Let me preface this review by saying, while there may be some plot spoilers contained below, I doubt that if I transcribed the script word-for-word I would spoil the movie for anyone. The director/producers managed to spoil this movie quite well on their own.
OK, a movie about an archaeological dig unearthing some ancient creature that starts killing people stranded in the area. Certainly nothing original there, but, ya never know. The director may come up with some new twists. Well, if the director did, he did an impressive job of not sharing it with the audience. Nor did he make any attempt to reveal whatever he had in mind for tying all the unidentified story-lines behind the characters together. Characters are barely introduced at the beginning of the movie, and there is but a hint of character development for anyone but Sheriff Annie.
As far as the filming goes, I've seen camera phone recordings of higher quality than was used in this movie. Apparently, the director dealt with a shoe-string budget by making extensive use of shaky out-of-focus shots whenever there's action, the monster attacking people, people running, caves collapsing, etc. And in today's film-making age, where night shots are shot in daylight/artificial light and then darkened on a computer in the editing room, this film nonetheless shoots it's night scenes outside at night using cheesy night-vision filters. How innovative. Let the audience barely see what's going on so they can feel like they're truly in the dark.
The computer graphics are state of the art....were this still 1992. It's blatantly apparent that one of the director's favorite films is Alien3, as the monster graphics look like he pulled old footage of the alien scampering along the walls from the David Fincher film. And worse than that, he copies the scene in which the alien moves its face close to Sigourney Weaver by having Unearthed's monster, dripping goo from its mouth and all, move its head close to the face of a cringing Tonantzin Carmelo (who is covered in radioactive muck, yet never seems the least bit bothered to be so). What's really sad is, the real creature apparatus which is used in only a handful of shots did look well-crafted. However, most of the scenes of the creature are such pitiful CGI, they make made-for-Sci-Fi channel movie special effects look good.
Had any effort been made to develop the characters, explain what was really going on with them early in the film, and some legitimate filming done instead of rough-shod disjointed quick cuts and camera angles, this COULD have been a decent film.
OK, a movie about an archaeological dig unearthing some ancient creature that starts killing people stranded in the area. Certainly nothing original there, but, ya never know. The director may come up with some new twists. Well, if the director did, he did an impressive job of not sharing it with the audience. Nor did he make any attempt to reveal whatever he had in mind for tying all the unidentified story-lines behind the characters together. Characters are barely introduced at the beginning of the movie, and there is but a hint of character development for anyone but Sheriff Annie.
As far as the filming goes, I've seen camera phone recordings of higher quality than was used in this movie. Apparently, the director dealt with a shoe-string budget by making extensive use of shaky out-of-focus shots whenever there's action, the monster attacking people, people running, caves collapsing, etc. And in today's film-making age, where night shots are shot in daylight/artificial light and then darkened on a computer in the editing room, this film nonetheless shoots it's night scenes outside at night using cheesy night-vision filters. How innovative. Let the audience barely see what's going on so they can feel like they're truly in the dark.
The computer graphics are state of the art....were this still 1992. It's blatantly apparent that one of the director's favorite films is Alien3, as the monster graphics look like he pulled old footage of the alien scampering along the walls from the David Fincher film. And worse than that, he copies the scene in which the alien moves its face close to Sigourney Weaver by having Unearthed's monster, dripping goo from its mouth and all, move its head close to the face of a cringing Tonantzin Carmelo (who is covered in radioactive muck, yet never seems the least bit bothered to be so). What's really sad is, the real creature apparatus which is used in only a handful of shots did look well-crafted. However, most of the scenes of the creature are such pitiful CGI, they make made-for-Sci-Fi channel movie special effects look good.
Had any effort been made to develop the characters, explain what was really going on with them early in the film, and some legitimate filming done instead of rough-shod disjointed quick cuts and camera angles, this COULD have been a decent film.