Feral

Feral is not a good movie. I wasn't that impressed with the ads and mostly just saw it because of the leading ladies. Scout Taylor-Compton (Rob Zombie's Halloween films), Renee Olstead (Unfriended), and Olivia Luccardi (Channel Zero) are the leads who, along with a couple of lame guys, go on a camping trip after finishing college then run across werewolves er, ferals.

This movie starts with a gore soaked cold open in which special guest star Lew Temple (The Devil's Rejects, 31, The Walking Dead) seemingly tortures a monsterous female to death. While watching this, I had two thoughts. The first was that this is a pretty cool start to the movie. The second was this terrible feeling that this was probably the best part of the movie. And, aside from endless cleavage shots of its lead actresses, it is.

And yes, this movie is so bad that the cheap, juvenile thrill of pretty girls in tank tops ends up being a major highlight and that is a majorly bad thing.

The five kids on the camping trip are boring and annoying AT THE SAME TIME. There's a sort of vague, millenial SJW vibe to these kids that made me think I wasn't even supposed to like them. There's a listless, bored quality to the most of the actors, who never seem that worried about what is going on, to the characters, that are lucky to have one trait a piece, and to the pace, which is just slow and dull.

This movie could REALLLY have benefited from a sense of humor, some gratuitous sex and violence, dumb humor, anything! It's just so boring. By the end I was checking emails and just waiting for it to be over.

I like Scout Taylor-Compton but her character is such a Mary Sue. She kind of reminded me of the ridiculously capable gal from You're Next but lacked even that character's charm. She's really just too capable too early and the character has nowhere to go. Lew Temple is equally one note and Renee Olstead isn't even in it that much. Olivia Luccardi is the only one that manages to develop much personality and I had the impression that was mostly because of quirks the actress threw in herself, like flipping a character the bird behind his back because he's being a jealous prick to her.

The only memorable thing here, if you can call it that, is that the lead couple is two girls instead of a hetero normative couple. The movie doesn't do anything with them though so, really, instead of getting a bland, underwritten romance between a man and a woman, we get a bland, underwritten romance between a woman and a woman.

The creature effects are okay but that's about it. I didn't like this movie and only gave it a 4 because I had the impression that at least some people involved were trying. The DP shoots the film well, the makeup effects are solid, and Scout and Olivia Luccardi do what they can with their roles. Still don't recommend spending money on it though.

In short, as I said at the beginning, Feral is just not a good movie.

I dont know if the director added the lesbian aspect to give this a prurient aspect or to appease the LGBT nutters but sadly it didnt work.

All the characters were irritating and unlikeable - two lezzers one with teeth like a piano and the other with the usual army vest and combat troosers - she aint no Ripley or Vasquez thats for sure.

Quite good creature effects and a few moments of tension but terrile script and dialogue and seenit all before nothing new here really!

Annoying lesbian werewolf killers 0 Werewolves 1 I was rooting for the werewolves myself!

Was drawn into seeing 'Feral', with a cool poster/cover, a promising trailer, an intriguing premise and as someone with a general appreciation for horror. That it was low-budget, which from frequent personal experience is rarely a good sign due to that there are so many poor ones out there, made me though apprehensive.

It is sadly however yet another film seen recently, hence some reiteration because the exact same strengths and flaws are here present in those films, that to me was incredibly disappointing considering its potential which it doesn't do anywhere near enough with. 'Feral' is weak, with so many huge flaws and doesn't do enough with its potential, which was hardly small. There is very little to recommend in 'Feral'.

Lets start with the positives.. The scenery is atmospheric and spooky, and is surprisingly well shot.

'Feral' also starts off promisingly, it does intrigue and it does have creepiness.

Going on to the negatives, the story does feel over-stretched and some of it comes over as vague and under-explained in the last third where the film especially became duller, more predictable, more senseless and less unsettled and never gaining momentum. Too many characters are too sketchy and with nowhere near enough to make one want to endear to them. Their annoying and illogical decision making and behaviours frustrates.

Making the film feel bland and forgettable with not enough heart put into it. The effects are ropy at best, the sound quality is obvious and utilised cheaply (being too loud in the build ups and people's reactions) and all of the acting is lacking severely, Scout Taylor Compton's performance will make one not stop cringing.

Dialogue can be stilted and rambling while the pace and film drags on forever after such an intriguing start and doesn't recover. Even the ending however is botched, due to being so afterthought-like and with no sense of how to end it. Found too many of the supposedly shocking moments not surprising or scary and the supposedly creepy atmosphere dreary, due to the excessive obviousness, a lot of dumb and vague moments and explanations and the lack of tension and suspense.

A lot of 'Feral' has underdeveloped plot elements and often nonsensical and confusing character motivations, while too many of the things to make you shocked are far from creative or unsettling.

There is not enough threat here and what there is of it tends to be used poorly, while the horror elements are unimaginative and are more odd than scary, completely failing to show any sense of horror. Some badly sagging momentum too and a lot of weirdness. The direction is leaden, got the sense their heart was not in it, and the music is ill-fitting.

Concluding, weak with no substance or entertainment value. 3/10 Bethany Cox

'Feral' is an excellent example of a low budget horror movie done wrong. We've recently had some low budget gems in the horror genre (for example 'Starry Eyes'), but it's movies like this that make the genre take a step back, especially considering this is another 'college kids go to a remote cabin in the woods and die' kind of horror movie, which should've died after 'The Cabin In The Woods' proved that these sorts of horror movies have overstayed their welcome in cinema.

This all brings me to the question: why was this movie made?

I still ask myself that now having watched it but this movie shouldn't have been made at all, especially considering it has basically been made already. The Australian horror film 'Primal' came out in 2009 and has an almost identical plot to this movie. This wouldn't be as big of an issue as it is if that movie wasn't so godawful, and unfortunately 'Feral' is even worse in its execution.

Firstly, despite the plot being unoriginal and generic, it still had the potential to provide for an entertaining movie, but this film is sleep-inducingly dull. This is mostly due to the movie's terrible pacing, with characters being killed off 10 minutes into the movie (bearing in mind that there's only 6 of the college kids to begin with), meaning that the remaining 80 minutes goes by incredibly slowly as we wait for the remaining college kids to die. This is made worse due to the boring characters presented to us, who have no development, no personality and apparently no intelligence as they constantly make the dumbest decisions that no real human would ever make unless they'd been lobotomised.

The quality of the acting doesn't make the film worthwhile either. I had some expectations for the performances considering that Olivia Luccardi was playing one of the main characters (having given a solid performance in 'It Follows'), but even she gives a bad performance in this movie. Scout Taylor-Compton easily gives the best performance but that's hardly saying much considering the performances from her costars. The worst performance in this movie easily goes to Lew Temple as the movie's antagonist, who sleepwalks through his role with the most monotone delivery of every single line that he speaks. It's clear that he only starred in this borefest for his paycheck.

Taking into account that this is a horror movie as well, I might as well talk about how scary the film is: it isn't. There's absolutely no tension because of how dull the movie is, and the creatures themselves look like poor imitations of the creatures from 'The Descent' (go and watch that instead), but it's not like that matters anyway because the lighting is so bad that you'll barely see the creatures at all.

This movie was doomed from the start. An overdone concept with weak actors and a terrible director could have never made for a good movie, let alone a low budget horror movie like this. Just watch something else, because this movie is a complete waste of time.

This isn't a world encompassing zombie movie like world war z or dawn of the dead. It's a backwoods cabin kind of film.

I can confirm virtually every other review on here that it is generic in its plot. But, it's not all bad, especially if you like those kinds of movies for what they are.

There were a couple scenes that I liked and it gets to the zombie attacks fairly quickly. Honestly, you could certainly do worse for a free movie on Hulu.

My main criticism is that the writing (dialogue wise) is pretty bad and it made me laugh a couple of times. There were also a few aerial shots that made no sense in terms of camerawork.

The acting is also hit and miss. I really like Scout Taylor Compton as an actress, so I'm slightly biased and I gave it an extra star just because of her. Other than her and the old guy, the rest of the cast leaves a lot to be desired.

I watch a lot of these types of films and I'd say it's a typical 4/10 zombie film. In that sense, its overall rating is a fairly accurate portrayal. I definitely disagree with anyone who says it's 1/10 bad. It's not like House of Dead (uwe boll).

If you're reading these reviews to determine whether it's worth 1.5 hours of your life, I'll sum it up: If you like zombie films where you're waiting for people to turn, you may find some enjoyment for what it is. If you don't usually like zombie films, probably a skip.