उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

As an audience we feel lonely and fragile just like the main character. The movie begins as a horror but slowly turns more action orientated. Early action scenes are very good and unfortunately the get abit repetitive and aren't as good later on. I love all the question this film poses. Set in the back drop of WW1 it does't seem to have connection intill you peice it together. As there aren't many characters in the film you get to know them intimately. Character development is handled well. The CGI looks natural and effects are gratifying. This movie had me hooked and as a result I have ordered the novel it was based upon.

Cold Skin is quite the original unique little tale, but ultimately it fails to deliver on its promises.

It tells the story of a military intelligence man set to do a scientific study on a remote island for a year replacing an existing gentleman. There is nobody on the island bar one, a disgruntled insane from isolation man named Gruner. As night falls he learns that the island holds a terrible secret.

Arguably a "Creature feature" this horror stars the excellent British veteran Ray Stevenson and was made by French/Spanish studios. I'm very glad I came across it because despite its flaws it's quite remarkable, it was nice to find a movie this original and visually pleasing considering that it's not a mega budget film.

The concept is outstanding, the delivery however is very mixed. They manage to make it all look good and Stevenson is on form as usual however the writing is really messy and the film simply should have flowed better.

When the credits rolled I was saddened by the wasted potential here, on paper it had the makings of a fantastic feature but the end result here is something that loses steam at around the 2/3 mark and hits you with a very uninspired ending.

Well worth a watch simply to marvel over what it does have to offer but it's a fine example of a ball being dropped by all involved.

The Good:

Solid concept

Looks great

Ray Stevenson

The Bad:

Loses steam

Wasted potential

Weak finale

The story is somewhat interesting and keeps one's attention. But the strongest attribute of this film is the casting of two very capable British actors, David Oakes and Ray Stevenson, in the main roles. I had only seen Oakes play unlikable characters before, while Stevenson has usually been in more positive roles.

The cinematography, which features picturesque scenes of the isolated island and the surrounding ocean, is also quite good.

The film is visually appealing, the acting is good and when it touches on philosophical issues here and there, it avoids being too hammy. The plot however is rather thin and has some holes. All in all, it could have been fleshed out more, together with the characters.

I was drawn to see this movie after reading a brief plot synopsis which had a clear Lovecraftian horror theme (et in the 20's an isolated lighthouse attacked by creatures from the sea). And though this wasn't exactly the movie I wanted it to be, I was satisfied with it. Firstly, this movie is extremely well-made and acted. The location is simply wonderful. I would've preferred the sea creatures to be more grotesque but that wasn't what they were aiming for. This film doesn't explain everything which leaves you thinking about it which works well in this case. I enjoyed too which leads the viewer to wonder just how long the lighthouse keeper had been there and who the original lighthouse keeper was. Not surprisingly, this movie is based on a rather popular foreign novel which received a bit of praise and attention which it apparently is quite faithful to.

Great acting.

Really novel story.

Great visuals , landscapes, music and photography - so what could go wrong?

The whole thing was obviously a morality tale about war and xenophobia and thats fine but the numerous plotholes and inconsistencies and unexplained-ness of the whole thing just made it look a bit silly and illogical.

Such a shame as it grabbed the viewer right from the beginning and had a superlative atmosphere but it became slightly tedious with the unexplained attacks (was it purely xenophobic fish people?) and the just plain weirdness of the sex scenes much like many movies try to shock these days rather than entertain and it does draw similarities with Shape Of Water but sadly it is just above average when it could have been a really great film!

Wow, this is a diamond in the rough. I think I can say without spoiling that this movie is mainly about, and you often only see, 3 characters ... which is exactly what it needs. Yet don't think this is your regular low actor count (i.e. Low budget) film. It is well thought out and well acted (and actually quite a few extras, on occasion).

My hottest button, the script, is incredibly well done. The story is something a bit new, and not just a rehash of the same old crud coming out of the production houses. The scenery and direction are beyond reproach, to include even the timing and editing. The acting is as good as it gets.

All in all, this is not one you want to pass up.

This film will not be for everyone (hence the disappointing low rating). For starters, it's almost an exact adaptation from the Spanish (Barcelona, Spain) award wining debut novel (translated to 37 languages) by Albert Sánchez Piñol, and directed almost perfectly by Frenchman Xavier Gens.

It is not your typical big-screen huge budget Hollywood action blockbuster with A-list actors, and thus should not be compared (as other reviews have) to The Shape of Water. Instead, it's an artistic piece shot extremely well that was written by a Spaniard and presented by a Frenchman - definitely no Hollywood here.

The directing, cinematography, landscape, vfx/sfx and score where outstanding - near perfect. The actors (never heard of either) performed exceptionally well and were very convincing.

Yes, there were some avoidable obvious plot issues, which was disappointing considering how great the rest of the production was. However I'm thinking that it was an editing issue and cutting scenes to get the length down to 108 mins, of which considering the slow pace, I'd be complaining on the length, yet it didn't feel that long. It could also be a screenplay adaptation issue from the two novice writers - they did squeeze in as much as they could from the novel, but maybe should have cut certain scenes shorter to fill in the blanks.

I've read some reviewers had questions about certain things that happened. Some of those issue are answered if you stop and think why this happened and/or dig a little deeper into the meaning. Others, you will need to read the book. I did, and have nothing to question, but do understand how others who didn't read the book would have questions.

A very impressive film, unlike any other I have seen, and needs to be appreciated for what it is, and how is was shown. Would I recommend it or see it again? Absolutely. Had better screenwriters adapted the novel, this would have been a perfect 10/10. But still is a well deserved 8.5 rounded up to a 9/10 from me.

Very enjoyable movie, far better than expected I always enjoy movies that break the mold, well worth watching.

Listen, I don't like to give long reviews about movies so I'll make it short. Cold skin starts off Eerie, kind of like Shutter Island, and you can tell that it's going to get dark. However, it takes a turn to the whimsical, which would have been okay with me had it been not so extreme. I mean there is really only 2 minutes of back story as to why they're fighting these things...and then for some reason banging them. It's weird dude, super weird.

Butttttttt, I will give it 4 stars because it is shot really well.

I really enjoyed this film for what it was - an entertaining escape from reality. I'm not some movie viewer that watches a movie and tries to pick it apart. I watch for entertainment and to experience a reality that's not my own. In that regard this movie was successful. I think the crew did a great job conveying a sense of isolation in a forgotten and virtually unknown section of the world. The cinematography and acting was well done in my opinion, more so the cinematography than acting. There were some themes about war, enemies and the duality of human violence and empathy that were well presented. The more I think about this movie the more I like it. I'd give it a 6.7/10. If you're looking to escape to a dramatic and unique world full of fantasy and humanoid sea races in a beautiful location then this movie is worth watching.

Visually was good and also as a production design. The story is ok. But where does the movie end up, what was its message, I don't understand. I loved watching the movie "The Lighthouse". I don't know if I liked this movie or not. Ray Stevenson gave a very good performance. Why does Gruner want war, is the fishwoman the lone femalein the fish people's army ? There are no answers to such questions. The backgrounds of both characters are unknown. It's possible to guess though. I didn't like the ending of the movie either. Why doesn't the fish woman run away ? This is not explained. Why Gruner is Gruner ? I had many questions, but no answers. There are many movies that I love that I can't find answers to my questions, but I don't know why I didn't like this movie.

A man gets a dull job on a desolate island to measure wind and rain with only a crazy man and a tribe of underwater creatures seemingly bent on their destruction for company.

This is certainly different and a noble attempt to make an undoubtedly Lovecraft influenced original piece. It works well to start with by building up the story narrated by the lead, however once it's clear what's going on and the creatures are out in the open it doesn't offer anything different and just keeps doing the same thing for most of the remainder of the film. The lead's motives are understood and well articulated, although those of his crazed partner are somewhat less clear.

A good effort.

Very good. Not sure how it's going to reach it's target audience (as I merely stumbled across it, thinking it was something entirely different than it is). If you like, moody, atmospheric, solitary, creature features, then this is for you.

I didn't know what to expect from this movie when I sat down to watch it. Just before the start of the First World War, a young man (David Oakes) takes a job charting the weather on a remote island, only to discover it's not as 'uninhabited' as he first thought. Besides the location's only 'official' resident, a lighthouse keeper played by Ray Stevenson, every night the place is besieged by seemingly never-ending armies of fish people - and they're not the sweet Disney Little Mermaid kind either!

So, the two men must start a fight for their lives in order to survive not just the night, but an entire year before the next boat passes by and hopefully rescue them.

I really enjoyed this to begin with. There's a real feel for the isolation of the setting and the characters are believable in their actions - at the beginning. However, as other reviewers have pointed out, the audio is terrible in places and the conversations between the two - only - characters is almost impossible to make out. It's because of this I may well have missed out some explanations of various plot points, like why one fish person seems to be nice and Ray Stevenson is okay with her living alongside them when he simply wants to wipe the rest of them off the face of the planet.

The creature effects are good and it's nice to see not too much computer-generated effects, but the movie starts to drag in places, partly because there's only really two characters and there's not an awful lot for them to do, other than fighting off wave after wave of monsters.

By the time the film comes to an end you'll kind of have guessed how it's going to play out. There's no real shockers along the way. It's an okay sort of film that was effectively a good idea, but just kind of outstayed its welcome based on the little 'story' there was to tell here.

Do not be fooled by the moderately high rating; this movie is terrible. It is not a diamond in the rough, hidden, cult horror film. It is just bad, all the way through. The story in its essence might have been worth a 6/10, but once you add the actual writing (that ranges from bland to hysterically bad) and the non-sensical scene cuts, you find yourself wading slowly out into a weird ocean of nothingness. You want it to fix itself but it never does. It is all pain for no pay off. Just spare yourself the agony of the slow, miserable death that is watching this movie.

Continuing my Amazon Prime marathon of bad movies, Cold Skin came up as a recommend. The story of a lighthouse keeper and an adventurous visitor. So the basic story is that the lighthouse is under siege from a sort of alien fish-man type humanoid from the sea. Definitely reminded me of the Sahuagin from Dungeons and Dragons.

But wow, a nicely done movie. Not a whole lot of stupid stuff. Some, but not a lot. And a decent ending altho completely expected. 7/10

After Frontiere(s), the director went downhill in terms of brutal horror films. The Divide starring Michael Bien which i saw recently inspite of it being almost a decade old is good but this movie's ending ruined everything for me. It has lovely atmosphere n the creatures a bit like the ones from Descent. Inspite of the movie based on one location n only two characters, it is gripping n entertaining but once again i repeat that the ending ruined it.

One of the reviewer wrote that the actors r never heard of. I think he is mistaken or mayb he didn't recognize Ray Stevenson.