CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
4.9/10
3.3 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Con el trasfondo de espeluznantes asesinatos y secuestros de niños, un clan de salvajes caníbales que asola la costa noreste desde 1858, persigue a una familia desprevenida y a su inocente b... Leer todoCon el trasfondo de espeluznantes asesinatos y secuestros de niños, un clan de salvajes caníbales que asola la costa noreste desde 1858, persigue a una familia desprevenida y a su inocente bebé.Con el trasfondo de espeluznantes asesinatos y secuestros de niños, un clan de salvajes caníbales que asola la costa noreste desde 1858, persigue a una familia desprevenida y a su inocente bebé.
Stephen Anthony Grey
- First Stolen
- (as Stephen Grey)
John Kochaney
- Cave Baby
- (as John Kochahney)
Jack Ketchum
- Max Joseph
- (as Dallas Mayr)
Emma Elizabeth Messing
- Baby Melissa
- (as Emma Messing)
Opiniones destacadas
This is probably how a film by Ed Wood would look nowadays, if he would have made his films at modern standards! Not that there are many technical mistakes, but it takes about 20 minutes to get used to the wooden-handed style of direction and poor acting. If you can stand through that so far, and don't mind very dumb policemen in a movie, the film actually delivers enough gory scenes which might be quite enjoyable for fans of the genre.
Funny was that the Japanese DVD had subtitles for the dialogs between the cannibals, I doubt that there are some in the original version.
Except the taboo of the involvement of children, this film based on Jack Ketchum's novel lacks the intensity of "The Girl Next Door" which I liked much better!
Funny was that the Japanese DVD had subtitles for the dialogs between the cannibals, I doubt that there are some in the original version.
Except the taboo of the involvement of children, this film based on Jack Ketchum's novel lacks the intensity of "The Girl Next Door" which I liked much better!
I hope Ketchum's book is better than this laughable cinematic yarn about a tribe of cannibals living in the Northeast woods. Periodically, the clan descends on a small town in Maine to grab a bite, if you get my drift. The plot focuses on two women and their children, one of whom is a boy who does his darnedest to stay alive and rescue his mom, and her friend and the friend's baby. Unfortunately, the director either didn't know how to work with the kid or the kid wasn't up to the job. I suspect the former. A minor subplot has the dastardly, out of control husband of the friend driving up to confront his wife about their pending divorce. He of course proves far more dangerous than the cannibals. There's one familiar face in the cast, Art Hindle, a veteran Canadian actor who plays the town sheriff. Otherwise, this is your typical generic cast. The actors playing the cannibals are so bad, it hurts. You wanna see cannibals living in the backwoods, watch WRONG TURN. Those were some scary cannibals! Skip this low-budget mess. If you want to see a Ketchum story handled with more finesse and flair, check out Lucky McKee's THE WOMAN, made a couple of years after OFFSPRING and which may be viewed as a loose followup to it.
Offspring first? What about Off Season? Well, I've read on the Offspring message board that the reason why Offspring was chosen for film before Off Season is because of some rights issue. There were probably a couple skirts who were not being paid as much as the hard-working durable men, so they made a fuss. Eh, whatever.
But enough of that garbage, let me tell you a little something about Offspring, the latest Jack Ketchum work brought to celluloid. Well, it wasn't much. Actually it's as average as average gets.
The flick revolves around the.....what's the word...ya know, children, er, no....products....ehhh. Offspring revolves around the...leftover brood (that works!) from Off Season and these rabid savages aren't done hassling the surrounding community. This go around the young savages have this idea that a regular baby will help them somehow. So that's the target while they bite, chomp and stab everyone they can. I really didn't see the logic there since they had their own baby, but I think they mentioned something about that theirs was cursed or haunted. I don't really remember as I was focusing more on the the ridiculous acting by the savages. Roooaaaarr!! So yep, it's basically a fight for your life type flick. Which is fine by me.
My issue isn't with the story. It's with just how plain old uninspiring it all felt. When it comes down to awesome horror writers, Mr. Ketchum is the man. He writes some awesome stuff. But almost all of his flicks have been severely lacking, with Red being the best. And this is no different. The acting is really just so damn noticeable. It's just flat-out amateur. It's not awful in the sense that you hate the movie because of it, but it is at times cringe worthy.
And what's most strange about this film is that Ketchum wrote the screenplay. And by God, I can't tell if it's just the amateur acting that makes the writing seem poor, or it's the writing itself. The more I think about Offspring the more I'm thinking the actors aren't to blame. Sure they stunk, but I hate to say it but Ketchum's screenplay writing isn't up to snuff. I also throw a lot of the blame on the director as well.
Even though I say the movie isn't anything special, cause it ain't, but it's not totally a mess either. There's some pretty brutal violence on display. And there's even some nudity to boot. I'm also a fan (sucker) of the wilderness type setting, and this has a cave setting, a beach setting, forest setting.....so it looks nice.
But for all the child violence scenes that gives you that quick moment of joy, there's that scene of chit-chat that makes you roll your eyes. The flick is as average as it gets, but at the same time it's still a Jack Ketchum movie, and that's reason enough to watch it.
But enough of that garbage, let me tell you a little something about Offspring, the latest Jack Ketchum work brought to celluloid. Well, it wasn't much. Actually it's as average as average gets.
The flick revolves around the.....what's the word...ya know, children, er, no....products....ehhh. Offspring revolves around the...leftover brood (that works!) from Off Season and these rabid savages aren't done hassling the surrounding community. This go around the young savages have this idea that a regular baby will help them somehow. So that's the target while they bite, chomp and stab everyone they can. I really didn't see the logic there since they had their own baby, but I think they mentioned something about that theirs was cursed or haunted. I don't really remember as I was focusing more on the the ridiculous acting by the savages. Roooaaaarr!! So yep, it's basically a fight for your life type flick. Which is fine by me.
My issue isn't with the story. It's with just how plain old uninspiring it all felt. When it comes down to awesome horror writers, Mr. Ketchum is the man. He writes some awesome stuff. But almost all of his flicks have been severely lacking, with Red being the best. And this is no different. The acting is really just so damn noticeable. It's just flat-out amateur. It's not awful in the sense that you hate the movie because of it, but it is at times cringe worthy.
And what's most strange about this film is that Ketchum wrote the screenplay. And by God, I can't tell if it's just the amateur acting that makes the writing seem poor, or it's the writing itself. The more I think about Offspring the more I'm thinking the actors aren't to blame. Sure they stunk, but I hate to say it but Ketchum's screenplay writing isn't up to snuff. I also throw a lot of the blame on the director as well.
Even though I say the movie isn't anything special, cause it ain't, but it's not totally a mess either. There's some pretty brutal violence on display. And there's even some nudity to boot. I'm also a fan (sucker) of the wilderness type setting, and this has a cave setting, a beach setting, forest setting.....so it looks nice.
But for all the child violence scenes that gives you that quick moment of joy, there's that scene of chit-chat that makes you roll your eyes. The flick is as average as it gets, but at the same time it's still a Jack Ketchum movie, and that's reason enough to watch it.
I was going to say that this film was lazy and incompetent independent film-making at its worst. I keep trying to make this point; low budgets needn't matter, and we don't mind the cheap special effects and the limited sets if the film is made with passion and conviction. It doesn't cost anything to get the plot right; just imagination and attention to detail. But that's exactly what this film seems to lack.
An update of the Scottish Sawney Beane legend and transplanting to Maine and the Canadian coast, it has some promising ideas and a couple of effective sequences, but it fails to establish them or develop them properly. What's with the lighthouse keeper? We get a glimpse of a newspaper clipping while the opening credits roll, and one of the characters makes a brief reference during the film, but this history deserved telling properly, even if only narrated by one of the characters, and could have added real mythic power to the plot. But it appears the film-makers just couldn't be bothered.
And then 76 minutes later, barely achieving the minimum respectable length for a feature film, it comes to an abrupt end, with several characters and plot lines unresolved. Please no, don't tell me you're leaving the door open for a sequel. (Adopt appropriate gravelly voice: Offspring 2 – the new generation!) In between, there's a load of confused stumbling around in night-time woods or on stretches of beach that look nothing like the earlier panoramic daytime shots we had of the coastline.
I was going to say all this, but then I glanced up at the technical information in this IMDb entry. 100 minutes, it says. A hundred! But my UK rented copy was only 76 minutes; both the sleeve and the DVD timer confirm it. That's a quarter of the film gone! No wonder the plot seems sketchy, and you can't follow what's happening.
It is entirely incomprehensible. It carries a UK 18 certificate, which is the most serious apart from the 18Rs that can only be bought from licensed sex shops, and I don't imagine they have anything in them that can't be seen for free on the internet. What on earth can the UK censors have found that required 24 minutes of cuts? If it really was originally 100 mins I frankly don't see what the point of releasing the film like this is. At the very least, this review stands as a warning to UK viewers; check the length. If it's the 76 minute version I saw, I'm certainly not recommending it.
Edit: Barely a couple of weeks after posting this, I read in my newspaper that "The Serbian Film" had received between four and five minutes of cuts at the hands of the UK censor, and that this made it the most cut UK film for sixteen years. If that's so, then I was wrong to blame the cut from 100 to 76 minutes on the censor. This makes it all the more baffling. Why would you voluntarily cut your own film to such a skimpy dog's dinner? In any case, it doesn't change my recommendation (or lack of it): just the attribution of blame.
An update of the Scottish Sawney Beane legend and transplanting to Maine and the Canadian coast, it has some promising ideas and a couple of effective sequences, but it fails to establish them or develop them properly. What's with the lighthouse keeper? We get a glimpse of a newspaper clipping while the opening credits roll, and one of the characters makes a brief reference during the film, but this history deserved telling properly, even if only narrated by one of the characters, and could have added real mythic power to the plot. But it appears the film-makers just couldn't be bothered.
And then 76 minutes later, barely achieving the minimum respectable length for a feature film, it comes to an abrupt end, with several characters and plot lines unresolved. Please no, don't tell me you're leaving the door open for a sequel. (Adopt appropriate gravelly voice: Offspring 2 – the new generation!) In between, there's a load of confused stumbling around in night-time woods or on stretches of beach that look nothing like the earlier panoramic daytime shots we had of the coastline.
I was going to say all this, but then I glanced up at the technical information in this IMDb entry. 100 minutes, it says. A hundred! But my UK rented copy was only 76 minutes; both the sleeve and the DVD timer confirm it. That's a quarter of the film gone! No wonder the plot seems sketchy, and you can't follow what's happening.
It is entirely incomprehensible. It carries a UK 18 certificate, which is the most serious apart from the 18Rs that can only be bought from licensed sex shops, and I don't imagine they have anything in them that can't be seen for free on the internet. What on earth can the UK censors have found that required 24 minutes of cuts? If it really was originally 100 mins I frankly don't see what the point of releasing the film like this is. At the very least, this review stands as a warning to UK viewers; check the length. If it's the 76 minute version I saw, I'm certainly not recommending it.
Edit: Barely a couple of weeks after posting this, I read in my newspaper that "The Serbian Film" had received between four and five minutes of cuts at the hands of the UK censor, and that this made it the most cut UK film for sixteen years. If that's so, then I was wrong to blame the cut from 100 to 76 minutes on the censor. This makes it all the more baffling. Why would you voluntarily cut your own film to such a skimpy dog's dinner? In any case, it doesn't change my recommendation (or lack of it): just the attribution of blame.
Not completely without it's merits, but most of them are buried below a sea of crap. I like Jack Ketchum, his stories do have an extra something. The script is let down by some poor acting and hilariously awkward moments that just don't fit. You can set up a character as a slimeball without such a heavy handed pervert/hitchhiker scene. The acting from the offspring/wild people is comic at best. One boy jumps into shot going "Hee hee hee", like some pantomime witch. The gore is done rather well, and there were nice parts, such as the first kill. It made a nice and chilling change to see a scene not played for jumps, but for the awkward silence. Perhaps worth a watch, as it is short.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaThe movie has two sequels revolving around the character of "The Woman", La prisionera (2011) and Darlin' (2019). Pollyanna McIntosh reprises the character in both sequels and even wrote and directed the third installment.
- ErroresAlthough the setting is to be around Dead River, Maine (the characters point out the region around Machias), the scene where the police and former policeman/investigator George are discussing the whereabouts of the killers, the police cars in the scene are a sheriff's vehicle and a clearly marked Michigan police car - complete with the lower and upper peninsulas displayed on the front quarter panel.
- ConexionesFollowed by La prisionera (2011)
- Bandas sonorasMe and My Horse
Music by Ryan Shore
Lyrics by Andrew van den Houten
Performed by Andrew van den Houten and Ryan Shore
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Offspring?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 19 minutos
- Color
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.78 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
By what name was Offspring (2009) officially released in India in English?
Responda