Rene Perez packs a lot in this multilayered hybrid horror. There are elements of "not without my daughter" story points, dark web inspired "games madmen play" evilness and traditional slasher carnage. Where a lot of directors fail to maintain this level of storytelling, Perez manages to hold control and really bring the vision to life. The film isn't perfect, some aspects drag on the crescendoing energy, but so much more works wonderfully.
The elements of "Cry Havoc" that I didn't get into are few. The film starts off with a bloody bang that really sets the tone and let's you know what to expect. However the introduction of the story that deals with a sort of dark web investigative aspect seems a bit over dramatic and caricature. Honestly, I believe that was the only real problem I had with the film. The bulk of the film is a joyful reign of blood.
The horror elements in "Cry Havoc" are a wonderful reminder of what has always made slasher movies so great. The kills are full on visceral moments filled with blood splatter all done using practical effects. The masked unstoppable killing machine is formidable, memorable and intimidating. A cross between Leatherface and Jason Voorhees.
Overall "Cry Havoc" is a fun slasher that both entertains and excited. There is some slight drag in the storytelling were exposition and dialog is concerned. However it is minor considering how much of the film is filled with action and carnage. A few characters seem too contrived but for the most part this film has too many gory death scenes not to enjoy. Definitely check it out.
"Human Zoo" has a pretty cool concept but somehow the film loses the ability to manifest Seymore's vision. The story starts out by really dragging on the runtime with pointless character introduction and "faux contestant intros" which could have been sped along to allow for more development of the actual reality show story. Plus choosing a solitary confinement theme where everything is dependent upon the actors ability to portray an authentic psychological conflict and deep emotional outburst on a level that will connect with audiences is a big risk.
In this risky reality show concept a lot of the film becomes encumbered by clunky improvisational melodrama that very few in the cast seem capable to project convincingly. Still there are a few stand out actors who seem to have a grasp on what is being asked of them and really sell their characters. Those were the moments I really got into the story. Plus about 50 minutes in it becomes clear what the true goal of this social experiment really is meant to be.
As far as horror elements, there is no real aspects of risk/reward that would allow for true suspense. There are deaths but they fall a bit flat because there is no build up and no real feeling of anxiety that holds you to the scenes of death to allow any sympathy for the characters. Mostly it all just plays out like actor sizzle reels. "Human Zoo" falls short of expectations but as always check it out for yourself. Just go in forwarned.
I have to say, I am on the fence about this one. The film is a standard horror film that stays within traditional horror tropes. It is a little to familiar, with a lot of the material having been seen and done before. And yet, it the cinematography is good, it taps into that comfortable horror styled atmosphere, and it offers a somewhat memorable baddie in Sister Monday.
With "A Nun's Curse" I think my biggest complaint is just how long it takes before anything significant happens. For the first 40 or so minutes it is filled with too much dramatic dialog, exposition and melodrama that really eats into the runtime. But from there on things get somewhat interesting and the story transitions into a full on horror story. Again, the atmosphere is cool. I found myself really starting to get into.
The horror elements are pretty well done. There is some stereotypical paranormal styled moments that are your standard gimmicks used. The best part is that the kills are done with practical effects that look good. The down side that the time starts running out on the film so the kills seem rushed.
Overall, as much as I wanted to really like "A Nun's Curse" there was just more that I didn't like. I enjoyed Felissa Rose as Sister Monday but it takes too long to get her on screen. There is a "surprise" twist to the ending that will become clear before it is intended to, but it is a cool one. Unfortunately instead of ending the film there the story goes for another, weaker ending that kinda ruins things. As always check it out but don't expect much. It has some moments that are interesting, but not everyone will enjoy this one.
The story about the leprechaun is probably the longest of the two shorts that make up the body of the film. It is a cute story, it isn't really scary but it has a very creepy atmosphere that permeates the story. It does seem to take longer than necessary to tell, and the horror elements are kinda minimal. Still the killer leprechaun doll used is creepy as it gets and it ends with the classic twisted ending we all love about classic anthology series.
The second of the stories deals with an evil porcelain doll that has a jealous streak fed by the demonic. It is a pretty familiar tale, but still it is told nicely. It is a bit shorter than the first and there is a little bit more horror in this one. Mostly paranormal-esque gimmicks and occult themes toward the end. I was crazy about the choice of voice for the Patty doll but she looks evil. Plus the story had another wicked little ending.
The wraparound is my favorite story. It is classic "Creepshow" style storytelling. The first half plays as your basic set up for the two middle stories, but it starts out with a hint of domestic violence. The second half is the fun part, and although it is short it has the most horror in the anthology. Plus a clown doll that goes all demony is always a treat.
Overall "Evil Little Things" is a cute horror anthology. I do enjoy a bit more horror in the films, but I did appreciate the throwback feel of the stories. Plus I am a sucker for evil, creepy doll movies. "Evil Little Things" will find a fan base, it is pretty PG so hardcore splatter/gore fans may not get it, but check it out and decide for yourself.
"Among Them" is layered with crime thriller bromide, faux paranormal teases, and character complexity that is as confusing as it is engaging. The story keeps you guessing from the moment the cast decide to hold up in a very disturbing locale. The film starts off almost benign, a bank robbery sends criminals on the run, but it doesn't take too long to realize that there is more going on.
The acting is a bit stiff, the cast seems committed to the characters, but also feel slightly reserved in portraying them. That being said, I did find the characters fully fleshed out and relatable. "Among Them" does start out with a slow pace but midway things pick up and the film pulls you in. But like I said, the story is super complex and slightly confusing. It keeps you wondering what is really going on right until the end.
The action and horror elements are typical paranormal-esque gimmicks that may or may not be all in the characters' minds. It all is very entertaining and the overall concept is both familiar and yet somewhat original. The closest film I can compare this too is "Soul Survivor", but that may not really be accurate. Like I said, the film kept me guessing.
Overall "Among Them" is a well acted, entertaining film. I am not 100% sold on the ending but kind of think I know what Barry was going for. It will be up to individual viewers to decide whether or not "Among Them" is a film to like. The faux paranormal moments are typical and the story does get a bit muddled toward the end. Still I found a lot about the film entertaining.
"For Jennifer" technically is a sequel to the 2013 jaw-clinching intense horror "To Jennifer", but it is meta enough to stand independently- in case you haven't seen the aforementioned flick. Told in a mock documentary style the story keeps with the original concept of extreme obsession that leads to a deadly end. This time the obsession is making a horror movie based on a faux film about the original film that went horribly wrong.
No personally, even though I enjoyed this film, it didn't have that dark, nightmarish realism that "To Jennifer" had. This is a good sequel in the sense that the narrative moves the franchise forward, creates a new story line, and possibly sets things up for more sequels. There is more twisted humor in "For Jennifer" that reminds me of later 80's horror .
The acting is pretty decent. The cast seem to know there characters and feel authentic. And like I said earlier, the story is fresh enough that it moves things in the franchise forward. That doesn't mean that the concept is totally original because a lot of the concept has been done before in found footage/mockumentary format. Still it is done well enough that it is entertaining.
The horror elements in "For Jennifer" comes later in the film but the body count rises in a bloody gory finally. The film's atmosphere is typical documentary style build up, creating an anticipation. Whether or not the playoff is worth it will depend on individual viewers. I personally thought it was worth the wait and since the practical effects were done with quality I enjoyed the last act a lot. "For Jennifer" is worth the watch, it isn't "To Jennifer" but it isn't really trying to be.
"Trespassing" is an impressive, entertaining short film with plenty of story. The film is almost 40 minutes long, and for me personally, I felt as though I watched a feature length thriller. I have followed Stacy's work and can honestly say that this film shows markable improvement. "Trespassing" feels and looks elevated from the standard low-budget fare.
The acting is quality, and for the most part each actor brought these ill-fated characters to life effortlessly. The cinematography was great, there was an element of underground filmmaking style that helped to boost the indie aspect. Plus the story takes place in on creepy AF location. Throw in some epic kill scenes with quality practical effects and a wicked ending and "Trespassing"is one worth watching.
"Abominable" is really low budget and a lot of the continuity seems muddled with poor production choices. I never like to come out and say a movie is bad, A lot of work and heart goes into movie making, even the low budget projects so I feel every film deserves a once over.
With this one, it was hard to get into the story, and the story isn't a bad one. A science team seeking to uncover the miracles of a special plant, reminiscent of the classic "Werewolf Of London". A yeti that is guarding the location and vicious enough to kill any and all who trespass. It is a cool story. Unfortunately there is just a lot that goes wrong.
Poor editing, the sound effects, and really bad shots of the creature that shows the suit is way to big for the actor wearing it. Now minus the "gamer" level CGI, I do give props to some decent practical effects moments. But there just isn't enough going on in "Abominable" that works out right.
The story is a less than straightforward thriller that starts off with cool artistic shots of apparent tragedy. It really opens up to the more tension based thriller that it is soon there after. The concept isn't new, and "Cry For The Bad Man" clearly pays tribute to early 70's grindhouse. Most of what the film showcases is classic "woman versus bad man" suspense mixed with a lot of carnage.
The acting isn't stellar, but it maintains a strong enough presence to create recognizable characters, if not cliche, so that the story flows. There isn't a lot of down time or clunkiness to "Cry For The Bad Man". Exposition is minimal, straightforward and substantive. The dialog is short and direct and the overall story arc is entertaining to watch unfold.
The special effects are quality, practical effects and atmospheric suspenseful moments of tension. Shadowy scenes blend with gunfire and bloodshed. All of which is very reminiscent of classic grindhouse. Although "Cry For The Bad Man" isn't at the top of it's game, minor scenes where some characters lose momentum, it is a good, intense, and brutal genre piece worth checking out.
"Getaway" blends traditional survival, backwoods horror and occult themes. The story starts innocent enough with almost clinched breadth. A lot of the premise hangs on pulling out those expected tropes and lulling you into believing you have seen this film before, sure with other characters and a different title. However "Getaway" offers a twist within a twist that really works well, and is wickedly delicious.
The characters are strong, female driven leads that look comfortable and entertaining on screen. The cast give up their craft to these women easily, which makes "Getaway" captivating. The pace of the film is a little too slow burn but so much of the story's suspense rests on a even, tense pace to let dark nature of the situation unfold. For the most part it works, I would have liked a bit more amplitude after the twist begins but the film doesn't really suffer.
The horror elements are mostly atmospheric and sound driven moments of chilling interaction between "predator and prey". There is some kill sequences but mostly the nightmare is a series of subjective situations where protagonists face off with the antagonists. Still the twist reveals all, I don't want to spoil the ending. It is a clever one. Indie horror fans will definitely enjoy this one.
"Dear Guest" is a recognizable trope that remains eerie and modern. As timeless as it is the notion of a unseen force manipulating your life is as chilling as ever. "Dear Guest"manages to capture that fear in a very short amount of time. The story is evenly paced, constant and entertaining. It is reminiscent of The Twilight Zone and Outer Limits stories. Plus "Dear Guest" left me wanting more.
"Dead By Dawn" is a strong low budget thriller with plenty of suspense and thrills. The film starts off dark and with blunt force. It never really relinquishes. There is only a few moments where the story pauses for some character building, but soon the violence begins again.
The acting is better than I expected. The cast seem to understand the characters and feel fully committed. There are a few scenes that waver close to amateurish, but it never really dampens the film's flow. Plus there is a strong female lead that impressively embraces the final girl banner.
The horror is mostly built on dark circumstances, chilling atmosphere, and impending danger. There are some violent, bloody moments that sweeten the horror level. Still, "Dead By Dawn" manages to hold your attention purely on the relatable horrors of domestic violence, home invasion and some true psycho killers. I enjoyed this little indie film more than I thought I would. Check it out.
"HumanPersons" offers a dark, chilling tale that wraps both true crime and urban legend tropes. The film is well written and directed. The characters are portrayed evenly and with conviction. I enjoyed the almost stoic nature of the characters who only interact in reserved masculinity.
That being said, I did find most of the film moved a bit sluggishly. The film started with a strong body horror, chilling opening. However, soon after everything seems to slow down and form into machismo melodrama. There is just too much dialog and exposition revolving around threats, puffed chest pounding and very little action.
Overall "HumanPersons" starts with a great thrilling concept. Unfortunately it gets drowned out by too much talking. The acting is good and even with the cliche archetypes most of the writing is well thought out. Still, for a thriller, this one offered very little thrills. If you want to then check it out - it works as a nice male-driven drama.
"Atomic Apocalypse" falls short of being a strong thriller with heavy drama. It often feels aimless with no clear agenda for the story's path forward. Some moments seem to tap into dark humor that doesn't look intentionally don't. Still, much like the films I mentioned above, "Atomic Apocalypse" has heart, deep emotional awareness and a singular focus, even if the plot isn't that original.
The cast seem carefully chosen and I found the female leads strong and emotive. To me they were the most developed characters in the film. At times the acting did get shakey. Moments when high tension kicks in the acting seems forced. Other characters fail to deliver dialog convincingly at times. Still the story flowed forward due to enough quality moments stringing the plot along.
Special effects are a strong blend of low grade practical choices mixed mostly with "gamer" level CGI. Stuff commonly seen on the Syfy channel. There is a portion of the film dealing with cannibals but not nearly enough attention is to them. Overall "Atomic Apocalypse" will find a fan base and for indie sci-fi fans, but don't go into it with high expectations.
"Rootwood" offers a new crypto baddie in the form of an urban legend surrounding a wood devil. The story is more straightforward typical mockumentary, paranormal exploratory fare. It does break the monotony with some nice third person footage. The concept is intriguing, however the execution of the plot feels a bit messy. Far too much dialog and unnecessary exposition.
The acting has moments of quality, but there are some moments where the cast seem affectively removed from their characters. Still, "Rootwood" has some cool indie film royalty attached to it, which almost forgives the flubs found with the film. I did enjoy the twist, with a cheeky revelation in the final scenes.
The horror leans heavily on a creepy, atmospheric tone, with some cool locations. The night shots are sweet, chilling moments that become the major focal point. I wish more of the film was shot at night. There isn't much in the way of kill sequences, most happen off screen and we never get to enjoy the carnage of the situation. But, the creature concept for the wood devil is awesome and worthy of further exploration.
Overall "Rootwood" misses a lot of momentum as it gets started. To much time is spent building characters that are weighed down by too much dialog and exposition. It takes 55 minutes for anything exciting to happen but what we do get is a spooky urban legend, creepy creature concept, and Felissa Rose. Horror fans of indie, low budget filmmaking should check it out. It has some cool stuff worth watching.
The story is a standard premises with an occult practice leading to so pretty ghosty stuff which terrorizes the cast. It isn't too mundane but it really doesn't raise any stakes, or offer anything new. The dialog is heavy and somewhat long-winded moments of mostly low-pulse drama. Still, the writing is more mature than most of the material found in such films.
The cast give good performances. Some stand out more than others, and there are times that over-stating the moment becomes a thing. That being said, their is some cool scenes as far dramatic, dialog delivery. Unfortunately though this never really leads to any real suspense or thrilling crescendo. The movie misses any opportunity to heighten the excitement level.
The special effects are your standard spook elements. Noises, things moving, and eerie music. There is never really a true since of horror, and even the jump-scare components seem too tame. Overall "Agramon's Gate" never really reaches the horror movie status that the plot suggests. Still as far as movie value, it does well as a psychological melodrama. Check it out if you want but don't go in expecting a scary movie.
The story is a very complex, creative exploration of paranormal activity and psuedo-scientific applications. I say psuedo, but the logic behind this concept could very well be tested in mainstream science. Not all of the material but the basic stuff. "Inner Ghosts" is a good, layered story that mixes practical ghost story themes with more fantastical elements.
The acting is pretty good, the characters are fully developed and relatable. At times it gets a bit too theatrical and overly dramatic, but a story where contact with ghosts in order to test and explore intelligence in an attempt to find real world application isn't meant to play straight. The writing may stretch ones sense of belief but it is well done.
"Inner Ghosts" is atmospheric and filled with all the expected ghosty stuff you expect to see. At times, even with certain characters, the film is very reminiscent of "Insidious", but with a more scientific research edge. The cinematography is great. The real horror parts don't show up till the 50 minute mark. Then the film spirals into more Clive Barker territory.
Overall I have some mixed thoughts towards "Inner Ghosts". I loved the story, very interesting and layered. I thought the acting was strong. I do feel that the film runs a little too long, spends too much time on the melodrama character structure for the first 50 minutes. The last 40 is impactful and hits the horror elements strong, but during the ending the story become confusing, just a bit. Still the film is a strong indie paranormal thriller.
The story is very familiar, a man seeking redemption, forced back into darkness when his violent past comes back to haunt him. There is tragic loss, bloodshed, revenge and a reluctant sidekick. It is a format that has permeated action film and television for decades. "The Mercenary" mirrors it's predecessors but does so spectacularly.
This isn't a genre I seek out, but having gotten hooked into the concept via 'Strike Back', I have come to appreciate quality storytelling in this genre. Johnson's film lacks some of the bigger budget asthetics, but still manages enough drama and climactic arc to capture it's audience. The acting is decent, not stellar but good enough so that you can get into the movie.
The effects blend CGI with more baser practical effects and quality choreography. It is what you expect to see in a action film. It is also very predictable. There isn't anything here that hasn't been seen before, still "The Mercenary" does it right, even on an obviously lower budget. Overall it is an entertaining action film that is worth checking out- if you are into action films.
"Blood Hound" begins a bit sketchy. The throwback noir homage with classic p.i narration over video diary cam work made me a bit apprehensive. But- full disclosure- I am kind of hyper-critical when it comes to found footage story telling. Still I did stick with the film, to give Miller's concept a chance. It is a great story idea, a private eye crossing paths with a very scary group and a situation that is deadly beyond the standard case.
The writing does have some moments of strong suspense and thrilling concepts. However there is a lot of the material that should have been re-evaluated or fleshed out more. The acting is decent, even in scenes that don't flow as smooth as they need to. It does get a little boring waiting for the energy and story to reach a level of suspense that says "horror". It takes nearly 50 minutes.
The story pace does amp up. The darker, scarier aspect of the story is entertaining. Still nothing really manifests to truly qualify as horror. "Blood Hound" does reach decent thriller level story telling. A couple of jump scares worked on me. Overall the film falls somewhat short of expectations, but there is enough here to find an audience. Just suspend disbelief and give yourself over to the found footage choice.
The story is ambitious. Much like "A.I" and 'Humans', "2050" explores the relationship between man and technology. The personal acceptance, social implications and potential conflict. In this film the exploration is between human relationships and advanced artificial intelligence integrated sex bots. And yes there is a slight flippant approach with "battle of the sexes" humor.
I am not sure if "2050" ever lives up to the expectations of the film's creators. The concept, on the surface is a curious topic, one with a valid point. Unfortunately, I felt a definite judgemental vibe from the story's perspective choices. Several of the characters felt shakey, didn't really fit Into the situations offered. Some of the writing seemed to need a bit more development.
Special effects are pretty minimal. The environments seem more now than future. Aside from some ancillary CGI elements peppered in there is no real leap to a sci-fi aspect. I didn't get enough A.I conveyance from the android characters to believe them. All that said, the film is shot nicely. Some of the situational material between the human characters were nice. "2050" has a few cool elements but not enough to make sci-fi futurist fans happy.
"A Rough Draft" manages to be a pretty entertaining, highly conceptual sci-fi story. Much like "Night Watch", the film's big theme is alternate realities, filled with near supernatural characters who have learned to manipulate and control destiny. It is instantly a fascinating concept and begs of intrigue. I found the film interesting from the beginning.
Although "A Rough Draft" suffers similar flaws as "Night Watch", lack of depth in regards to character development and a true human touch, the movie gives us a fun ride with cool characters. The writing does hint at cookie-cutter hyperbole, the cast interact with enough comfort to create engaging story development and drama.
The special effects wag between creative high concept CGI elements and mockbuster aspiration. The film is visually stunning with various Moscows showcasing some exciting possible realities. There is some really memorable scenes that almost brings to mind "Inception" level effects, my favorite involves a Matryoshka doll.
Overall "A Rough Draft" is a very entertaining, highly engaging sci-fi action movie with cool effects and stellar cinematics. It isn't quite as high impact as "Night Watch", but it is a proper effort. Still the film does lack true depth inregards to connecting on a personal level. The characters don't completely feel fully drafted. That being said, the movie is worth watching and should be entertaining to sci-fi fans.
"American Hunt" is really low budget, which isn't a bad thing. What is bad is the total lack of substantive material available. The film kicks off with killers hunting people. There is no thrill to the moment, no atmosphere and little fanfare besides a stereotypical caricature psycho impression. It really let me know what to expect, and what not to expect.
There is a lot that is wrong with "American Hunt". Mostly the fact that the story is only developed in the most surface way. There is no depth or real character development. That being said, I was impressed by several of the cast's performances. The real problem was with the mediocre dialog and the fact that the scenes weren't given enough breadth to fully form.
The horror could have saved it all in this film, and it almost did. Right up till the choices made to pull off the kill sequences. Poor CGI options, ridiculous interpretations of death moments, and an overall lack of restraint from a directorial position makes it impossible to enjoy the horror aspects in "American Hunt".
Overall "American Hunt" is a disappointment. I almost liked it, at times even finding it entertaining. Unfortunately most scenes are hindered by bad editing, poor effects or just a lack of character building. And as I say all this, I have to admit that I found the ending, you know - that final girl moment, satisfying. Right until the silly tease that the story isn't over just yet.
"Blood Bags" had my attention from the title sequence with its solidifying moments of placing a light on real life medical macabre, Gunther's Disease. It is close to the chilling excitement I felt over the inbreeding images teased in the "Wrong Turn" and "Hills Have Eyes" franchises. Plus this film sets up a creepy cool urban legend of day trip urban adventurism gone wrong. It is a clever, well developed concept that hits all the horror tropes without being boring.
The acting is pretty good. A few of the scenes feel a bit over-rehearsed, but the majority of the film feels quality. The cast, though stereotypical, are interesting and fully developed. Plus they are easily relatable personas. I do wish that the "creature" and old man's story would have gone deeper into their history. I feel that desire is purely my own morbid fascination with these two characters. Still there is plenty here to invest in.
The horror is what we come to expect and fully love in quality Italian horror. It feels contemporary and yet pays tribute to classic giallo and shock horror. For some of "Blood Bags" length I kept recalling the thrilling enjoyment I get watching "Cat O' Nine Tails". This film is entertaining, creepy and atmospheric without over exploitation of the gore aspect- which will make shock horror gorehounds happy.
Overall "Blood Bags" is a fun, modern giallo that never rips off it's roots, nor does it become boring. The flaws are minimal and the story is chilling, straightforward horror. For me this film offers a great example of where Italian horror should thrive in modern horror. I think the weakest moment in the film may be at the end, it should have ended with a bit more "shock'n'awe". Still "Blood Bags" is worth checking out. Pay attention to the nice love letter to Argento toward the end of the film- classic.
Not gonna lie, I found "Red Handed" curiously confusing. The film had my attention at first but it didn't take long for that momentum to wane, and soon turn to boredom. In principle the story reads as very interesting. However, the story's arc seems broken, and at times aimless. Not to mention that a lot of this film's plot trajectory is really predictable.
The acting, despite the film's flaws, is pretty tight. The cast is an attractive, mature group (aside from the obvious kid involved). It all does move a little too slow at times. The overall effect feels more of a psychological drama with moments of suspense. A couple of the characters seem to be overstated, and the female characters seem cliche.
The thrills and chills are really minimal. The suspense is mostly muted. "Red Handed" does have moments where the story starts to build up, but before some real adrenaline can kick in, the scene turns to more character based melodrama. Still there is a creepy atmosphere that hangs uneasily over the film.
Overall "Red Handed" offers a mild, mature psychological drama to movie fans. There is suspense, but it is weighed down by characters that feel ancillary, and exposition that seems to go on forever. Still, the film has an attractive cast that can act. Even with no real horror present some thriller fans may wanna check this one out. But horror fans will probably want to pass.
"Animal Among Us" starts out as a classic horror with decent characters, and interesting set-up points. There is a strong push to sell it as a creature feature. Which is done pretty well. Unfortunately, other than a few thrilling moments, the first hour drags, and the energy is almost non-existent. Which is disappointing considering it had an exciting start.
The acting is good. A couple of the characters seem to stall out somewhat, mostly the stereotyping does more to trip up an otherwise straightforward thriller, than they do to advance any story. It is clear these were put in as simple fodder for the killer. Still, there is some nice character interaction, quality acting, and good drama in a lot of the film.
The horror was a bit of a disappointment. There was some good kills that happened in "Animal Among Us" but they happen so quickly that you never get to enjoy those moments. Other than that, the horror elements offer atmospheric scenes of traditional creature horror. Until you get to the last third of the film. A surprise reveal, a horror trope switch off , and then a few more twists just muddle the story.
Overall "Animal Among Us" disappointed me a bit. It had a interesting start, great tease of some indie creature horror, and promise of some classic storytelling. Unfortunately the film isn't what I thought it was going to be, the pace was sketchy, and far too many surprise twists just ruined the entertainment value. It will have its fans, "Animal Among Us" has moments that work, but I have seen this type of gimmick ending done better without hurting the story.