Extinction

Just. Wow.

But in a really bad way.

I can only assume Prime recommended this to me because I binged the original Jurassic Park trilogy (which, of course, is excellent) so I must want more dinosaurs right? RIGHT?!

Except... This isn't anything like Jurassic Park! It's just utter incompetence wrapped in a dismal veneer of turd pancakes.

The closest description I can give is that it's more like the modern Jumanji but with 2% of the budget.

If you use it as a drinking game, maybe you will have a good time. Do a shot every time there is a predictable plot move, an unnecessary movement by the actors to be more dynamic, poor CGI and a blatant rip-off of another film and you will be well and truly sozzled within 30 mins. Enjoy!

The Lost World idea of finding dinosaurs in a remote part of the planet is not new. Peru as a location had the potential, but it was never to be. The idea of driving along a dirt road and labeling it remote for the purpose of the film is ludicrous.

Had they spent a week in a canoe and then 2 weeks trekking to their destination using tribal Indians as guides I would have believed it. Wearing sleeveless tops in a malaria-infested rain forest at night, camping in tents and carrying a table and chair into the jungle just doesn't make sense. Their packs aren't big enough for a day trip let alone a multi-day hike. The nights are remarkably bug-free, I don't know any animal that would come around a camp with a lite fire in it. They find an albino python and don't know its albino? They can hear sounds of something big for 3 days every night but no tracks or scats are found and the scientists don't even seem interested. No discussion on what it could be? Was it a Tapir or Pecari, or Caiman? No picket at night to set up cameras and try and find out what it was. How did they navigate, as I didn't see a compass or GPS on anyone? How did the rain forest suddenly become wet sclerophyll?

In the end, I just watched to see how many things I could spot that were wrong. .

Oh, and the cameraman is an idiot. In all very disappointing.

Having an obnoxious cameraman on found footage is the equivalent of seated next to a loud texting person in cinema. Extinction has a couple good moments and the setting is presentable, but almost half of the movie is spent on bickering. If it's for realism of human drama, it's doubtful that actual documentary people would argue as much and the banter is not exactly appealing. For the encounter with alleged monster, it has so little impact since the effect is far from compelling, so barely anything works in Extinction.

The film follows the journey of scientists and filmmakers to the depth of Amazon. They soon find out that the forest hides a very insidious secret. The use of found footage is mainly to create a sense of involvement for audience, yet the movie has a very confrontational cast. Nearly everyone would mumble in antagonizing manner almost in every scene, especially the cameraman James who is utterly annoying.

He would instigate people and react poorly when interacting with others. It's probably for humor purpose, but it gets tiring very fast. There are the rudimentary comments on the existence of creature which are plodding the already uninteresting endeavor. Some scenes involving actual fauna is a bit better to establish the authenticity, though these are few between all the squabbles.

As expected there would be unclear shots as the monster eventually reveals itself. It's not half bad since a couple of these instances are engaging. However, the effect for said monster is not convincing. The movie doesn't have the luxury of smooth mix of usual camcorder view and CG like Troll Hunter or Cloverfield. Not to mention the cast is unfriendly, it won't garner much sympathy.

In the end, Extinction doesn't offer an amusing journey, let alone the grandeur encounter the poster falsely advertises.

Tbh.. I only wanted to watch the movie for Neil Newbon. I saw the trailer. Knew right away it wouldn't blow through the roof. CGI ofc not good even for its time. But.. for a low budget film, it's not half bad.

The acting isn't unbearable. I just don't like how they made the cameraman so annoying. I understand trying to add humor. But there's good comedy relief; then there's just, dick energy. I feel like they could've done a tad better with the realism. Like it's supposed to be a remote area yet well driven, flat dirt roads. Supposed to be bug ridde. Yet little to no bug etc.

Overall not terrible.

Really not much to say. Its just not any good. I see some glowing reviews here, but that must be the film crew and their relatives writing. If you are going to use this kind of hand-held amateur cam, you need to do better than this. I think 3 is a fair value, cause its not the worst I have seen, but I think I deserve my money back.... its really borderline fraud to charge people for watching this one. Some of the acting is not as bad as a 3, but the overall experience is no good. And its too long as well, I got really bored the last half hour.

If you still want to watch this, consider your self warned.

Good luck and God speed.