Animals

I got the book this is based on from a remainder bin and loved it. Movis is not as good. The wild streak that makes the hero a candidate is not as clear. good enough, the acting is fine. I like that the transformation is unlike other films although a bigger cgi budget would help. Great concept just a bit off the mark.

When I stumbled upon this 2009 horror movie titled "Animals", by random chance here in 2024, I picked it up on account of it being a horror movie that I had never seen, much less actually ever heard about. And given my life-long romance with the horror genre, of course I needed no persuasion to sit down and watch what director Douglas Aarniokoski had to offer.

The storyline put together cy Craig Spector was pretty straightforward and actually had some good parts to it. However, it was somewhat diluted and tainted by an excessive amount of nudity and sex scenes. Sure, I get the aspect of the animalistic side to the movie, with becoming a beast and all, but I have to say that writer Craig Spector was just paying too much attention to sexual scenes and nudity. While I am certainly no prude, then I just don't really want to waste my time by watching nudity and sex scenes in a movie. I am watching it to be entertained by a story, not by carnal scenes.

I was under the impression that it was a werewolf movie, but turns out that it wasn't. And that was actually a nice surprise, as it transcended being merely another werewolf flick in the bunch.

Of the entire cast ensemble, I was only familiar with Marc Blucas and Naveen Andrews. It should be noted that the acting performances in the movie were fair.

There were a couple of rather brutally violent scenes with some gory results. And as a gorehound and a life-long fan of horror movies, then that really spruced up the movie for me. Thumbs up for that accomplishment.

The effects in the movie are fair. Sure, you will not be blown away or bedazzled, but the effects served their purpose in the movie. However, I don't really understand why the scenes with the creatures had to be blurry and had smoke in them. For suspense? Perhaps. Probably to save money on the effects, I suppose. But come on, people want to see the creatures in movies, not just flashy glimpses.

Had director Douglas Aarniokoski opted to tone down the nudity and sex scenes, then the movie would have been all the more entertaining, enjoyable and watchable. However, I have to say that the movie is one that came and went without leaving a lasting impression on me.

"Animals" is hardly a movie that warrants more than just a single viewing, as the storyline just didn't have enough contents and layers to support multiple viewings.

My rating of "Animals" lands on a five out of ten stars.

It's worth watching Animals for Nicki Aycox as the femme fatale. There is excellent colour, but the soundtrack is a bit dated and ordinary, including the animal sounds. There are moments of good cinematography, some of the interior car scenes or shots of industry at twilight for example, but the movie falls down somewhat when it comes to visual effects. Not entirely though, as I thought some of the lightening movements of the 'animals' were done well. I'll have to just out and say it however ... the 3D animations were simplistic and cheap, and could only have worked if the movie was 1999 rather than 2009. Animals is basically a vampire movie, and if you like vampire movies then this one is interesting and sincere, and certainly bloody, and at least deserves a much higher score than the 3.8 it currently enjoys here at IMDb.

I finally got to see the final cut of this film and although I still think it's a good horror film, with a few fairly intense sex scenes, it's a bit less effective than I expected.

It is much better than the IMDb rating indicates. Only the cartoonish digital "animals"(imagine Scooby Doo's angry ghost) weaken what could have been a well-above-average film. I find it interesting that Reno is listed first in order on locations. Nearly all of this was shot in Utah. But I know there was some controversy about the close to "soft porn" sex and the Utah Film Commission. Just filling in the long pause at the end of the first sex scene with talk I heard on set, I suspect that long cut leaves out a lot to be desired.

I worked four days on this film as Bart Johnson's banker buddy, mostly in the bar scene. I loved watching the director working. Animals had a strong cast and crew and the editing and "most" of the effects are fine.

It's certainly worth the price of rental from Redbox!

What's up with my favorite magazine. I have them all, from number one up to issue October 2010, talking about fangoria. They used to be the trend setter into horror but sadly they are more into reviewing Hollywood crap and other shite. But still I keep my subscription due to years of searching to have the whole collection. This flick had a two page review and was said to be the next porn flick you wished you had never seen. For one thing they were right. I indeed hoped that I never waisted 9O minutes of my life on it. What the hell was this. There is of course the nudity but what has it to do with the storyline, nothing. And if it's gratuitous than it bothers me. They said porn, well, you never ever, and I've seen the full uncut, see a kitty cat or his bouncing balls giving it to her. So porn, no way. Is there blood. Yes but maybe for only for 5 minutes. To make it all worser, when they become the so called animals it's all CGI. Just watch the last 10 minutes if you want to see the blood. Just take the cheap CGI with it. Sadly it isn't even SBIG (so bad it's good). Why o why fango are you letting me down already for a few times?