Animal

They're in the house not holding ANY weapons in their hands whatsoever when the creature is scoping it the first time. Not even a sharpened stick. How totally stupid and unrealistic. Only later on did they grab anything. So you're telling me in that house there's no kitchen with knives or anything? The tiny boards on the windows look 100 years old and don't look like they'd hold out a five year old.

A strange creature attacks a group of friends visiting the woods. They run for their lives and find refuge in an abandoned dwelling where other people are waiting to be rescued. They think they are safe, but the creature seems to be intelligent enough to find a way in the house.

While writing the plot, I had the feeling to reveal too much because the movie itself does not offer much else. However, the acting and the cinematography are above average, and so are the special effects. There are few scenes that can make you literally jump out of your seat, and this is good, because the story is pretty boring and not different from something already seen. The actors are really good in their roles, and this is probably the only reason why I kept watching it. The score is nice, too. The only thing that really annoys from the start to end is the plot, too plain and simple. I think the audience needs to know more about these creatures and less about the sexual affairs of the characters. Unfortunately there are too many movies alike out there. The first that comes to my mind is Descent, which, of course, is far superior to this one.

Had it not been for the unnecessary drama in the cabin this could have been a have decent creature feature. Instead to was reduced to every cliché of every horror movie. Why do writers get so lazy?

Animal doesn't have much substance as a horror movie. It's your typical "teenagers lost in the woods and are getting picked off one by one" story, except instead of a machete wielding maniac chasing them it's an Alien-Predator-hybrid animal that has a taste for human meat. For what it is, it's a fun watch - it's exactly what you'd expect from a B-movie called "Animal".

I can't score it any higher because it gets zero points for originality and I can't score it lower because it doesn't try to be anything more than a schlocky monster movie. It's surprisingly cohesive writing-wise, and is definitely more watchable than half the F13 entries. Elizabeth Gillies' ear-piercing screams are annoying yet hilarious and add some extra zest once her friends become fodder to this unstoppable beast.

Overall Animal achieves exactly what it sets out to, but its sights weren't aimed high in the first place. It's a clear homage to old-fashioned monster movies with lots of campiness, cheesy special effects, blood and guts aplenty, and a handful of scares that catch you off-guard. All you can ever want in a B-movie romp-fest.

RELEASED IN 2014 and directed by Brett Simmons, "Animal" is about a group of people who find shelter in an abandoned house in the remote Connecticut woods staving off some kind of mutated predator that picks 'em off one-by-one.

Cabin-in-the-woods horror has been done to death with a multiple different kind of monsters/creatures/villains (zombies, Jason, Bigfoot, vampires, wild dogs, mutated bears, flying creatures, psychos, etc.). I like these kinds of movies but to be effective they have to (1.) feature the proper staples and (2.) contain interesting subtext/mindfood. If they don't have the latter then they'll have to be exceptional with the former to make it worthwhile. The kinds of staples I'm talking about include excellent locations, great monster/creature/antagonist, quality characters, at least one alluring female, notable score/soundtrack and effective suspense build-up.

"Animals" features some of the requisite staples: quality sylvan locations (Connecticut); a superbly vicious-looking creature (which is a man-in-a-suit and not CGI); a decent cast; and curvy Elizabeth Gillies in a cute get-up (Keke Palmer too, if you prefer black women). While these attributes are good, they're not enough to elevate "Animal" from its hackneyed status (particularly since it's missing some of the required 'staples').

Yet it's not just the movie's staleness that holds it back. There's also dubious acting (note the unconvincing conversation of the white/black couple during the early hike), obvious plot holes (the flimsy wooden barricades that the formidable animal could obviously break through at any time), predictableness (like when the foil buys the farm), eye-rolling drama (the gay confession), clichés (the "final Friday girl" and the climactic scene) and not enough suspense build-up, although it has some.

The sad thing is that "Animal" was produced by Drew Barrymore and therefore had more funds than the typical cabin-in-the-woods slasher. If you haven't seen many of these movies then "Animal" is worth checking out. If not, I encourage you to see superior ones, even if several of them have much lower budgets, e.g. "Night of the Living Dead" (1968), "Friday the 13th I & II" (1980/1981) (actually, any of the Friday flicks), "Sasquatch Hunters" (2005), "Sasquatch Mountain" (2006), "The Lonely Ones" (2006) and "Flu Bird Horror" (2008) to name a handful ("The Lonely Ones" is a no-budget indie, but it's great in some ways; stay away, though, if you can't handle barely-a-budget horror). One thing's for sure, "Animal" is vastly superior to the lame, trashy "Cabin Fever" (2002).

One last thing: Some have criticized the movie on the grounds that the creature's origins are never revealed. No, there are two blatant clues revealing its genesis.

THE FILM RUNS 86 minutes and was shot in Hartford & Manchester, Connecticut. WRITERS: Thommy Hutson & Catherine Trillo. ADDITIONAL CAST: Parker Young, Jeremy Sumpter, Paul Iacono, Joey Lauren Adams, Thorsten Kaye and Amaury Nolasco.

GRADE: C