Beasts of the Field

The 4.0 IMDb rating tricked me into watching this film. I don't mind low budget films, or the kind of bad film that's entertaining. So 4 stars would seem like a reasonable rating. This film really isn't 4 star quality, in any aspect.

At first it looked like it could be fun, with the actors knowing it was going to be bad, and going to go for it. I even liked the fact the acronym for their show was PIS. But no, it's honestly boring, and bad.

The acting gets worse in a race to the bottom. You never see the creature at all. Which considering I thought it was going to be a creature feature disappointed me. Like even if it is hilariously bad, have the creature!!

The cinematography is so bad that they often don't get the exposure, and colour balance of the shots right. The sound is weird, and terrible. I've not even seen student films this bad.

This is the worst kind of lazy, cynical content pooping (using the word filmmaking is an insult to filmmakers) with the end result beings so poor technically, it's tiring to watch (the only reason I did was to write a review for YouTube).

Underexposed video capture (using the word cinematography is an insult to cinematographers) is compounded by randomly dropping filters onto the poopage resulting in over saturation and further darkening of the image. There's actually a scene in the content poop where the people pretending to be actors argue about poor lighting. I found this insulting as it shows the content poopers knew enough to include it as dialogue but didn't implement it themselves.

Sound is terrible, obviously recorded using the phone mic and the stereo field isn't balanced, the dialogue should have been recorded in mono, or mixed down to mono. Music is awful and used throughout destroying any molecule of tension remaining after the embarrassingly bad 'acting', complete lack of production design, props and costumes.

In an attempt to be positive there's a stripper playing a scientist who has a very nice face, unfortunately I'm not a fan of (obviously fake breasts), for anyone wondering, they are not revealed, guess the content poopers didn't have $50.

The worst thing though is the people connected to the content pooping who have written glowing reviews, what do you think that's going to achieve? It just further demonstrates your contempt for the audience and complete lack of integrity, although as you are clearly not filmmakers I don't suppose that matters to you.

Begins with some nice low-key humour but then goes in a different direction. Unusual and admittedly implausible story, but with interesting and well-acted characters. I'm willing to settle for that.

First let me say that this is not a great movie. It is extremely rough and fraught with laughable errors. The cast are on par with a group of friends with someone's video camera heading out to *make a movie*.

That being said, it also isn't a hateful movie. The general story line, although very unpolished, shows potential. The concept deals with who or what a monster really is. Even the title is a subtle jab at the cruel and selfish nature of man's heart. The story held my attention and although the acting and dialog was excruciatingly painful. I found myself tipping my hat to this brave crew of first timers who had the courage and trepidation to complete the madness that is film making. Everyone has to start somewhere. I hope thebl best of luck to those who take the opportunity to hone their craft and continue on.

A couple interested in cryptozoology and paranormal happenings are determined to record the first episode of their proposed investigation show. They assemble five others for a (dubious) crew and enter into the wilds of eastern Kentucky to find the mythological thunderbird, which they believe to be a Pteranodon.

"Beasts of the Field" (2019) is a micro-budget Indie that only cost $30,000. It was shot in mid-September, 2018, and the many rain sequences are the peripheral effects of Hurricane Florence that hit the Carolinas. Obviously, you can't expect much with such a non-budget but it's generally entertaining with several highlights, assuming you don't mind Indie productions with little resources and the corresponding limitations.

For one, it's genuinely amusing in the first half, before the situation turns grim. Secondly, the forest cinematography is colorful and well done, which will be appreciated by those who value movies with a deep-woods milieu. Also, Ashley Mary Nunes (Kyra) is stunning in the female department; and Savannah Schafer (Reid) is also notable. Lastly, there is a relevant moral to the story.

It's significantly superior to the comparable "Monsters in the Woods" (2012), which cost the same amount (not counting six years of inflation).

The flick runs 1 hour, 17 minutes, and was shot in eastern Kentucky.

GRADE: C+/B-