and lazy writing.

Not sure what some of these reviewers are complaining about. For a low budget monster movie, the acting and cinematography are excellent.

The protagonist is very believable and, unless you only like idealized characters, is indeed likeable. His character is realistic. The other main character's acting is extraordinary. I say this considering they are relatively unknown! I found there performances easy to watch and they played off each other perfectly.

The premise is solid, and great supporting actors. The CGI is not great, but if you love solid stories and acting over big screen predictable canned action, you should enjoy this movie.