Cryptid

Not sure what some of these reviewers are complaining about. For a low budget monster movie, the acting and cinematography are excellent.

The protagonist is very believable and, unless you only like idealized characters, is indeed likeable. His character is realistic. The other main character's acting is extraordinary. I say this considering they are relatively unknown! I found there performances easy to watch and they played off each other perfectly.

The premise is solid, and great supporting actors. The CGI is not great, but if you love solid stories and acting over big screen predictable canned action, you should enjoy this movie.

Decent but never actually saw the creature entirely! Darkness made it difficult to see anything. We watch a creature feature to see the creature. Don't count on that! The trailer was better than the movie! It had the potential to be much more entertaining. Regretfully I actually purchased this movie. No a total loss! There was some "edge of your seat" moments. Of course the discounted price of this movie was about the same as a matinee price at the theater. I should have waited to see it for free. I also should have read all of the reviews before I purchased. I'm thinking that this should mark the end of my movie purchases.

So monster movies in sleepy little remote towns are a staple of B movie land. And yeah - most hurt your head, even if you are a B movie afficionado like me. But - Cryptid was actually a decent little film.

Max is a freelance reporter for the local paper. And despite having all the skills of a good investigative journalist, he has been down on his luck and on brink of being fired. He comes upon an accident scene being overseen by Charlie the sheriff (with whom he has some history as he raised Max's deceased fiance). Charlie is a rock, and Max presses him about the accident - labeled as a presumed bear attack. Charlie is clearly bothered by the incident, but won't share with Max. As more people end up dead from the presumed bear attacks, Max smells the story of a lifetime and enlist help from his coworker and best friend Harriet. Together, the two dig and uncover ... well, that it's NOT a bear.

The acting was pretty solid. And there was some character development and emotional scenes and side stories, rather than just one bloodbath after another. The cinematography was decent, although the monster itself could have been done better. The movie is not scary and pretty predictable. But a decent watch .... So make some nachos and enjoy.

Even if a brain cell short circuits, that's all you will need to figure out that the ratings were rigged for this movie. As time goes on and people WHO ARE NOT involved in this project (crew, actors, friends and family) watch this movie, the ratings will begin to drop down dramatically and will end up at 5 at best but will dip down to 4.

The creature was OK but the acting was overall pretty bad, some were better than others, though. The pace of the story really dragged and the dialogue was a bit cheesy. The movie could lose about 30 minutes of useless runtime as well.

Looks like a straight to streaming release.

So yeah. If there's one thing i despise about hack writers and directors, it's when they have a genuinely interesting story and monster, but lack of intelligence prevents us from getting a decent film. I can go with the b level acting. I can go with a lower budget film. What I cannot abide is stupid writing. If as a novice hunter myself , I can see mistake after mistake after mistake of supposed seasoned hunters, then you really have to wonder what kind of person gets a job writing a film that deals with hunting. Nothing in a film is creepy or scary about an idiot getting him or herself eaten or put in intense situations. You spend more time yelling "WTF ARE YOU DOING!?" or shaking your head in frustration and disgust at what you are being presented with in a horror film. So. Idiot writer, idiot characters. What's worse is it sets up a sequel. God help us.