PUNTUACIÓN EN IMDb
3,5/10
1,4 mil
TU PUNTUACIÓN
Añade un argumento en tu idiomaThe Chupacabra is real and four friends will document it! Will they survive?The Chupacabra is real and four friends will document it! Will they survive?The Chupacabra is real and four friends will document it! Will they survive?
Reseñas destacadas
Sometimes you really wish you'd get an extra hour and a half of your life back that you wasted on a film. Perhaps it was my own fault - I could have turned it off, but I didn't. I was holding out hope that something might actually happen. Spoiler - it doesn't.
Back in 1999 'The Blair Witch Project' redefined the 'found footage' genre of horror films. It was a 'mock' documentary about some teenagers who set off into the woods to chart a supernatural myth (and end up falling foul to it). That's a summary of 'The Blair Witch Project,' but it can also be applied exactly to 'Lair of the Beast.'
It's all filmed 'first person' as four youngsters try to get footage of a creature known as the 'chupacabra' who allegedly stalks and drinks goats' blood. You can effectively skip the first half. It's all set-up. I know the film is supposed to be a 'slow burn' and gradually build up the terror, but it's just boring and nothing really happens that you won't be able to pick up midway. The characters, although the actors do their best with what they're given. Are totally forgettable and you won't remember their names, let alone care about their plight.
I liked 'The Blair Witch Project' and that was hardly a rollercoaster from start to finish, so I was willing to give this one the benefit of the doubt, hoping the second half will pick up. It never did. The thing about most 'found footage' movies is that they're cheap to produce, but this one really didn't seem to have anything in the way of budget in terms of special effects, so don't get your hopes up there.
It's just shaky-cam footage of the characters which starts out normal and gradually gets harder to see what's going on as the climax starts to draw closer. If you like found footage films then you'll have seen better. Don't bother with this one. Ironically, I own 'The Blair Witch Project' on DVD. I wish I'd just put that on instead, as I haven't seen it for a while.
Back in 1999 'The Blair Witch Project' redefined the 'found footage' genre of horror films. It was a 'mock' documentary about some teenagers who set off into the woods to chart a supernatural myth (and end up falling foul to it). That's a summary of 'The Blair Witch Project,' but it can also be applied exactly to 'Lair of the Beast.'
It's all filmed 'first person' as four youngsters try to get footage of a creature known as the 'chupacabra' who allegedly stalks and drinks goats' blood. You can effectively skip the first half. It's all set-up. I know the film is supposed to be a 'slow burn' and gradually build up the terror, but it's just boring and nothing really happens that you won't be able to pick up midway. The characters, although the actors do their best with what they're given. Are totally forgettable and you won't remember their names, let alone care about their plight.
I liked 'The Blair Witch Project' and that was hardly a rollercoaster from start to finish, so I was willing to give this one the benefit of the doubt, hoping the second half will pick up. It never did. The thing about most 'found footage' movies is that they're cheap to produce, but this one really didn't seem to have anything in the way of budget in terms of special effects, so don't get your hopes up there.
It's just shaky-cam footage of the characters which starts out normal and gradually gets harder to see what's going on as the climax starts to draw closer. If you like found footage films then you'll have seen better. Don't bother with this one. Ironically, I own 'The Blair Witch Project' on DVD. I wish I'd just put that on instead, as I haven't seen it for a while.
Oh joy, another 'found footage' movie. Yeah, this is exactly what the world of cinema needs, because this genre is oh-so-spectacular. You do notice the sarcasm permeating there, right? It is no secret that I am not a fan of the 'found footage' genre, not at all. I think it is one of the most stupid genres around, and there are very, very few movies in the genre that actually manages to pass off as being a worthwhile movie to watch. They just tend to fall into the same pitfall and turn out overly generic, and once you have seen one, you have essentially seen all.
The story here is about a group of film-makers venturing out into the woods in search of proof that the elusive Chupacabra does exist.
Wait, what? Isn't this exactly like every other 'found footage' movie? Yup, it sure it. Someone ventures out into the wilderness in order to document the existence of some creature, and they end up being hunted and preyed upon by that very creature.
So there was nothing, absolutely nothing new to be seen in the 2016 "Chupacabra Territory" movie.
The acting in the movie was as it has been in virtually every other 'found footage' movie; nothing to be overly impressed with. I am sure that the people here had fun making this 'found footage' movie, but the entertainment value of the movie was almost non-existent.
As for the special effects, well, let's just say that you shouldn't get your hopes up.
The movie is so predictable that you already know how it will end before you press the play button. The movie was so predictable that even a blind man would go "oh no they didn't..."
I am sure that there is an audience out there for these 'found footage' movies, but I would like to be entertained by a movie that has a professional feel to it, not by a movie that I could have filmed myself by bringing my digital video camera out to the woods.
The story here is about a group of film-makers venturing out into the woods in search of proof that the elusive Chupacabra does exist.
Wait, what? Isn't this exactly like every other 'found footage' movie? Yup, it sure it. Someone ventures out into the wilderness in order to document the existence of some creature, and they end up being hunted and preyed upon by that very creature.
So there was nothing, absolutely nothing new to be seen in the 2016 "Chupacabra Territory" movie.
The acting in the movie was as it has been in virtually every other 'found footage' movie; nothing to be overly impressed with. I am sure that the people here had fun making this 'found footage' movie, but the entertainment value of the movie was almost non-existent.
As for the special effects, well, let's just say that you shouldn't get your hopes up.
The movie is so predictable that you already know how it will end before you press the play button. The movie was so predictable that even a blind man would go "oh no they didn't..."
I am sure that there is an audience out there for these 'found footage' movies, but I would like to be entertained by a movie that has a professional feel to it, not by a movie that I could have filmed myself by bringing my digital video camera out to the woods.
Awful acting, mediocre effects and non-sensical character reactions (one second wanting to leave, the next excited, believing in the creature then not) make for a really really terrible movie.
Don't waste your time.
Just finished watching this on prime without reading reviews about it and not knowing anything about the film.
It was so bad, I barely finished it, in fact I had to fast forward some of the movie because it was that bad.
The acting was bad but not horrible.
The dialogue was awful, who in their right mind had the actors who are in their twenties acting like they were sixteen or younger.
The script writer should never attempt another movie script again and the director should take lessons.
Then we had the so called sex scenes why? I am not prude in any means or form but in this movie they had women who are to old to know better, flashing their breasts at the screen and going topless for no reason at all, now I do t mind that but in this film it did t make sense.
After about twenty thirty minutes the film becomes such a blur of activity you don't have a clue what the heck is going on.
There is so much shouting and running about you get lost as to what is goi g on but then about ten minutes later you don't really care.
Don't bother with this film it could put you off found footage movies for good.
It was so bad, I barely finished it, in fact I had to fast forward some of the movie because it was that bad.
The acting was bad but not horrible.
The dialogue was awful, who in their right mind had the actors who are in their twenties acting like they were sixteen or younger.
The script writer should never attempt another movie script again and the director should take lessons.
Then we had the so called sex scenes why? I am not prude in any means or form but in this movie they had women who are to old to know better, flashing their breasts at the screen and going topless for no reason at all, now I do t mind that but in this film it did t make sense.
After about twenty thirty minutes the film becomes such a blur of activity you don't have a clue what the heck is going on.
There is so much shouting and running about you get lost as to what is goi g on but then about ten minutes later you don't really care.
Don't bother with this film it could put you off found footage movies for good.
Well..this movie is just a waste. Even chupacabra will die after watching this cancer!! movie is full of bad screenplay, annoying screams, mindless vulgarity. Well I won't even compare this movie with high-school project documentary.Do not waste worthy 100 mins of your life!
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y añadir a tu lista para recibir recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Sitio oficial
- Títulos en diferentes países
- Lair of the Beast
- Localizaciones del rodaje
- Empresas productoras
- Ver más compañías en los créditos en IMDbPro
- Duración1 hora 34 minutos
- Color
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.78 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugerir un cambio o añadir el contenido que falta
Principal laguna de datos
By what name was Chupacabra Territory (2016) officially released in Canada in English?
Responde