User Reviews (66)

Add a Review

  • Peter (James Caviezel) and Carla (Claudia Karvan) have a wasted marriage and constant friction. Peter buys expensive camping apparatuses and despite the protests of Carla, he travels with her and their dog Cricket to camp in the isolated Moondah Beach in the North Coast with his friend Luke and his girlfriend during the rainy holiday. Peter stops in a pub in the Eggleston Hotel and leaves a message to Luke with the owner of the pub. When Peter takes the shortcut to reach the beach, he gets lost and the couple spends the night sleeping in their truck. On the next morning, Peter organizes the campsite and disturbs the nature with his rifle. Along the two days, the couple deteriorates their relationship while the nature revenges the bad treatment.

    "Long Weekend" is a weird movie, actually a remake of Collin Eggleston's movie of 1978 that I saw many years ago on 13 March 2001 and also recalls "Lost Things" when the couple finds that it is impossible to leave the spot. The intention would be to show a couple with problems in their relationship that spends the holiday trying to resolve their issues, but they mistreat the nature and find the nature's punishment in the end. There is also a discreet homage to the original director with the name of the hotel where they stop to buy rum and leave a message to Luke. Unfortunately this remake is confused and the objective of the plot is not clear; however the anguishing and claustrophobic condition of Peter and Carla that seems to be in the limbo of their existence trapped in an isolated area and incapable to find a way out is the worthwhile part of this movie. My vote is six.

    Title (Brazil): "Isolados" ("Isolated")
  • A couple with severe relationship problems go on a camping trip in Australia with their dog Cricket. Things unravel fast, as the couple bicker and treat nature poorly... and before long, it seems as though the very forest turns against them.

    "Nature's Grave" (as the film is called in America) is a good film with wonderful visuals and a steady pace of disintegration. The limited number of characters keeps the development strong, and there is a a decent level of gore for the horror fans. Yet, there's something really fishy about this movie.

    Presumably, the message is that we shouldn't abuse Mother Nature. Yet, this is not really made clear. While the couple does mistreat their surroundings, it is largely unintentional, and the bulk of their time is spent yelling at each other. The message is further confused when considering the other group of campers, who end up in dire straits for no reason that we are aware of.

    Jim Caviezel is a strong actor, though he doesn't really stand out in this film. His character's wife is equally bland. There is some confusion, at least to me, of their nationality. She seems to be Australian, while he does not have the accent. Yet, when confronted with a beached manatee, it is Peter (Caviezel) who knows the history of the local creatures. This was odd.

    Aside from the ending, the manatee was for me the most interesting -- and creepy -- part of the film. If you're interested in good shots of wildlife and scenery, this film has plenty of that. But the acting is average and the plot isn't really clear, beyond a fighting couple. Another reviewer writes, "I would not call this a movie where nature strikes back, I would call it a movie where a moron angry at his wife makes a lot of boneheaded decisions." That really sums it up.

    This film is remake, and I unfortunately have not seen the original and cannot compare them. However, as a solo film, I found this one to be for the most part enjoyable and I would recommend it to others. To not see this film would be a crime against nature. Be sure to check it out, because you will not find another like it.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    .. is what this film tells us. The director shoots the film in the outback with fantastic natural scenery. As you would be well aware, nature is one of the main characters here. This film isn't preachy as one would expect, it had a fresh perspective about humans attitude towards nature and how we take it for granted. But, it just didn't have the effect on me that it was going for. Still, very cool cinematography made it worthwhile. If you don't wanna watch it, trust me you are not missing anything. My friend didn't like it that much and I found it to be an alright movie.

    A couple, Peter (James Caviezel) and Carla (Claudia Karvan) going through a crisis in their marriage due to an abortion plan to kick back and enjoy a long weekend with their friends at a surf beach which is located at a remote place. But their friends did not reach the bar they had planned on meeting and Peter decides to go ahead and catch up with them on the beach. But when it becomes clear that their friends would not make it, they They are negligent towards everything from the beginning itself and there at the beach they shoot a mother seal (which is quite a sad story actually) and break an eagle egg and do all kinds of crappy things.

    James Caviezel is an underrated actor. He is an extremely talented actor who got his big break with 'Outlander', but that movie was pretty worthless for his talents. Here he gives a good performance as Peter, the everyday rich guy who has the least interest in nature and does whatever he pleases and he also has a strenous relationship with his wife, which was very realistic. Claudia is OK as Carla, but it Jim who steals the show anyway. Her character actually becomes scared of nature very early in the movie. But she gives a credible performance. I had a huge problem with the ending, no guy in his right mind would go in the middle of the road to stop a goods truck that is so big. But the director wanted nature to win through whatever means, so he had that ending done. The story of the other campers is not explained, nor did the climax with Carla. I mean who did it and how did it happen? That is plain stupid on the part of the director. I, for one, cannot accept that nature did that. If it was cannibals or something, I could have accepted that. And yeah there are no other characters in the entire movie other than the couple, so it depends entirely on them. You should be aware of that.

    6/10
  • aqos-122 July 2009
    The best actor in this movie and most rational character was the dog. You would never know by watching this movie that Jim Caveizel is an established actor. There is no real logic as to why the couple decided to stay and camp except for the Peters' stupidity. I would not call this a movie where nature strikes back, I would call it a movie where a moron angry at his wife makes a lot of boneheaded decisions. Nothing about the other campers is explained. All we know about them is that the parents seem to quarrel. So is this nature striking back at unhappy couples, or people that disrespect nature. The explanation of what this movie is about really stretches logic. The only parts of it that ring true are that there are people and they are out in nature. I found this movie extremely boring and a grand waste of time.
  • jcarrie24 January 2011
    I actually enjoyed this film. The symbolism of the wife destroying the eagle's egg, mirrors the fact that she had got rid of their baby - the whole cause of the friction and distance between the couple. Their relationship is stretched to the limit, the tension between them, combined with the general unsettling atmosphere of being 'in the middle of nowhere'. Lots of creepy crawlies, the haunting dugong slowly creeping up the beach, the mysterious arrows leading round and round. I really thought the tension was built up well, when Pete goes to see the family in the camper van, you realise that something is seriously wrong and even though you don't particularly like the characters I don't think we actually want them to die. I felt a bit sorry for Peter, he was trying to make an effort to rebuild bridges but she doesn't care. The film builds to a disorientating, but claustrophobic ending, getting lost and feeling alone. Then the 'explosive' ending capped things off nicely. I liked it.
  • richard_sleboe12 March 2009
    Aristotle taught that if one way be better than another, that would have to be nature's way. He obviously never saw this movie. Mother Nature ain't so motherly in "Long Weekend". Nature isn't anyone's friend. Nature is the enemy: wildlife, weather, and, most importantly, the wayward ways of man (and woman). But there is no need to go ballistic with interpretation to enjoy this movie. It's essentially an old-school drama, despite some of the mysteries. It definitely works on several levels. At face value, it's the story of Peter and Carla who can't make their marriage work, least of all during what is supposed to be quality time, away from home and everyday chores. On another level, it's a tale of an awe-inspiring, yet unwelcoming wilderness conspiring against urban intruders, both by attacking them directly and by bringing out the worst in them. Giving little context and almost no explanation, Jamie Blanks takes us on a very wild ride. "Long Weekend" is not funny, but who says everything has to be? Of course there's no happy ending either. Not a big bang, but explosive enough.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Let me begin this review by being completely honest. When the opening credits rolled and I saw that Jamie Blanks was not only the director but also an executive producer and responsible for both the music and the editing of Nature's Grave, I was not filled with hope of a quality cinema experience. When someone's name is listed 4 times at the start of a movie that was made with a decent budget, it's usually the sign of somebody who thinks way too highly of themselves doing more than they should have. So perhaps my expectations for this motion picture were abnormally low going in, but I found it to be a surprisingly effective and creepy good time. But in the interests of complete honesty, I must also admit that it is very, very, very slow and is centered entirely on two characters it is nearly impossible to give a damn about.

    Peter (Jim Caviezel) is an American living in Australia with his Aussie wife Carla (Claudia Karmen). You can tell right away there are serious problems in their marriage and Peter has cajoled/pressured his wife into a weekend camping trip at some hidden beach in the middle of nowhere with one of Peter's friends and his girlfriend, seeking some sort of reconciliation. Carla, who dislikes the whole idea of "roughing it" only slightly less than she dislikes Peter at the moment, seems vaguely open to the idea of saving their union but isn't interested in making it easy.

    After a long drive and a turnoff onto a forest path, bickering most of the way, Peter and Carla arrive at what may or may not be the right beach. They set up camp anyway and try to enjoy themselves. Well, Peter tries. Carla mostly sulks that she's stuck in the woods instead of at some resort. But while the couple's relationship bounces around spoiled attempts at intimacy and hints at a bad history, they face increasing menace from the natural world around them. Eventually, Peter and Carla's personal bond explodes into anger and recriminations, but that's overshadowed by the fact that it seems unlikely they're going to get out of the woods alive.

    Nature's Grave is highlighted by some great work from director of photography Karl Von Moller. The shots of the woods, the beach, the coastline and the animals that inhabit them are frequently flat out beautiful. The look of this film resembles that of a good nature documentary on cable TV, which reinforces the threat of Mother Nature to Peter and Carla. If it were all shot more cinematically, there'd be a phoniness to it that would undercut the suspension of disbelief. This feels like the real world, which makes Peter, Carla and the danger facing them seem more real as well.

    I've also got to give Jamie Blanks his due. The music here is great at establishing mood and the editing does yeoman's work at keeping the tension and pace up. It has to because Blanks' direction, while squirmingly on target with his portrayal of a last stand at rescuing a doomed marriage, stumbles over his inability to recognize two glaring weaknesses in Everett DeRoche's script.

    You've heard of a slow burn? Well, Nature's Grave barely simmers. The first hour or so of this thing is like the first 10 minutes of a normal horror movie. You know, the part where the filmmakers try to create a sense of normalcy before they vivisect someone with a Garden Weasel? Things unfold so leisurely, everything that happens becomes so much more obvious and contrived. There are a couple of scenes that almost come off like anti-littering commercials. The weirdly slack rhythm of Nature's Grave appealed to me, but you wouldn't need to have ADD to get a little antsy waiting for something to happen.

    The other problem is that, while Jim Caviezel and Claudia Karvan do some good acting here, Peter is a boorish asshole and Carla is a prickly bitch. These characters are not likable. They are not sympathetic. It's hard to identify with them and that might make it difficult for some viewers to appreciate the slowly growing sense of dread and peril in the movie. At the end, you really only care about whether their dog survives the weekend.

    Again, maybe I had prepared myself for some grand disaster, but I liked Nature's Grave. Its differences felt like they were deliberate and intended and I appreciated someone trying to create a horror environment and sensibility that didn't follow the same well worn path. This film isn't scary so much as it's creepy and that's a sensation that's often overlooked in this supercharged age. It's definitely not for everyone but some will quite enjoy it.
  • I loved the original Long Weekend....Very underrated movie.

    This remake was literally a scene for scene remake, no new ideas, so I suppose if you have seen the original and remember it fairly well, you are going to no what happens next! But I remember the original fairly well (I have the SYNAPSE DVD) but I still enjoyed Natures Grave. Jim Caviezel and Claudia Cavan play the unhappy couple well.

    The film basically is a married couple who are having a rough time go away for a long weekend, and find themselves on an isolated beach. They treat the place with total disrespect (chucking away cigarette butts, litter, shooting bottles)) and shooting the animals...then nature turns on them! Pretty slow but always interesting. Solid acting. Little gore, so not much to offend here.

    Tidy little movie. Surprised about the negative reviews really.

    7.5/10.
  • There are very few things in life that are more annoying than feeling like you've gotten the old bait and switch. That's kind of what this movie delivers. I realize it's not the movie's fault that IMDb has "horror" as a tag for this movie, but still...no. No to this being in any way a horror movie. I think calling it a thriller is even a bit of a stretch. There's a few tense moments, but on the whole it's just a drama about two people who can't stand each other.

    The premise of the movie follows a husband and wife over a long weekend getaway to the beach in Australia. The problem is that the friends they are trying to meet up with never arrive. Oh...and they hate each other. That too. The whole running thread of them constantly pissing off nature is hardly even a subplot, but somehow manages to be the impetus of all the bad things that happen. I get it...it's bad to litter and be a general prick towards nature. I wholeheartedly agree. But then again I seriously doubt nature has time to waste being a vengeful jackass to two small time folks when there are...say...millions of other people harming the environment in much more serious ways. But I guess that's the point (maybe); if John Everyman isn't kind to nature, nature will quite literally kill him. Or something. Regardless, Long Weekend manages to be middle of the road at best in just about every aspect. There's nothing here I'd even remotely call horror, it fails to foster any sort of paranoia or even cheap jumpy thrills like a good thrill, and pretty much everyone involved is thoroughly unlikeable.

    That's pretty much how I would sum up the whole movie...thoroughly unlikeable. Which is really a shame since I really like some of Jim Caveizel's (or however you spell his last name) other work. I wouldn't say you should avoid this movie, but there's certainly better movies with similar themes.
  • kosmasp16 July 2009
    When I watched this movie at a festival in Germany (Fantasy Filmfest Nights) I wasn't aware of the fact, that this was a Remake. Unfortunately I haven't watched the Original up to this point, but really want to do so. Especially after being told by many viewers, that the original movie is a subtler option to this version of the subject matter.

    Jim Caviezel is a really good actor and he plays it pretty straight here. While he has to do some pretty disgusting and despicable things, you still feel for him (most of the time). And that's why I quite liked the movie (plus it's premise of course, which some people might find more suitable than M. Nights Happening).

    While the title might be irritating to some (you could suspect a teen comedy after all), this dark thriller has quit some punches (also visually), that try to hammer the message into your head ... When I get to watch the original, I will know if is a decent approach or not.
  • terrydeanp16 August 2009
    Obviously, the director of this picture intended to wrap his environmental message into a thriller, but literally got lost on the way -- just like the characters in the film. Really disappointing.

    The acting isn't that bad, but the design of the characters is rather limiting. Especially the role of the nagging wife. The worst thing is that she never stops complaining. And I don't feel like watching a couple arguing and fighting throughout the entire film -- it doesn't add anything to a story that lacks substance.

    On the upside, the location is exceptionally beautiful, supporting the underlying environmental theme.

    Net, you keep waiting for something to happen, only to be surprised by a sudden radical and totally exaggerated series of events at the end.
  • mcatarino14 October 2008
    Well, I just saw this movie at a Festival, and really liked it. It's a tour de force for the two actors, which are quite alone in the movie except for the other character, which will be Mother Nature. And a very wicked character she is... I didn't know it was an almost shot-by-shot remake of the 1978 movie, but even though I can't compare since I didn't watch the original one, I would say it's such a great movie that a remake that is able to bring the movie to a new generation of movie-goers can't be a too bad idea. And, even though I certainly sympathize with all those remake-haters out there, didn't "The Departed" just sweep critics and movie-goers alike while being a remake of a very recent masterpiece?... Let's forget about the remake issue, shall we? Why is this a great little movie? It's a low-budget low-profile movie that's just creepy and engaging, and has an eerie feel to it that is just to the point. Any of you city-slickers thinking about going out camping in the long weekend to a secluded beach? Well, don't mess with Nature or else... I did appreciate a movie that's about Nature's revenge without being too eco-conscious, and where in the end all serious wrong being done is done by humans. And all those bits left unexplained, instead of making you feel cheated, are just very intelligent and create a quasi-supernatural feel that's partly "Picnic at Hanging Rock", partly "The Birds", partly "Blair With Project"... It's no masterpiece, whatever that may be, but it's engaging and very scary in a non-conventional way. Some of the images will stick with you for a long time - I had no idea of what a dudong was, but now they scare the hell out of me! Isn't that enough for having a great time watching this?
  • Warning: Spoilers
    He just runs off to his death and leaves her in a hot car??!! I am devastated!! What a horrible ending!
  • An unhappy couple in Australia--Peter (Jim Caviezl) and Carla (Claudia Karvan)--decide to go camping one long weekend in a remote wooded area near the ocean. Along the way Peter (accidentally) hits a kangaroo and casually shoots at birds within range. They argue and he wanders around a lot with his shirt off. That's about it until an abrupt change of events during the last 30 minutes.

    This film has goos acting by the leads, Caviezl looks good with his shirt off, has some gorgeous cinematography, nice music...but that's it. This is pushed as being a horror film but it's really just a domestic drama with horror kicking in during the last 30 minutes. The horror itself isn't particularly scary and doesn't make much sense. All this has going for it is acting, scenery and music--nothing else. I give it a 4 just for that.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The actors in this movie were so horrible working with each other you could tell from the start of the movie, they don't get along as a couple in the movie but as actors i don't even think they get along but anyways - this story about nature and how they litter and trash it and mother nature strikes back... no this was just a very over dramatic plot about a couple who constantly argues and then makes up and then argues etc... and they just have a bad vacation get-away to an unknown beach on the coast. somehow a mysterious beached whale leads to their demise because they littered. like i said earlier this is just a very irritating and annoying plot that drags on about the most mundane things and the action scenes are very horribly directed. Don't Waste Your Time!

    • DWTY (Dont Waste Your Time)
  • What about the dog??? Why leave it locked in the car, and how did it survive the crazy driving and eventual collision with the (already dead) tree?
  • Warning: Spoilers
    'Long weekend' try's to make a good point. The main characters are a city bred couple that have no respect for nature and is about nature's revenge. At least that's what the plot is supposed to be.

    Honestly the plot line was so thin in many places it might as well be non-existent. There weren't actually a lot of moments it seemed like nature was going out of its way to attack the two main protagonists. At some points it seems to forget that nature was the enemy altogether for instance *spoiler// a character being harpooned in the neck by no one and what is either an inconsistent sci-fi anomaly or just them walking in circles //spoiler end*.

    The characters were completely wrong for a horror film, a depressing couple at the peak of their marriage ending and no like ability factor - which would have been alright if there had been any character development. As for the horror, all they had was a slightly creepy noise and a brief failed attempt at gore. The story was in dire need of a twist but the end fell as flat as the rest of it was.

    I wouldn't go as far as to say it's the worst film I've seen. But it's at least in the worst five.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    **SPOILERS** Efective remake of the 1978 thriller "Long Weekend" the movie "Nature's Grave" later also renamed "Long Weekend" has to do with this couple Peter & Carla, James Caviezel & Claudia Karvan, out on a trip in the Australian wilds in order to get away from it all. Right from the start the couple find an unexpected guest in their SUV their dog Cricket who sneaked her way on while they were packing their camping equipment. As things turn out it's Cricket who becomes the couples eyes and ears in her ability to help them find their way in the unfriendly and dangerous wilds as well as they way out of them.

    It's when Pete's friends and fellow campers Luke and Carroll don't show up at the prearranged meeting place at the Eggleston Pub it's decided by him and Carla to go it alone to the isolated Moonda Beach on the South Australian Coast. When the two finally get there, after an horrific night of traveling through the wilds, it seems like they stumbled upon a lost world!

    We soon get to see by Peter and Crala's conversations with each other that their marriage was already on the rocks and it's this trip to the country that's the final straw in their already strained relationship. The movie doesn't really explain what happened but it seems that Peter somehow loses his mind, possible due to being bitten by a poisonous snake, and starts hallucination things that drives his wife Carla crazy!

    We soon see a number of events happen that doesn't seem to make any sense at all! With the exception of the family dog Cricket both Peter and Carla are completely lost in the wild and at the mercy of every living creature, from ants to giant sea-cows, in it. Peter who's a bit unstable to begin with soon goes completely off his rocker and becomes so deranged that Carla decides to leave him, together with Cricket, to fend for himself. This turns out to be a fatal mistake on Carla's part in that she's as lost in the woods as her husband Peter is and by going it alone she only makes things worse for herself.

    ***SPOILERS*** Beautifully photographed suspense thriller with a number of really heart-dropping scenes in it "Nature's Grave" shows what being isolated in the wilds and away from civilization can do to people who, like Peter and Carla, first experience it. What happens in the movie can be attributed to Peter's unbalanced state of mind that coupled with the total isolation, as well as snake bite, he's exposed to that put his brain on automatic pilot without him knowing it. It may well have been that what can explain the murder mayhem and insanity in the film that at first, until you realized that this is all in Peter's head, seemed totally unexplainable!
  • What a senseless movie. What a joke. And boy is it SLOW.

    Whoever wrote Nature's Grave had better not quit their day job. They'll never make it as a writer. There's no real effort at a story here. It's not about nature striking back. Nature's Grave is about a miserable arguing couple. After the first half hour, that's all there is. Arguing. Yeah, there's some attempted lame suspense or horror. But it's all contrived.

    Nature's Grave is not as much a suspense or horror movie as it is a movie about an irresponsible and somewhat reckless couple, he's insensitive to her wants and needs. She's not happy with him and acts cool to him. Eventually the fighting starts. Was there ever a worse couple? Why would they go to the beach if she doesn't like any of the typical "going to the beach" type activities? Argue, argue, argue, that's all they do. But the acting was great. James Caviezel and Claudia Karvan came across great as a couple who were miserable with each other.

    One nice thing to say, the movie was filmed in a beautiful location and is has a number of shots of beautiful scenery. But beyond that, save yourself and don't want Nature's Grave.
  • I have never seen a more annoying role in a movie than Jim Caviezel in this one.

    She: "what are you doing to that tree..?"

    He:" ...uhh.. chopping it down"

    She: "why?"

    He:"...uh....why not..?? ..firewood..." oomph. Facepalm.

    ________

    She: "what is that?"

    He: "oh yes, look at that. I bought, I got a spear gun..." picks up the spear gun and smiles to it.

    She: "what the hell are you gonna do with that??"

    He: "I don't know...... shoot a fish?" points the speargun at her and grins.

    She : "be careful where you point at...". Etc. Etc.

    If you don't have a problem watching such an obnoxious guy who annoys the viewer every time he is doing something and every time he speaks, then you might like this movie. Because, actually it is not a bad thriller.

    . .
  • Two fine actors are roped into making a film for which the description "spectacularly, monumentally, epically bad" doesn't even come close to deriding adequately. If there were a way to rate it zero stars, I would have done so.

    Two more unredeemable and unintelligent characters cannot be imagined. It is impossible to relate to either of them even for an instant. By comparison, the Texas Chain Saw killer is someone you can find more common ground with. All you can do is sit with your jaw open, spellbound by the awfulness of the material and the stupidity of the reactions of the two.

    The dreadful, unsatisfying repulsiveness of the film is not the fault of the actors. The sad excuse for a plot has no purpose, no logic, and no sense, and most of all there is no possibility of suspension of disbelief.

    Baffling why anyone would think this thing is marketable.
  • Sometimes I find myself doing a double-take when I read film reviews on IMDb.com. I gauge the stars and ponder the reviews usually basing my decision whether to see the film upon them. Man, am I glad I went against the grain with Long Weekend. Frankly, I am surprised by the contrast between my opinion and the average and I don't usually even care much for man against nature thrillers.

    First, let's clear the air. This film is indeed a horror film. Granted there are no chainsaws or neanderthals in hockey masks. There is no torture porn, cannibalism, or any of that other run-of-the-mill garbage they call horror these days. Oh, and yeah, it does slowly simmer to a boil which probably ticks off those with short attention spans. However, this film delivers the chills and the pay-off is worth the time invested.

    Peter (James Caviezel) and Carla (Claudia Karvan) are a feuding couple one step away from divorce who head towards a secluded Australian beach on a camping trip. The common thread is a disrespect for nature which comes back to haunt them. While Peter is shooting haphazardly at anything that moves with his father's old rifle, Carla is spraying ants and breaking eagles' eggs. Mother Nature finally loses her patience and reminds the two who is boss.

    Now I know that sounds like an all too familiar plot, but in Long Weekend the formulas work and you can't help but find yourself feeling the dread that slowly envelopes Peter and Carla as they begin to realize they are not welcome.

    If, like me, you're tired of the Saws and backwoods inbreds chowing down on idiot teens, give Long Weekend a chance. You'll be pleasantly surprised and glad you did.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The film is not very good, It's a bit boring. But the ideas are very good, the dugongo makes very anxiety at the finale scene. But the idea of don't explain anything Is not so bad, i liked It.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Since many people are raving about this movie (of course also the original but from what I found the plot is about the same) I thought I'd give it a try. The basic idea about a city couple with some relationships issues going on a camping weekend and getting a taste of mother nature made me expect a kind of "Deliverance"-Movie but honestly "Long Weekend" stretches too far. The focus is on the couple and the slow build up of their problems with each other as well as their surrounding. So basically you only see 2 actors here mixed with a lot of nature shots and utter darkness.

    The whole thing builds up really slow and makes you expect a giant surprise for the wait.... don't expect too much. You pretty much know what happens when you read the basic plot and the hints about their mistreatment of nature are so incredibly blunt it hurts. Two scenes totally did it for me... first of all when the man shoots at a dark shadow in the water like crazy just to accuse his wife of damaging an eagles egg in the next scene and when he drives like a maniac through the forest with the car being his only hope of escaping, of course crashing into a tree. Thers so many scenes that make no sense... best one is the harpoon that is shooting by itself and nearly killing the wife WHO IS STANDING in a 90 Degree Angle to it. Sure... its a foreboding of whats to come but does it have to be this unrealistic? The basic message "Don't f** with nature" is dropped in so often that the great abortion-back story of the couple is the icing on a very tasteless cake. On top you get stuff dropped in that is totally meaningless for the plot like the dead campers they find or the manity moving though its dead (although I have to admit thats kinda creepy). All these elements and their constant moving in circles give some supernatural hints like they are trapped by nature in some kind of purgatory. Nothing is solved or fits together and the finale doesn't even fit the supernatural clues and on top throws in the most stupid of natures revenges in this movie. I don't get it... to me this is a real boring and also stupid movie leading absolutely nowhere.
  • Quite soon there might be a serious investigation into the club of film funding in Australia. This remake here will be the poster item for the last gasp of funding fees for stale producers to remake their films simply to generate a fee for themselves. Nobody asked for this remake apart from the shysters who produced it and the 'executives' who put taxpayer funds into their pockets. Nobody saw it in a cinema for it was never released in one commercially....but it cost millions of dollars to make and now exists, shelved as a film and released on DVD. The original and excellent production was a staple of the renaissance of 70s cinema. It is a good film. This superfluous remake is a crime, theft from the Australian taxpayer who wastefully funds pointless films like this..and they should be investigated. Look up the production crew of the original and then the remake... any identical names? Have a look. It's all true.
An error has occured. Please try again.