Search - Primal on DVD

Don't waste your time (or money)...

Zed | Melbourne, Australia | 01/11/2008

(1 out of 5 stars)

"I got to see a preview of this title yesterday. I only managed to force myself to watch 35 minutes of this movie before realising, it didn't get any better and my time was more valuable than spending it watching this trash.



Briefly, it's a *very* low budget horror flick. Some people are out in a section of a forest (which for some reason, doesn't show up on maps of the area), and they run into a "big-foot" type monster. It mauls people, they die (and amazingly, while being ripped apart, there are no screams from the actors, just splashes of fake blood onto the camera lens).



The acting is wooden. The camera work is attrocious (including a lot of steady shots of people which suddenly change to zoom in and then zoom outs). The storyline is nothing new.



I couldn't put in more time watching this. It may have improved after the 35 minute mark, but frankly, I no longer cared.



There are a *lot* of low budget movies out there that are much better than this."

Monkey Suits are cool, but...

Madelyn Pryor | Mesa, AZ United States | 03/07/2008

(2 out of 5 stars)

"Monkey suits are cool, and not since the Bloodhound Gangs video for "the Bad Touch" have I been so impressed with the use of a monkey suit in cinema. However impressive this particular Monkey Suit was (to be fair it was supposed to be a Yetti), it can't save a weak, haphazard script, jarring camera angles, and lack of an impactful ending.



The story is basically about Bigfoot (Bigfeet?) gone wild. One lives in the wilderness of a park and is wrecking havoc on everyone that he stumbles across. Yeah, that's about it. Honestly. I think there is supposed to be character development and there are elements of character development here. There just isn't a lot and what there is isn't terribly interesting to be horribly honest about it.



I think worse than the lack of meaningful characters is the jarring camera angles. Ok, they're not that bad, and I understand why the filmmaker added them. They make the `special effects' a little more crazy and draw the eye away from any weak spots in the killing scenes. But I didn't really like the jarring camera movements in Cloverfield and this isnt't Cloverfield.



Lastly, what was with the ending? It died with a whimper and not a bang. I watched about five minutes worth of credits before I convinced myself that I had really just watched the end. I was just sitting there asking myself, "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?"



I think if you really like low budget horror, this might be worth checking out (especially with friends and some alcoholic beverages if you're of age). Just keep in mind it is very low budget and it does have flaws.



That being said it was obviously made with a lot of heart and dedication and it is fun in places, so what the heck, it might be someone's cup of tea.



Two stars, recommended only for diehard lovers of small budget horror.

"

Urgh

Mikey Ramone | Bellevue, WA | 04/18/2010

(1 out of 5 stars)

"A group of people go into the woods looking for oil deposits or something (it honestly doesn't matter.) They encounter a lame looking bigfoot monster that hacks them up with his long claws (the attack scenes have grainy superimposed old "film lines & scratches" onto them. I guess the director was going for some "Blair Witch" type of thing?)



A side story involves an engaged couple going into the woods to talk to the soon-to-be-bride's introverted, wild life officer brother to attend their wedding. Happens that he has a ton of bigfoot books and has taken photos of the beast (the photos show and even lamer bigfoot/ape suit guy and doesn't even come close to looking like the creature in this flick.)



Bigfoot (where the writers lazily have the cast refer to -at times- as a yeti) has that serial killer ability to seemingly be everywhere at once as the people try to escape (one escape has 2 people hideout in a meth lab.)



The bigfoot suit looks okay (looks far better than something like "Suburban Sasquatch" but still far below the classic (now 34 years old!) "Mysterious Monsters" effects. THIS MOVIE IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF HOW CGI EFFECTS LOOK INCREDIBLY LAME (example? any of the gun shots & especially when bigfoot is on fire.)



Ed Wood would be proud of the use of stock footage. When the ranger calls for an airlift, we see a helicopter flying over a dense jungle and the movie is set in the palm tree free Pacific NW.



I agree with the early reviewer that at least if we sit through this the producers could have thrown some skin in here. Not even close. You can do far better with your bigfoot/sasquatch movie money than waste it on this effort that could have been better with a little more depth of the story and remove the stupid looking CGI effects."