The Hunters

Where do I start? I saw the trailer and as a fan of "b-movies" I figured I'd give it shot. The only reason why I watched this clusterfluck all the way through, is so that I'd be justified in writing a fair review. And to be fair, this movie is horrible. Great shots and cool cinematography, and really the acting isn't bad, its the storyline; (insert drum-roll here) there is none. Absolutely none. The synopsis of this film is so inaccurate. Nothing makes any sense.

Where does this movie take place? France? America? Canada? Why does it take 23 minutes to even get an idea of what this movie "might" be about? Don't even think about watching this film high, drunk or on drugs because it will sober you up quick.

To the writer of this film, I wish I had the money you obviously have. I'd take a few wads of hundred dollar bills and smack you in the face with them repeatedly. This has to be the worst b-movie I have ever seen. Watch at your own risk.

I can't give this a one because I know they (the director) was trying to do something here. But, let's say it failed to get there. The movie took way too long to even begin to give you any hints and then when it got there, the characters introduced threw you for another loop.

Why the hell was that (beautiful) girl introduced? Why did she whisper "I'm sorry" while pushing away her boyfriend in that one scene? I though the story was going to get better at that point, thinking that she was not who she portrayed. But no, that scene was just a failed scene. And why the extra story with the Chief of Police and the cop and the guy he had to protect? Who the hell knows. Completely illogical!

I had ideas in mind on how it may have ended and how I would have ended it. But it didn't go that way and so the four rating. The actors were OK but the story line they were given was not of this movie. This movie should have been one of those three or four stories tying together everybody in the end. Not this either. Oh well, nice try mr. director.

This is what happens when nobody has the moxie to stand up to the writer or director and cut, edit, structure, test, tighten, condense, throw out scenes and characters that don't work or are unnecessary. Somebody wanted to keep everything in the grab bag and fought any efforts to structure this.

Something strange is going on with these ten-star reviews; I suspect they are from people connected with the movie who are trying to balance out the one-stars --- which are the honest ones. Whoever wrote this needed to take a class in screen writing because it was a misuse of the actors; the dialogue was wooden...but the worst part was the lack of tight plot structure. I gave it a fair shot --- watched for about an hour and suddenly sat up and said "this is not happening." It's not a matter of being "different" or "non-linear" or any comments that try to make strengths out of weaknesses. This truly crumbles.

Well it seems for a change someone not involved with a film is posting the first user review. I suspect this is because everyone involved with the film is far too busy denying they had anything to do with it!

I never let the words "low budget" or "independent" put me off a film, I've seen some great films by looking for this kind of stuff. I've also seen some terrible ones and this baby just joined the list very near the top.

OK so marketed as a horror film you soon realise it's anything but. NO matter, I like a good thriller...which this ain't. Confused is the words that comes to mind. Filmed in France but set who knows where, dodgy American accents mixed with a large portion of French language. Plot could be written on the back of a postage stamp but somehow ends up with a 1hr 50min film...

For me the film as advertised started at the 1hr 30min point and by then I was losing the will to live. The main location was interesting but was never used to it's full potential and the effects! Good God the effects... Body parts straight out of a dusty corner at The London Dungeon, guns with holes in the end only an airgun pellet would fit through, watery blood and the most amazing trees that shoot sparks when hit with bullets.

Acting wasn't horrendous given what they had to work with, music was OK. Cinematography was OK with the notable exception of the nightmare scenes which where, frankly, shamefully bad.

Words fail me.

The Hunters isn't the worst movie you've ever seen, it's just a bit of a mess. There are two things to recommend it highly, the cinematography is well above par for this kind of movie, and the location is just incredible. I think the sound editing and music is also quite good. The problem is the good things just serve to highlight the not-so-good things. If the good cinematography is of people trying way too hard to act, it's not interesting. If the location is terrific, but it's not really used all that well, you don't have much of a reason to make the film.

There is some excellent casting for the leading hunters and the main enemy, but the other characters are often miscast, overplayed, or underwritten. Certain scenes feel improvised, while others just seem to go on and on. The lead actor seems to be rather miscast for his role, which is strange since he apparently directed. There are also characters that just kinda drop in and out of the movie, especially the lead (only?) female.

The editor seems to be trying to make this into a horror movie, but it's not, and the nasty jump cuts and random shots of some dude yelling are not scary, they're annoying. The editing overall leaves a lot to be desired, leading me to wonder if the director cut the movie as well, since there's no editor listed in the IMDb crew page.

There was a pretty good movie to be had here had the script thought of better uses for the location and the actors been reeled in by a better director. But overall, it's better than bad, and if you're scouting for an incredible castle in Germany (?) you could do worse than watch this. Perhaps it's best to just think of it as a weird travelogue to Fort Goben.