The Hunters

I can't give this a one because I know they (the director) was trying to do something here. But, let's say it failed to get there. The movie took way too long to even begin to give you any hints and then when it got there, the characters introduced threw you for another loop.

Why the hell was that (beautiful) girl introduced? Why did she whisper "I'm sorry" while pushing away her boyfriend in that one scene? I though the story was going to get better at that point, thinking that she was not who she portrayed. But no, that scene was just a failed scene. And why the extra story with the Chief of Police and the cop and the guy he had to protect? Who the hell knows. Completely illogical!

I had ideas in mind on how it may have ended and how I would have ended it. But it didn't go that way and so the four rating. The actors were OK but the story line they were given was not of this movie. This movie should have been one of those three or four stories tying together everybody in the end. Not this either. Oh well, nice try mr. director.

This is what happens when nobody has the moxie to stand up to the writer or director and cut, edit, structure, test, tighten, condense, throw out scenes and characters that don't work or are unnecessary. Somebody wanted to keep everything in the grab bag and fought any efforts to structure this.

Something strange is going on with these ten-star reviews; I suspect they are from people connected with the movie who are trying to balance out the one-stars --- which are the honest ones. Whoever wrote this needed to take a class in screen writing because it was a misuse of the actors; the dialogue was wooden...but the worst part was the lack of tight plot structure. I gave it a fair shot --- watched for about an hour and suddenly sat up and said "this is not happening." It's not a matter of being "different" or "non-linear" or any comments that try to make strengths out of weaknesses. This truly crumbles.

This film is totally average. The story bares very little to the description given by the films marketing department, I wonder if anyone there has actually watched it. It is not a horror movie at all. Instead it is a thriller, with a small amount of action. Definitely worthy of it's straight to video release, it is certainly not as bad (or good) as some folks are making out. The script is OK, the acting is OK (at best) but the place most of it is shot is genuinely creepy. Don't expect too much and you won't be let down. The characters themselves are actually the most interesting part of the movie and could have done with fleshing out a little more.

The Hunters isn't the worst movie you've ever seen, it's just a bit of a mess. There are two things to recommend it highly, the cinematography is well above par for this kind of movie, and the location is just incredible. I think the sound editing and music is also quite good. The problem is the good things just serve to highlight the not-so-good things. If the good cinematography is of people trying way too hard to act, it's not interesting. If the location is terrific, but it's not really used all that well, you don't have much of a reason to make the film.

There is some excellent casting for the leading hunters and the main enemy, but the other characters are often miscast, overplayed, or underwritten. Certain scenes feel improvised, while others just seem to go on and on. The lead actor seems to be rather miscast for his role, which is strange since he apparently directed. There are also characters that just kinda drop in and out of the movie, especially the lead (only?) female.

The editor seems to be trying to make this into a horror movie, but it's not, and the nasty jump cuts and random shots of some dude yelling are not scary, they're annoying. The editing overall leaves a lot to be desired, leading me to wonder if the director cut the movie as well, since there's no editor listed in the IMDb crew page.

There was a pretty good movie to be had here had the script thought of better uses for the location and the actors been reeled in by a better director. But overall, it's better than bad, and if you're scouting for an incredible castle in Germany (?) you could do worse than watch this. Perhaps it's best to just think of it as a weird travelogue to Fort Goben.

A lot of negative reviews, oh well.. If people were expecting another run-on-the-mill horror to freak out to on a Saturday night, then this film obviously granted a disappointment, as it has a somewhat different angle, and the film is actually more of a suspense/mystery than a horror, really.

On a positive note, the filming locations were absolutely fabulous, the cinematography was of high quality in every respect, and even though the English spoken in the film was regarded as 'bulky' by some reviewers, you cannot really dismiss the fact that it is a French/Belgian movie. I, for one, thought all the way it was set in Canada (in Quebec), in that case, the language inconsistencies of the film would have been pretty well explained :-).

You could say that the acting was somewhat peculiar, but "peculiar" does not necessarily mean "bad". After all, French/Belgians films sometimes have a different take on acting. Think of, for example, 'Calvaire', that contains as much strange humour as 'The Hunters', you just need to be able to notice it :-).

All in all, 'The Hunters' is a rather strange experience meant not for everyone; on the other hand, as mentioned in other reviews, it offers you very nice photography, absolutely fabulous filming locations (the fort!), some sociological commentaries, and a rather decent cast, the tempo of the film is pretty slow, but in this case, it only compliments the piece.