La Terreur du Loch Ness

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?).

Not content with stomping round the world getting up to all sorts of nefarious mischief now it seems the Yanks also want to steal our monsters.

Well the joke's on them this time because you see...it's not the real Nessie.

Being Scottish I have, of course, met Nessie and be assured all ye across the pond, she doesn't remotely resemble the ridiculous waddling monstrosity portrayed in this moving penny dreadful. In fact anyone in the know is fully aware that Nessie appeared as herself in the Doctor Who tale 'Terror of the Zygons' and became, during the production, a personal friend of Tom Baker (there are even rumours of a brief romance), so I can only presume the producers of this nonsense were disgracefully lax in their research.

Now stick to your own monsters in future or we'll set Gorgo's mother onto you.

I never went into this expecting a particularly good movie, with a title like Loch Ness Terror, who would? So, when it finished, I got what I expected. The plot is nonsensical, there are lapses in logic, clichéd characters and sub-plots everywhere, poor CGI and an ending that is beyond anti-climatic. Basically, the film revolved around a grizzled (and unintentional Clint Eastwood rip-off?) cryptozoologist who witnessed his father consumed by Nessie many years ago. Thrown into the mix is a "crazy" uncle who claims to have seen the beast, a sheriff whose husband passed away and is now looking after a son. Surprise surprise, he is still in love with his ex-girlfriend who is now dating a rich jerk! If that is not the most predictable and boring story you have heard of, please tell of another...

Honestly, none of the actors are any good. Brian Krause, who plays Clint Eastwood...I mean James Murphy (zoologist) has it all. The hat, the scar, the cigar, the low voice...not Eastwood at all! All the other performers are just as bad (well, maybe except the old deputy guy, he was pretty funny). At times I was rooting for the dinosaur to eat them, as I could not stand their presence any longer. And on the topic of the dinosaur, could it be any faker? Honestly, there has been numerous cases of sub-par CGI, but this tops them all. All the digital effects stand out to the point where they look like cutouts from a video game. The gore could have been a tad redeeming, if it had looked somewhat mediocre instead of pathetic.

Paul Ziller, the director, has not got a shred of noticeable talent. The POV shots are unoriginal and poorly done (Jaws much?) and for a horror film, there are zero scares. In fact, if this were a comedy it would be excellent, as I found myself laughing through pretty much the entire running time of 74 minutes. When the end comes around, it is so lackluster it is almost hard to believe. Recommended for lovers of bad films and people who love a good laugh.

½/5

Apparently the truth in advertising laws have finally caught up to filmmakers, since after the Loch Ness-set opening scene, the rest of the movie moves to Lake Superior. That's certainly beyond Loch Ness. Though in both of those locations, it's obvious that, if you know even a little bit about geography, that the location the filmmakers used for both Loch Ness and Lake Superior looks NOTHING like how those locations look in real life.

That's just one of the problems I had with this movie. But first, is there anything of merit in the movie? Well, I thought that for a cheap Canadian movie, the CGI used was above average. In fact, the CGI creatures actually look better that the animatronics built for when there are close-ups of the creatures. (I never thought I would say that about a movie.) Also, there is some serviceable splatter here and there.

But the biggest problems I had with the movie center around this fact: You will have seen all of this before. For examples, the characters. We have the mysterious stranger who comes to town, we have the arrogant rich jerk who has it in for the youthful protagonist for no apparent reason, etc. etc. All the monster hunting and fighting, you will have seen it all before. Maybe, just maybe, if this was all directed with some spark and injecting a little originality now and then, it could have been a pleasant display of the familiar. But everything seems very tired, and you'll feel just as tired by the end of the movie.

Certainly not a movie to pay to see. Even if it's free and it's raining outside, you'd be better off going out for a walk in the rain.

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.