Un homme un peu paumé et sans méfiance, dans un bled perdu et délabré, voit sa vie bouleversée lorsqu'une magnifique inconnue franchit la porte du bar local.Un homme un peu paumé et sans méfiance, dans un bled perdu et délabré, voit sa vie bouleversée lorsqu'une magnifique inconnue franchit la porte du bar local.Un homme un peu paumé et sans méfiance, dans un bled perdu et délabré, voit sa vie bouleversée lorsqu'une magnifique inconnue franchit la porte du bar local.
Matthew C. Temple
- Frat Boy #1
- (as Matthew Temple)
Christopher Tarantino
- Frat Boy #2
- (as Chris Tarantino)
Commentaire en vedette
When I stumbled upon this 2009 horror movie titled "Animals", by random chance here in 2024, I picked it up on account of it being a horror movie that I had never seen, much less actually ever heard about. And given my life-long romance with the horror genre, of course I needed no persuasion to sit down and watch what director Douglas Aarniokoski had to offer.
The storyline put together cy Craig Spector was pretty straightforward and actually had some good parts to it. However, it was somewhat diluted and tainted by an excessive amount of nudity and sex scenes. Sure, I get the aspect of the animalistic side to the movie, with becoming a beast and all, but I have to say that writer Craig Spector was just paying too much attention to sexual scenes and nudity. While I am certainly no prude, then I just don't really want to waste my time by watching nudity and sex scenes in a movie. I am watching it to be entertained by a story, not by carnal scenes.
I was under the impression that it was a werewolf movie, but turns out that it wasn't. And that was actually a nice surprise, as it transcended being merely another werewolf flick in the bunch.
Of the entire cast ensemble, I was only familiar with Marc Blucas and Naveen Andrews. It should be noted that the acting performances in the movie were fair.
There were a couple of rather brutally violent scenes with some gory results. And as a gorehound and a life-long fan of horror movies, then that really spruced up the movie for me. Thumbs up for that accomplishment.
The effects in the movie are fair. Sure, you will not be blown away or bedazzled, but the effects served their purpose in the movie. However, I don't really understand why the scenes with the creatures had to be blurry and had smoke in them. For suspense? Perhaps. Probably to save money on the effects, I suppose. But come on, people want to see the creatures in movies, not just flashy glimpses.
Had director Douglas Aarniokoski opted to tone down the nudity and sex scenes, then the movie would have been all the more entertaining, enjoyable and watchable. However, I have to say that the movie is one that came and went without leaving a lasting impression on me.
"Animals" is hardly a movie that warrants more than just a single viewing, as the storyline just didn't have enough contents and layers to support multiple viewings.
My rating of "Animals" lands on a five out of ten stars.
The storyline put together cy Craig Spector was pretty straightforward and actually had some good parts to it. However, it was somewhat diluted and tainted by an excessive amount of nudity and sex scenes. Sure, I get the aspect of the animalistic side to the movie, with becoming a beast and all, but I have to say that writer Craig Spector was just paying too much attention to sexual scenes and nudity. While I am certainly no prude, then I just don't really want to waste my time by watching nudity and sex scenes in a movie. I am watching it to be entertained by a story, not by carnal scenes.
I was under the impression that it was a werewolf movie, but turns out that it wasn't. And that was actually a nice surprise, as it transcended being merely another werewolf flick in the bunch.
Of the entire cast ensemble, I was only familiar with Marc Blucas and Naveen Andrews. It should be noted that the acting performances in the movie were fair.
There were a couple of rather brutally violent scenes with some gory results. And as a gorehound and a life-long fan of horror movies, then that really spruced up the movie for me. Thumbs up for that accomplishment.
The effects in the movie are fair. Sure, you will not be blown away or bedazzled, but the effects served their purpose in the movie. However, I don't really understand why the scenes with the creatures had to be blurry and had smoke in them. For suspense? Perhaps. Probably to save money on the effects, I suppose. But come on, people want to see the creatures in movies, not just flashy glimpses.
Had director Douglas Aarniokoski opted to tone down the nudity and sex scenes, then the movie would have been all the more entertaining, enjoyable and watchable. However, I have to say that the movie is one that came and went without leaving a lasting impression on me.
"Animals" is hardly a movie that warrants more than just a single viewing, as the storyline just didn't have enough contents and layers to support multiple viewings.
My rating of "Animals" lands on a five out of ten stars.
- paul_haakonsen
- 9 août 2024
- Lien permanent
Histoire
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesNicki Aycox's first full nude scenes.
- GaffesToutes les informations contiennent des divulgâcheurs
- ConnexionsReferences Frankenstein (1931)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Animals?Propulsé par Alexa
Détails
Box-office
- Budget
- 5 500 000 $ US (estimation)
- Durée1 heure 33 minutes
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 1.78 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant