Loch Ness - Il risveglio del mostro

Not content with stomping round the world getting up to all sorts of nefarious mischief now it seems the Yanks also want to steal our monsters.

Well the joke's on them this time because you see...it's not the real Nessie.

Being Scottish I have, of course, met Nessie and be assured all ye across the pond, she doesn't remotely resemble the ridiculous waddling monstrosity portrayed in this moving penny dreadful. In fact anyone in the know is fully aware that Nessie appeared as herself in the Doctor Who tale 'Terror of the Zygons' and became, during the production, a personal friend of Tom Baker (there are even rumours of a brief romance), so I can only presume the producers of this nonsense were disgracefully lax in their research.

Now stick to your own monsters in future or we'll set Gorgo's mother onto you.

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.

Beyond Loch Ness could have been such a great B movie, I mean like cult classic good, if only it didn't take itself so seriously! The acting was terrible, the CGI was laughable and the script was so wrong - all the key ingredients for a brill B movie, but alas - it was trying to be some rehash of Jaws or Jurassic Park when it should have been aiming for Lake Placid. Not a single joke in the whole film, and the only laughs it arises are the unintentional ones. And another thing, why is it called Beyond Loch Ness when its set in America? Loch Ness had some a small amount of screen time that it didn't really make much sense naming the film after Nessie!

I could give it a proper review but I've already wasted 1.30hours watching the damn thing!

Craig

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.

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?).