Cold Skin - Insel der Kreaturen

I was drawn to see this movie after reading a brief plot synopsis which had a clear Lovecraftian horror theme (et in the 20's an isolated lighthouse attacked by creatures from the sea). And though this wasn't exactly the movie I wanted it to be, I was satisfied with it. Firstly, this movie is extremely well-made and acted. The location is simply wonderful. I would've preferred the sea creatures to be more grotesque but that wasn't what they were aiming for. This film doesn't explain everything which leaves you thinking about it which works well in this case. I enjoyed too which leads the viewer to wonder just how long the lighthouse keeper had been there and who the original lighthouse keeper was. Not surprisingly, this movie is based on a rather popular foreign novel which received a bit of praise and attention which it apparently is quite faithful to.

Cold Skin is quite the original unique little tale, but ultimately it fails to deliver on its promises.

It tells the story of a military intelligence man set to do a scientific study on a remote island for a year replacing an existing gentleman. There is nobody on the island bar one, a disgruntled insane from isolation man named Gruner. As night falls he learns that the island holds a terrible secret.

Arguably a "Creature feature" this horror stars the excellent British veteran Ray Stevenson and was made by French/Spanish studios. I'm very glad I came across it because despite its flaws it's quite remarkable, it was nice to find a movie this original and visually pleasing considering that it's not a mega budget film.

The concept is outstanding, the delivery however is very mixed. They manage to make it all look good and Stevenson is on form as usual however the writing is really messy and the film simply should have flowed better.

When the credits rolled I was saddened by the wasted potential here, on paper it had the makings of a fantastic feature but the end result here is something that loses steam at around the 2/3 mark and hits you with a very uninspired ending.

Well worth a watch simply to marvel over what it does have to offer but it's a fine example of a ball being dropped by all involved.

The Good:

Solid concept

Looks great

Ray Stevenson

The Bad:

Loses steam

Wasted potential

Weak finale

This film will not be for everyone (hence the disappointing low rating). For starters, it's almost an exact adaptation from the Spanish (Barcelona, Spain) award wining debut novel (translated to 37 languages) by Albert Sánchez Piñol, and directed almost perfectly by Frenchman Xavier Gens.

It is not your typical big-screen huge budget Hollywood action blockbuster with A-list actors, and thus should not be compared (as other reviews have) to The Shape of Water. Instead, it's an artistic piece shot extremely well that was written by a Spaniard and presented by a Frenchman - definitely no Hollywood here.

The directing, cinematography, landscape, vfx/sfx and score where outstanding - near perfect. The actors (never heard of either) performed exceptionally well and were very convincing.

Yes, there were some avoidable obvious plot issues, which was disappointing considering how great the rest of the production was. However I'm thinking that it was an editing issue and cutting scenes to get the length down to 108 mins, of which considering the slow pace, I'd be complaining on the length, yet it didn't feel that long. It could also be a screenplay adaptation issue from the two novice writers - they did squeeze in as much as they could from the novel, but maybe should have cut certain scenes shorter to fill in the blanks.

I've read some reviewers had questions about certain things that happened. Some of those issue are answered if you stop and think why this happened and/or dig a little deeper into the meaning. Others, you will need to read the book. I did, and have nothing to question, but do understand how others who didn't read the book would have questions.

A very impressive film, unlike any other I have seen, and needs to be appreciated for what it is, and how is was shown. Would I recommend it or see it again? Absolutely. Had better screenwriters adapted the novel, this would have been a perfect 10/10. But still is a well deserved 8.5 rounded up to a 9/10 from me.

The story is somewhat interesting and keeps one's attention. But the strongest attribute of this film is the casting of two very capable British actors, David Oakes and Ray Stevenson, in the main roles. I had only seen Oakes play unlikable characters before, while Stevenson has usually been in more positive roles.

The cinematography, which features picturesque scenes of the isolated island and the surrounding ocean, is also quite good.

The film is visually appealing, the acting is good and when it touches on philosophical issues here and there, it avoids being too hammy. The plot however is rather thin and has some holes. All in all, it could have been fleshed out more, together with the characters.