Manhunt

The backwoods/survivalist horror genre is one of my favourites, but the films do have a tendency to follow the same formula, Manhunt being no exception. A typical example of 'doing things by the book', it starts in time-honoured fashion with four friends travelling through the wilderness in their VW camper-van (the film is set in 1974, a tribute to that classic of the genre, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre perhaps). After the predictable run in with hostile locals at a roadside diner, they do the expected thing by picking up a scared hitch-hiker, inadvisably stop in the middle of nowhere, and, in yet another retelling of The Most Dangerous Game, fall prey to a group of hunters who prefer killing humans to animals.

Despite all of the familiar trappings, this sort of thing can work very well just so long as there are regular thrills and inventive bloody kills, the protagonists are likable, and they don't behave like absolute idiots; Manhunt is suitably vicious in tone and features some reasonable splatter (although it's not as creatively bloody as I would have liked), but sadly its young victims aren't very appealing and act like morons. They constantly bicker with each other, stupidly insult the locals, and repeatedly make ill-advised decisions that only worsen their already dire situation. In short, I couldn't care less if they survived or ended up as trophies lashed to the bonnet of a Norwegian maniac's Landrover.

Especially the characters. But it still captures your attention, because it's lean, mean and fortunately short (running time wise). Yes it's not logical, yes the characters are not likable (see above and/or summary line), yes there are plot holes ... but those are things (cliches) that you see in almost any(every) horror movie these days, it's up to you to decide how bad you think it is.

Another reviewer wrote that the whole thing seems to come from nowhere and that there is no explanation for what's happening. For one thing, I'd rather have it that way, rather than some stupid "had rough childhood(s) and this lead to ..." explanation. But if you really look for something, a reason, than the first "meeting" will give a little bit of a clue. For it's low budget heritage it's OK. Not special, but with better written characters, this could've gone a long way :o)

The movie received great reviews here in Norway, and I was looking forwards to seeing it. Being a Norwegian production, I guess the critics put on their patriot pants, because this is not that great a movie.

The story we've seen before. Some young people gets captured, are hunted, with blood and gore following in ample amounts. The only thing that differentiates this movie from its many siblings is the betrayal within the group, and the charters being somewhat interesting and real. They lack depth thought, and are quite frankly not that well played or presented.

The biggest exception to this is the villains, and their behavior. Without giving any spoilers, let me just say they are a bit to evil and cold. A tad more insight into them would make the movie allot more interesting.

What does deserve praise is the visual side of the movie, with the effects especially in mind. The movie is well shot, and really drags you into it by virtue of this. The effects look so real it's frightening. So frightening in fact, that it is one of the movies greatest flaws. It's just too much.

Now, I'm not a very gentle soul, and enjoy the odd horror movie without problems, but this movie is not that enjoyable. That said, I'm sure if I went hunting moose this autumn, I'd probably not sleep very well having seen it.

Ugly, scary and outright ultra-voilent? Yes.

Exciting, interesting and progressive? No.

I think the rating for this is a tad unfair. Okay, its pretty unoriginal, and doesn't particularly contribute anything new to the genre, but there was plenty that it did right. The acting throughout was great, especially the first girl. I also liked the 70's Scandinavia feel, it really gave it a tone and an atmosphere that sucked you into its world. It had a lovely texture and aesthetic to how it looked, and I think the contrast of the dated, distressed visuals with the shocking effects and edge-of-your-seat sound design was really brilliant. Yes I must say that I usually prefer a tad more story to get invested in, but it was fast, tense, believable, and I genuinely enjoyed it! Hopefully the filmmakers have more to give than this next time around- they clearly have the technical skills for the genre, lets see what they have to give in the story department. A great debut film.

The After Dark series gave me Prowl (2010), A flick I liked. It was directed by Patrik Syversen. I saw that he made another horror, namely Rovdyr (2008). The name says it all, it's spoken in Norwegian and came out in our country surprisingly only with French subtitles. Almost one year later over here in my native country they came out with 'Horror Collection' DVD's. And let it happen that Rovdyr came finally in my hands with the right subtitles.

If you just look at the opening sequence and the music used then you should know that it is an ode to the eighties and even a bit toward the grindhouse. Once the movie starts you get to know the characters and it took a while to knew them. It took over 20 minutes and I thought, well, this is going to suck. But was I wrong. Slowly it moves towards a creepy and even brutal horror. Oh yes, you have seen it a thousand times but just watch it. Before you know it someone is being shot without warning and another one is shot at the Achilles'tendon. From then on it is full of suspense and gory scene's. For me the ending was a bit of an open ending because what is going to happen next? You can only guess it. Will it go okay or is she in a downward spiral.

All the acting was believable. What Henriette Bruusgaard (Camilla) did was really excellent, it was her first role! I loved this movie and recommend it to all fans of good old school horror from the eighties.

Gore 4/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 4/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5