Cold Prey III (2010) User Reviews (29)

What was the need to turn this into a run of the mill backwoods slasher.

[Fella_shibby · 6/10 · 3 October 2023]

I saw this for the first time recently n got totally disappointed.

The settings ain't that great. It takes away the tension n suspense. The locations are picturesque but doesn't add.

None of the kills are memorable or brutal n there is absolutely no tension n suspense.

Some of the scenes are very predictable.

The lead character from 1 n 2 Jannicke, is a strong protagonist n reminds us so much of yesteryear's bad ass female characters.

Cold Prey 3 has the disadvantage of not having a protagonist as strong as Jannicke.

This is a prequel to the first film, set in the 1980s but an unnecessary one.

While the first one reminded of The Shining due to its snowy landscape, the 2nd one of Halloween 2 n Visiting Hours due to the hospital set up.

Both were set during the chilly winter with lots of snow which added more atmosphere n isolation but the 3rd one ruined it by the summer set up n the forest locations. The 3rd one is more like a backwoods slasher in the veins of Wrong Turn, The Rituals 1977, Just Before Dawn, Deliverance, The Final Terror, FT13, etc.

While being set in summer with lots of ponds n lakes around, we expected some nudity but alas.

A girl undresses but we don't get to see any boobs. So uncool man.

Disappointing

[acidburn-10 · 5/10 · 1 August 2011]

When I first heard that they were making a third "Cold Prey" movie, which pre dates the first two showing a back story on the killer, I was actually quite pleased, as we only saw glimpses in the first two. I am a big fan of the first two and wrote glowing reviews for them rating them 10 and 9, but this one I only rate 5, because quite frankly I was really disappointed.

Okay the beginning opened up quite well, when we finally get to see what happened to his parents and the way they treated him, but that was over in 10 minutes and then it cuts to a group of teens camping in the nearby woods. I was hoping the third would somehow capture both positive aspects of each film, but sadly, Cold Prey 3 turned out to be your pretty standard backwoods slasher that we've seen several times before.

Another complaint is that this one is set in summer time which kinda defeats the object of being called "Cold Prey" There's even a clichéd scene where some of the characters decide to go skinny dipping in a lake, which seems to be some sort of requirement in backwoods slashers for some odd reason. Speaking of characters, none of them are likable, in my opinion. With the little development we're given for each person, it leaves us with little reason to care whether they'll somehow survive through the ordeal.

All in all "Cold Prey 3" isn't a particularly bad film, as a stand alone it would have been pretty good, it just lacks the brilliance the first two, so I hope it's now come to an end.

Everything a prequel needs to be, in the non-phenomenal level of the first film.

[nitzanhavoc · 6/10 · 23 November 2012]

When I set out to watch the final film of the Fritt Vilt trilogy, I had no idea it was going to be a prequel, and by that redeem itself from the total failure I had expected. After the first film presented the Mountain Man as a surprisingly human slasher (not in character and bahaviour of course, but in his level of strength and fortitude), the second one made him into too much of a Jason Voorhees kind of creature, beginning with the fact that he had survived the ending of the first film.

Fritt Vilt 3 proved to be quite a pleasant surprise in a few aspects. Being a prequel, it had already been known that Mountain Man was going to win, so that had been supposed to be left was a little guess work as to how. First of all - the film really didn't follow the "Hollywood" rules of Slasher-Horror. Personally I was wrong with all guesses that mattered - who was going to die first (the characters weren't exactly Hollywood stereotypes of Slashers either so that made it a little hard to guess), who was going to be the last survivor and how would the story end. The ending, while remaining true to the previous two titles and not having any twists or shocks, really wasn't what I had expected, and was a pleasant surprise.

All in all, the film gave us everything expected of a prequel, answered all the relevant questions about the Mountain Man that had been left unanswered by the first two titles (with the exception of the story behind Mountain Man's weapon of choice in the first two). and was just as good as the first (no Ingrid Bolsø Berdal though, unfortunately). The second was still my favorite, and I'm glad I got to see this Norwegian Horror trilogy.

More prey - less cold.

[anthrofredd · 3/10 · 14 October 2010]

Four years ago I gave a glowing review to the first real Norwegian horror movie ever (unless you count Villmark which was more of a thriller or the DTV crap "22" which was more like a bad nightmare). Cold Prey blew my mind. Sure, to most of you it's probably a mediocre slasher flick but to me it raised the bar for Norwegian movies.

Maybe this is why the first one was a success. The second one was okay-ish. A bit too much action and not enough horror if you ask me but still a solid entry. Now we have the third, supposedly (and hopefully) final entry in this franchise and I have to say with a heavy heart that this was a disappointment to the extreme.

What is supposed to be a prequel comes off as a sloppy dtv-remake of the first one - without the snow - or the hotel. The dialogues seem to be copied and pasted from the first movie and even the characters are similar (only this time we have a bunch of REALLY bad actors without any real characteristics). These actors were so bad that I cringed in the seat as it was so uncomfortable watching them deliver their basic dialogues. The first 5 minutes or so are prequel-ish but the movie really doesn't explain anything. It felt as if the crew wasn't allowed to shoot inside the hotel this time so instead it took place in the woods and in two small houses near the hotel (??????).

This is less Friday the 13th and more Wrong Turn - but without the actual excitement. Imagine Cold Prey meets Wrong Turn meets Manhunt (yes, this could indeed very well have been the sequel to Manhunt aka Rovdyr, that might actually have made more sense as this felt nothing like the first two Cold Prey movies).

I won't go on about it but if you want a very standard DTV slasher from the 80s that somehow was forgotten and crawled onto the big screen 25 years later - here you have it. The mediocre slasher flick that everyone will forget within a year. Too bad, this franchise had so much potential.

Unoriginal Slasher Movie

[claudio_carvalho · 3/10 · 5 January 2014]

In 1976, in Jotunheimen, an abused boy stabs to death his mother Sigrid and his stepfather Gunnar in an abandoned hotel and the family is considered missing by the local Sheriff Einar (Terje Ranes) and authorities.

Twelve years later, the teenagers Hedda (Ida Marie Bakkerud) and her boyfriend Anders (Kim S. Falck-Jørgensen), Siri (Julie Rusti), Knut (Sturla Valldal Rui), Magne (Pål Stokka) and Simen (Arthur Berning) take a lift with Sheriff Einar telling that they will hike in the woods. However they go to the abandoned hotel expecting to spend the night in the place but they find dust and rats and prefer to stay camping in the woods.

In the morning, Siri and Knut fall into a trap of the eremite hunter Jon (Nils Johnson) and Knut is seriously wounded. Siri climbs the hole to seek for help to Knut, but she is captured by Jon while a stranger kills Knut. Soon the teenagers are hunted down by the creepy serial-killer.

"Fritt Vilt III" is an unoriginal slasher movie with the usual clichés. The only thing different in this movie is the language, since it is spoken in Norwegian. The rest is the usual stupidities of this genre, when the victims always take the most imbecile decision and the serial- killer is indestructible. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Presos no Gelo III – O Início" ("Trapped in the Ice III – The Beginning")

The Norsemen have gone Cold Turkey

[Coventry · 3/10 · 13 January 2012]

"These Norwegians definitely know how to generate the right mood for an atmospheric and nightmarishly intense horror film. When is the last time a slasher actually scared you? There's another entry on the way, apparently a prequel set in the 1980's. I, for one, cannot wait!"

The above quote is actually copy/pasted from my own user comment for "Cold Prey II", written somewhere late 2010, when I saw the first two films back-to-back. As you can read, I was very much impressed with this new slasher franchise – especially part two – and eagerly anticipated the third entry/prequel. Unfortunately now I have to temper my enthusiasm, because I have seen the prequel and it's without exaggerating one of the biggest disappointments in years. The refreshing and genuinely suspenseful format has sadly turned into just another mundane and hugely derivative stalk & slash picture without any added value whatsoever. What made the first two movies so exceptional that is missing here? Well, two vital aspects are missing, in fact, namely an extraordinary setting and amiable characters. The first two "Cold Prey" movies were covered with snowy landscapes and largely took place in creepy isolated settings, first an abandoned skiing resort and second a nearly abandoned hospital, and it was one of these rare cases where the main characters were identifiable and sympathetic people that you didn't necessarily wish they died in such barbaric way (but they nevertheless did, of course). The prequel takes place in and around the same skiing resort, but presumably in a much warmer season, as the teenage protagonists go camping in the surrounding woods and sleep under a clear sky without tents. Woods are a much more commonplace and familiar setting for slasher movies and, even though the Norwegian forests and streams are a lot more astounding than American ones, it's not sufficient enough to excel. Even more unfortunate is the fact that the lead characters have become standard "Americanized" stereotypes, including gun-crazy machos and hormones-overloaded skinny dippers. The script also nearly doesn't take enough advantage out of the prequel opportunities. "Cold Prey II" already hinted at a very fascinating background of the killer, a mentally disabled savage dumped by his parents near ravine in the midst of winter, but the prequel inexplicably doesn't explore the basic events any further. After a brief intro set in 1976, which is the best part of the entire film, the film fast forwards twelve years to the late 80's without giving any more clarifications regarding the killer's persona, so I'm actually not even considering as an authentic prequel. Just a redundant episode between the origins and the later films. Not only does "Cold Prey III" not exploit the advantages of the prequel format, it doesn't even grab the opportunity to make this a genuine 80's throwback movie. There are very few elements reminding us that the story takes place in the 1980's, except for the fact that one of the teenage characters listens to horrible punk-rock music on a prehistoric and bright yellow walkman device. Add to this several more dreadful sub genre clichés, clumsy editing, weak acting performances and unimaginative (again, especially in comparison to the previous installments) cinematography and we've got ourselves a very dumb and unmemorable slasher that even would have looked uninspired in the 80's already. There's a fair portion of brutality and gory effects, but those things you can nowadays even find in average TV-series, so don't bother.

Ignore the negative review - this is an excellent prequel

[stavrosalo · 6/10 · 12 May 2020]

Ignore the negative review - this is an excellent prequel, and a great background story on how it all started. I enjoyed it a lot, I think most of the people rating here thought this is a spin-off or a sequel. Watch it you'll surely love it if you are a cold prey fan!

Back to the Roots

[kosmasp · 5/10 · 15 February 2012]

Slasher movies might try to be cute (see first part of the Cold Prey series or High Tension for that matter), but this is as down and dirty as you might expect it to be. It is also exactly what you think it will be throughout. In other words: It is dire predictable. It's still nicely done and all, you just can see where it is heading (actually you might know where it is heading before it even begins). If you don't let that spoil your "enjoyment" of the movie, you are good to go.

In this case, it is not really necessary to have seen the other two movies of the "franchise". Actually you might be better off not having seen them. Slasher fans will enjoy this (I guess most did enjoy the first one too), but for everyone else this might prove to not be enough of anything to make them wanna watch it through

Trilogy-ending prequel ends on a fine bloody note that leaves room for more

[VideoEmbolism · 7/10 · 18 March 2014]

The end(?) of the "Cold Prey" trilogy is better than the first but not as good as the second. They dispense with the "Halloween" movie mimicry and most of the tale takes place in the woods where a group of horny Sweden, or is it Norwegian, teens end up camping only to be relentlessly stalked and colorfully killed by our now well-known killer in pre- mid- or post- coitus mode.

Again the movie looks great, the kills are good, not as good or as many as in the second but there none the less. There is some snaky twists involving a cop and that hearkens back to the first film but all around nothing too complicated or ambitious.

A well-made slasher trilogy that deserves either another sequel or a spin-off.

Rawer, but too predictable

[OJT · 5/10 · 16 October 2010]

The prequel to "Fritt vilt" and "Fritt vilt II" is telling about how the whole thing started up in Jotunheimen. It does, but being a prequel tells already that no one survives. That's one less that you normally have. That's the only thing not repeating itself in this movie. Not too well played by the youngsters, too "kitchy", to lame and too boring, I'm afraid.

The only thing which is really fun in the movie is the 80'ies songs they've pulled out of the darkness. Kim Wilde's "You keep me hanging on" is a great in-joke. Another is the nods to "Deliverance" and other classic "horror"-flicks.

The two first in this series was quite fresh, especially with Bolsøe Berdal, who made an excellent job. There's no Berdal here, I'm afraid.

The worst is some obvious mistakes in making this a nightmare. Up in the mountain close to winter, it's cold! The actors forget this, running around with barely no clothes on. No one (!) is making even the smallest shudder. even when the wind blows a door on rusty hinges repeatedly, while there's no wind in the trees.

Though being a bit boring, the 90 minutes went on quite fast. That's a sign on the good half. Slashing of humans is this films upgrade from the first two. The bad boy really goes hunting. as you might understand, this being a prequel, he gets nicer by the years...

entertaining

[bajaharley · 8/10 · 23 October 2021]

Another great movie of the series. I would have liked to see the coward brother die in the end for murdering the poor girl, and I don't care how you look at it that is exactly what it was.

But all in all was very entertaining.

subdued not to be ordinary.

[DansLeNoir · 29 September 2018]

It was a movie that showed that it was trying not to be cliché. But this were very certain. The characters were cliché but used in contrast. Again the expected action scenes were boring. The end and the idea was nice.

The Weakest of the Series, but still Solid

[tmbaio · 6/10 · 19 March 2011]

Although Cold Prey 3 was meant to be a prequel, it succeeds more of being a slasher movie independent of the first two films.

When the film dives into the villain's background, several key questions generated from the first two films are answered. For example, it is obvious from the previous stories that the villain is a hunter. In Cold Prey 3 we see where he got that skill from. The film also explains how the villain avoided detection after his first homicides. As effective as these scenes are, they are covered in the opening moments & this is where the prequel portion of the film ends (Cold Prey 2, which was a "moments after" continuation of Cold Prey, went into the killer's background as much as this prequel). With its differing atmosphere from the first two films (there are no snow covered settings) & with the villain using a firearm for the only time in the series, you get the feeling that the creators of Cold Prey 3 wanted to to isolate the film from the preceding entries.

Although the brief background screen time will upset fans of the series, Cold Prey 3 makes up for it during the second half where a group of hikers are terrorized by the mentioned villain. Like its predecessors, Cold Prey 3 can be seen as a Norwegian version of Friday the 13th (with touches of Texas Chainsaw Massacre & Deliverance); but thankfully, not as over the top.

In conclusion, where Cold Prey 3 fails as a prequel, it succeeds as an above average terror-in-the-woods genre movie. As mentioned earlier, the film-makers may have purposely separated this movie from the earlier films, but they wisely chose to incorporate the elements which made Cold Prey & Cold Prey 2 popular with their fans: good photography, well staged action/chases & a solid cast of performers.

What have you done to my Fritt Vilt?

[Nan00k · 5/10 · 25 February 2011]

Being a horror fan, I view slashers as the lowest of the sub-genres. Utterly formulaic, they are simply vehicles for new ways to off "red shirt" characters. The first two Fritt Vilt films bucked that trend by giving us characters we cared about, and thus were affected when they died. Christ, I even shed a tear one time over ***SPOILER*** Audhild the nurse in part II. That is why the first two are my favorite slashers. I gave the first one a 7/10 and the sequel an 8/10. This one does no bucking, only carrying on, and thus a 5/10.

After the characters, I would say the next weakest aspect of this film is the editing. Well, either that, or they omitted crucial shots while filming. Either way, there are several sequences that are shot and/or cut in such a way as to make me sit up and go "huh?" The movie looked great, just like the first two, although I thought there were a couple scenes that were way too dark, but that could be my copy. I generally liked the 80s soundtrack, but in the score, there were a couple moments of way to overused "OMG, here comes the killer" music.

Oh, and jump scares? In my Fritt Vilt? Just like the Godfather films, I am just going to ignore part 3.

Unworthy follow up to the Cold Prey/Fritt Vilt/Kallt Byte films

[Seth_Rogue_One · 4/10 · 12 November 2015]

The first one I rank as one of my favorite non-English speaking horror movies with excellent scares and excellent cast and characters that all felt real.

The second one tried to follow that idea, ended up IMO not as great but still good.

The third one however is just plain boring, characters are boring and paper-thin, it's like they solely exist for one purpose... to be slaughtered by our villain.

A prequel so none of the characters from the previous films re appear (for obvious reasons) even our villain Fjellemannen is played by someone else which shouldn't be a problem though as he always covered his face in the previous movies and he was played by 2 different characters in Cold Prey and Cold Prey 2 without at least me noticing it.

But here he is just not particularly menacing, granted he was still a rookie when it came to his field of expertice: slaughtering innocent people, but he should still come off as scary which he really doesn't this time... But then he only appears to pop out from time to time so that could be an issue as well.

No the main focus are a bunch of Norwegian youth tourists (yet again but a lot more of them) and none of them particularly excites or impresses in their characters but I wouldn't put the whole blame on them.

The director had only one directorial feature to his name before doing this movie, and that was a 6 minute long shortfilm... Surely an easier task to do than to direct a movie 15 times the length of that and a sequel to a beloved Horror series at that.

The script is at fault as well, it's just poorly written and should have been so much more... Maybe having 5 people write it was a bad idea, cause it just feels like a bunch of random ideas put together on paper with no regards to the full picture.

Seen it twice now, didn't like it the first time and really didn't like it the second, where as for instance the first I like tons every time I see it.

So I'd skip out on the third one completely if I was you... Well that's a lie I guess since I did end up watching it twice but... if you decide to give it a go then know that it's not gonna be particularly good and don't say you weren't warned.

Cold Prey III: Weak link of the trilogy

[Platypuschow · 3/10 · 10 October 2017]

After all the hype I found the first Cold Prey movie very underwhelming, it felt like just another slasher and really didn't have much about itself to set it apart from the others.

The sequel followed on perfectly and actually impressed me, suddenly I found myself on the Cold Prey bandwagon.

Then the third, a prequel and essentially origin story for our antagonist and it goes back to it's roots as a generic slasher flick but with even less personality than the first film.

Set in the 1980's around (You guessed it) a group of 20 somethings who go camping and run into our bad guy, get picked off one by one and you know the rest.

Sadly it's all done poorly, it doesn't feel like it's even connected to the established Cold Prey universe and really feels more like a cash grab than an addition to the series.

The Good:

Very dark ending

The Bad:

Poorly made

Rather dull No originality

Brings nothing to the Cold Prey franchise

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Even Norwegians will milk a franchise beyond its means

All good protagonists hide and watch while they're friends get butchered

Not-so-'Cold Prey': The Beginning

[Shattered_Wake · 5/10 · 27 May 2011]

A few years ago, filmmaker Roar Uthaug attempted to add a new name to the short list of legendary horror villains. While he's yet to have the same impact as past characters like Jason Voorhees or Michael Myers, the snow-suited Gunnar is definitely one of the most interesting horror maniacs to hit the genre in a while.

After two films of standard, yet hugely effective, stalk-and-slash fare, the 'Cold Prey' series returns with its third installment: a prequel showing the early years of the nut with the pick axe. I was a bit disappointed at first by the decision to go with a prequel, mainly because I very much liked the bad-ass character of Jannicke (Ingrid Bolsø Berdal). However, the opening scenes showing the killer as a child were interesting enough to make it a better idea. These scenes ended quickly, though, and the film returned to another installment set in the same formula as the other entries, but with a lower quality cast of victims (due mainly to just how painfully dumb they all were).

Regardless of how good 'Cold Prey II' was, one thing it did not have was originality. Viewers may have noticed the obvious similarities of it to John Carpenter's 'Halloween II.' The closeness of the two films did bother some, but the structure and style made it distinct enough to make it its own solid film (and one of the best slashers of the decade). For this third part of the series, the writers decided to become "inspired" by yet another American horror. From the start, the are some pretty obvious connections to 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning': It's a prequel, it adds in more blatant torture elements, it has the same basic story as its predecessor, etc. Hell, there's even a scene where a victim is grabbed and pulled backward through a screen in blatant Leatherface style. However, Norway has never really been big on horror filmmaking, so we should all be willing to grant them a bit of leniency when it comes to originality as they build up the genre.

Perhaps the most crucial issue 'Cold Prey III' has is one of the most obvious: It completely betrays its own title. Imagine of a 'Halloween' sequel took place on, I dunno, the Fourth of July. That'd be pretty dumb, wouldn't it? Same goes for this film. Why call a film 'Cold Prey' and have it take place when it's not even cold? Granted, this is Norway, so it's probably a little cold pretty much all the time, but one of the only reasons the series stood apart from its peers was thanks to the beautiful snow-covered mountain landscapes and the way the directors & cinematographers expertly made use of them in creating their fantastic visuals. Here, though, the film could be a part of any horror series. What makes it much different than any other forest-set torture flick, like 'Carver' for instance? Frankly, not a whole lot.

Overall, while this new sequel in the Norwegian horror franchise is entertaining enough, it just cannot stand up to its earlier entries, mainly because of the decision to trade in the well crafted suspense & tension of the first two films for an increase in torture-themed gore & violence. I hope to see a return to form in the next installment, hopefully with the help with one of the original directors.

Final Verdict: 5.5/10.

-AP3-

Not a nice finish...

[Thanos_Alfie · 3/10 · 4 February 2014]

"Fritt vilt III" is the third movie of the "Fritt vilt" trilogy and in this movie we are back in the 80's where a group of teenagers go to visit an abandoned hotel and they will find their-selves hunted by a psychotic killer.

I did not like this movie because I expected something better than this and I expected something better because of the two previous movies of "Fritt vilt". I also did not like the interpretations of the cast and I believe that everyone who like the two previous movies did not have to see this one.

Finally I have to tell you that the plot it was not as good as I expected it to be and that was not the thing that I did not like the most in this move.

Does not meet the expectations of a sequel...

[SivakumarBalachandran · 5/10 · 4 April 2011]

This is a sequel to the very famous Norwegian movies FrittVilt I and II.

But did it meet the expectations? The sad answer is NO.

This movie starts with the story of the murderer of the main movies followed by usual chicks and boys expedition which obviously goes wrong.

Then usual slasher terms and goes on with the end which shows it never ends.....

Well the bad pint of the movie is it has kindled so much expectations but presenting a predictable story is not good for sequel.

Could have elaborated on the boys story on why he is killing people? On the whole not new and not entertaining.

I would give 5/10.

Excellent Departure

[TRussellMorris · 10/10 · 12 April 2021]

I've found the reviews of this film quite amusing and perplexing at the same time. I'm not sure what kind of "Horror Slasher Fans" are taking the time to lambast it but they obviously aren't the fans of this genre they think they are. I thought maybe the onslaught of torture/gore porn that has sullied the horror/slasher genre over the last decade or so could be to blame. Seems if you aren't dissecting the inners of victims over a 2 hour blood fest it's not considered "horror" by these folks anymore. Sad really that they can no longer enjoy real horror but only respond to visceral gore and malingering torture.

Now on to this film, having and loving the first two, I found this, despite it being a slight departure from classic slasher to survival slasher, AMAZING. Now realize I've got about 1100 dvd/blurays in my physical collection so far, 50% at least of which are horror/slasher variants. I found this film so satisfying in its defiance of expected tropes. In a classic slasher I've always expected the "core victim pool" to contain 1 or 2 smart characters and the rest cannon fodder meant to attain the eye-rolls and OMGs of us viewers in the "That was such a stupid move" department, it's expected. This movie gives you NONE of those and I'm so grateful. I found it such a joy to see a horror movie in which (Let's take "Final Girl" Amy Steel from Friday the 13th Part 2 as example) we got an ENTIRE core victim group (CVG) of Amy Steels. Though the backstory of our killer is short and I wish there had been more, it certainly explained the root of the problem to my satisfaction.

As I stated, this movie ventured into survival horror quite a bit, and I was astounded as how much I was rooting for EVERY member of the CVG, no "Killed by stupidity" here, the killer had to WORK for each victim took, and boy did he have to work for it. I don't think I've seen such a CVG of "Refuse to give it up easily" victims all in one movie before. They went through SO much and kept fighting back all the way to an ending that made my YELL out loud in both anger and frustration. (Then I realized that ending was non negotiable, if ended any other way they were have been serious problems with the continuity and ability to BE a sequel to the first 2 films). So despite the ending making me near cry out of "No it can't end this way". I understand there was no other choice as the other 2 movies would not have been possible without this ending. Unlike most typical slashers and survival horror films this film refused to include many tropes, their was no unearned easy kills, there was no "stupid moves" by the CVG, the CVG displayed fight, vigor, relentless will to survive and really did everything they could think of, (And that I could think of) to get out of the mess they were in. This both surprised me and excited me. This killer and his lack of feelings/emotion seemed particularly brutal to me, and yes, this movie lacked drawn out torture or sadomasochistic undertones. Yet it did have some gore, just enough to make it work.

So in conclusion, and without spoilers, this film is EXTREMLY mistreated in this review section, and those negs (I see right through you), should go back and put Saw and Chainsaw massacre on their players on repeat and chill out, because you obviously are one of those who have been completely drained of the REAL definition of horror films, especially where slashers or survival horror goes. If you are a fan of either of those genres (Slasher, Survival horror) you should find a way to see this. It's a real shame this film has NO official release with English Dubs or English Subs. You will have to download an English subbed version from where ever you can find it on the internet. There are places you can watch that version (The English subs have been added post production and are not found on any official dvd/blurray). Which is a real shame. But if you can find it to watch, do so, it's a GREAT film for Slasher/Survival Horror fans.

A Truly Uninspired Exercise in the Genre

[TwistedContent · 4/10 · 4 December 2020]

The "Cold Prey" franchise is Norway's fine showcase in the slasher genre, in the best mainstream horror traditions of the 2000's. I genuinely miss these type of movies, what followed after TCM remake and Wrong Turn in 2003, and endured till around 2010-2012, though with less great examples than the average or bad ones. The first two installments in the "Fritt Vilt" franchise proved to be, if not orginal, then fun, violent, tight, with good action, style and a decent scream queen, all's good. Years later, as the winter starts showing its face, I finally turned to its prequel, "Cold Prey 3", previously being kept away by the pile of underwhelming opinions. It's without a doubt a sizable step down, down in the cinematic flatlands.

It's not like the story of "Cold Prey" 1&2 was something unheard of or more in-depth than Your average slasher, but the third part really manages to be far more void of any real substance, providing truly paper-thin plot, made feel even worse on the background that this is a prequel, meaning, it should've at least aspired to give us a half-interesting story behind the psychopathic killer. Plot is shallow, slow and predictable all the way up to the credits. Instead of an invested prequel we get a weak, uninspired copy of the average American slasher flick at that time. Any investment in the characters of a highly cliché group of friends is little, boring and fails to raise sympathies. Quite often, especially in horror, the lack of depth, emotion and substance is tried to be compensated with audiovisual flair, style, gore, suspense and atmosphere. Sadly, "Cold Prey 3" achieves more frustration than enjoyment in all things aesthetical. Half of the movie consists of cat & mouse games, chasing, hiding, most of it executed with minimal tension and excitement. Tedious is the word. Next up we are all at least anticipating those gory, crazy kills, of which there are none, as all the deaths are really uninspired and mostly cinematographed using close-ups and shaky cam. Lastly, it was a lot less wintery movie than I expected.

"Cold Prey 3" at the first glance is seemingly an alright slasher, having decent actors, production design and a visual aura that didn't make a cheap first impression, but something, a lot, has went wrong or lazy, and the final product is an uninspired, tepid horror with absolutely nothing creative to offer. It did remind me of another horror film called "Rovdyr" or "Manhunt", which came out two years prior, in 2008, and it's also Norwegian, also slasher and has almost all the same flaws... My rating: 4/10. For reference, I rated the first two movies 7/10.

The worst prequel

[tun-11307 · 3/10 · 15 March 2021]

Since cold prey 1 and 2 have been the best of slasher movies and my favourite of all time, I was glad when I see the third one. But this movie was a total waste of time and worst. I give rating 3 for the 10 minutes of the movie.

Decent story, but a dissappointment

[Larsii90 · 5/10 · 5 April 2021]

This is just an uneccessary and frustrating prequel. The story itself works in my opinion, but it never manage to create the same scares as the first two films.

First, a lot of the action happens at daytime, which just isn't as scary as nighttime up on the mountain. It also looses some of its appeal when they exhange the winter setting to spring/summer/fall in the woods.

The characters are mostly terrible. No character development and insanely stupid and illogical, which we see in all the movies. The lead girl is probably the best part, but the overall writing makes it impossible for any character to win because they constantly do the most illogical or stupid thing they can do, which often gets them killed our caught by the killer. So many times they could have escaped, but since it's a horror movie the writers just wouldn't let them. The ending is probably the worst offender...

A dissappointing ending to an otherwise pretty good horror film series.

They are humans. They are not animals.

[nogodnomasters · 5/10 · 18 September 2017]

The film starts out in Jotunheimen, Norway 1976 where we watch the "little freak" be abused by his father. He eventually kills his parents and is raised by his uncle (?) but is believed dead. Twelve years later a group of young adults go hiking and camping in this area and you can predict the rest.

This is a prequel to this "Jason of the North" series, like "Wrong Turn 4," but not as good. The people I thought would be the last to die go first. Weapons include guns, traps, arrows, and various farm implements. This was basically a "me too" slasher with subtitles. The story line at IMDb is too long.

Guide: F-word. No sex. Brief nudity. Trivia: According to Billboard, Kim Wilde's cover song, "You Keep Me Hanging On" was at the top of Norway's chart for the first 10 weeks of 1987.

Not Terrible, But Not As Good As First Two

[tdwillis-26273 · 5/10 · 20 May 2017]

Different writers, different director, and different actors, then from the first two Cold Prey films. It was a noble attempt, and hard acts to follow. It wasn't terrible, by any means, but it wasn't as well done as the previous two movies. In the second film, it is alluded to that little boy, Gunnar (who would grow up to be the killer)had been involved in a rash of mutilating and mass killing animals. And that was why the parents attempted to solve the problem, by killing the child. Not the greatest of motivations, but okay, it made sense. In THIS movie, it shows the parents being cruel. The local cops estranged brother Jon, shown cutting into a cat, is all of a sudden now the one possibly involved in the animal abuses. Why they even added this character only muddled things up for me. The score appropriate if not a bit unforgettable. Subtitles not as good either. Misspelling, sentences that didn't make sense,translations not well done.(ie: "Does anyone have mosquito spray?" answer "I just took my game with me." (Bad screenplay,or bad translation, Im not sure) This movie has the characters doing stupid things for no reason, just to force an encounter with the killer. So typical of low quality slasher films. Since the setting is in the outdoors, and so much room to run, it doesn't create the amount of tension as the first two movies. Gorgeous country tho!! The acting was well enough done. Although it took quite a bit of time with the characters getting to know them, which I appreciated in the first movies, these characters weren't as likable. I couldn't tell you exactly what the difference was, but the endearing character qualities of the first two was missing in this one. No twists or surprises. Special effects blood etc, were well done and realistic.Pace drawn out and slow. And still Better then many movies in this genre.