Loch Ness - Il risveglio del mostro

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?).

I have to admit that I'm a sucker for monster movies, particularly of the "aquatic beast eats people" variety. Here is a modern example of the genre, and folks, it ain't bad at all.

It is very conscious of it's roots. It's ancestors are films like "The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms", and "The Giant Behemoth", both staples of my childhood. The monster is not really a plesiosaur, as the cryptozoologist in the movie calls it, but a real Hollywood fantasy beast, and a darned cute one at that. Against all the notions of modern paleontology it waddles about on all fours, belly to the ground and head held high. It owes it's appearance to the earlier films' notions of what "dinosaurs" looked like, and owes more to the nineteenth century reconstructions of Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope than it does to actual scientific fact. All for the better. This isn't "Jurassic Park", this is "Oh my god there's a monster loose and we gotta stop it!" movie.

An old fashioned monster movie with modern cgi, and a goodly amount of blood n' guts. I have no problem with gore in movies like this. It's only a movie, boys and girls, it's special effects, and my reaction is usually not "yuck! No sleep for me tonight" but rather, "that's interesting,I wonder how they did that?" Does that make me a bad person? I think not.

An interesting story, decent production values, adequate acting, and every cliché in the book all add up to a funfest for watery creature fans everywhere. And the baby monsters are a real hoot. A nice refreshing change from the slew of copycat teen slasher and torture porn flicks we've been bombarded with lately.

I had a good time watching this one.

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.

"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

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