La Terreur du Loch Ness

"Loch Ness Terror" is perhaps the most scientifically incorrect monster movie of all time, and that is precisely what makes it so much fun. I learned that Plesiosaurs look like a cross between the "Loch Ness Monster" and the "Flub-A-Dub". Plesiosaurs waddle around on land and cannot see you if you remain motionless, but a 40 ft. Plesiosaur can easily sneak up on unsuspecting fisherman and eat them. Small fry Plesiosaurs like to hide in speedboats to scare people. Plesiosaurs can travel from Europe to North America through under ocean tunnels. A real Plesiosaur hunter looks like he just walked out of a "Spaghetti Western", complete with cigar, duster, and a weak Clint Eastwood imitation. I could go on and on. By not taking itself seriously, the movie succeeds as entertainment, where so many others have failed. Recommended. - MERK

I wanted to like Beyond Loch Ness, as I liked the idea. And I have to say that and the acting, which is not great but at least adequate, are the only redeeming values of the movie. Plus at least it is better than something like Warbirds, which also had Brian Krause(and he was the sole redeeming quality of that movie). Other than that, it was a mess. The special effects are terrible, with Nessie especially abominable in look and movement, the editing is haphazard, the colour schemes right at the beginning is much too grainy and the gore is lame, not disturbing in the slightest and as cheap as the effects. The film is also full of clichés not just in the stereotyped characters but also in the cheesy dialogue and the often tedious and over-familiar story. All in all, a beyond mediocre movie, more like lame. 3/10 Bethany Cox

No, "Beyond Loch Ness" is NOT a good movie. That is not what I'm saying. The point I am trying to make is that although it is pretty much just another formula-based, low-budget sci-fi flick with a monster that decides to kill people all of a sudden for no reason, people trying to stop it, people who refuse to believe it, and a love story mixed altogether in it; the film itself is alright for what it is. It is much, much better than some of its predecessors and certainly going to be better than its descendants, who will inevitably follow.

"Beyond Loch Ness" is one of the rare sci-fi flicks to actually feature decent CGI. It wasn't perfect, no, and sometimes there were some parts that didn't really seem to make sense. Such as this early shot where all we see of the Loch Ness monster is just her lower torso as she approaches. It didn't really give her an impressive appearance and just didn't seem to fit right. But at least the creatures look 3-dimensional, aren't blurry or too slender, have muscular structures, etc.

Acting was okay. I won't say that it was worth writing home about, and neither was the screenplay. The character said lines that I knew were going to come up, and they said them the exact way I knew they would. Many times, characters would get irritating, or just bland, but for some reason, they do well enough to keep us watching. And the screenplay does have some plot holes. For example, if these plesiosaurs have been breeding in freshwater lakes for hundreds of years, and they span numerous offspring, who come ashore and kill vast numbers of people every season, how come they go undiscovered until just now? Maybe they usually stayed under water until just now, this one time, when they decide to take a family stroll? Good a guess as any, I suppose.

So bottom line, again, "Beyond Loch Ness" is not a good movie and it isn't a special one, not even for a low-budget made-for-TV sci-fi flick. But it is decent enough and is kind of entertaining. It's better than others such as "Python", "Alligator 2", "Gryphon", "King of the Lost World", and others. Recommended...only if you like low-budget flicks.

Beyond Loch Ness could have been such a great B movie, I mean like cult classic good, if only it didn't take itself so seriously! The acting was terrible, the CGI was laughable and the script was so wrong - all the key ingredients for a brill B movie, but alas - it was trying to be some rehash of Jaws or Jurassic Park when it should have been aiming for Lake Placid. Not a single joke in the whole film, and the only laughs it arises are the unintentional ones. And another thing, why is it called Beyond Loch Ness when its set in America? Loch Ness had some a small amount of screen time that it didn't really make much sense naming the film after Nessie!

I could give it a proper review but I've already wasted 1.30hours watching the damn thing!

Craig

I watched most of this film using my DVR to fast-forward through the early parts, so I missed the explanation of how Nessie gets from Scotland to North America. The more interesting question is *why* she would make the trip. After all, she and her ancestors seem to have done fine in Loch Ness for untold centuries. (Incidentally, Loch Ness is a freshwater lake–contrary to what one person posting here says. Some "lochs" are indeed saltwater sea inlets; however, Loch Ness isn't that kind.) I've enjoyed watching science fiction monster films since the Golden Age of Radiation during the 1950s, when I must have seen every film featuring dinosaurs released from the depths of the sea by atom bomb testing or mutant giant insects and mollusks running amok. I can still enjoy many of those films, but I've not yet been able to make a habit of watching the Sci-Fi Channel's made-for-TV films. Apart from their weak scripts and dreary acting, the films are hard to watch because of their almost uniformly poor CGI. Other people have commented here that the special effects in BEYOND LOCH NESS are a cut above the Sci-Fi Channel's usual standard, and I think that's probably true. There are moments in this film when it's almost possible to believe that the dinosaurs are real. However, those moments are both few and brief. A general problem with this film is that the dinosaurs are on the screen far too long; the longer we look at them, the phonier they appear. Wouldn't it make more sense to have less dinosaur footage and to make the effects in the footage that is used better? There are scenes in this film in which Nessie waddles across dry land like a duck; I almost expected it to quack.

Another problem I find with this film may be more a matter of my taste than an objective criticism of the film–namely its emphasis on gore. Is it absolutely necessary to show graphic images of people being bitten in half and chewed up? Older films are often much more frightening for the off-camera violence and carnage that they suggest. Nowadays, I suppose, it's necessary to show audiences the blood–and lots of it. It's a shame that audiences are so desensitized that they can't be frightened unless they see closeups of people being dismembered and eaten. Personally, I find graphic gore more repulsive than scary. Moreover, in BEYOND LOCH NESS, the gore often merely looks ludicrously unrealistic.

I have one final question about this film that another person here has already raised: What does become of the deputy sheriff at the end of the film? Is it possible that a scene accounting for his fate was cut, leaving an awkward continuity problem? Oh, well. The same thing has happened in far better films, such as THE BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER KWAI (exactly what is Jack Hawkins trying to explain to the Burmese women as they leave the river in that film?).