Beyond Loch Ness

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

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.

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?).

Some of the early victims find out all too late that the 40-foot Plesiosaur is not the placid, gentle giant that minds its own business paddling around the Loch as we've been told, but a rampaging monolith with an attitude that likes to waddle its way out of the water, wreck boats, roar like a foghorn, chase victims, bite them in half (it doesn't eat them whole, for whatever reason), dismember, decapitate, etc.

And it swam its way through some "undersea tunnel" (about 4,000 miles long?) from Scotland's Loch Ness to North America's Lake Ontario. No, really. It did. A vengeful scientist. a cross of Capt. Ahab and Indy Jones, wants to get even with the thing, having witnessed it devour his dad and two other men. The guy comes complete with all the clichés: an Australian safari hat, enough fire power to blow up a city, and he mumbles when he talks.

The movie plays like a remake of Lake Placid, which in turn was an apparent satire of Jurassic Park and Jaws type flicks. However, this one seems to want to take itself seriously. The actors play it this way, and make most of the characters work (even the clichéd ones).

The biggest problem was shoddy CGI. In one attack sequence, for example, Nessie decapitates its victim. Nessie's animation is so obviously pasted on to the picture it makes you laugh. Even phonier looking is the resulting "blood spray" which looks like somebody blew up a bottle of Cherry Soda (and pasted that in poorly, as well).

Decently entertaining, and at least it was free.

"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