This movie met all of my expectations. While it is certainly not something that I would have gone to a movie theater to see, I believe that it offers an enjoyable use of a couple hours.
Since pretty much everyone before me has been ragging on it, I suppose I should say my piece.
1. Dean Cain, while not in the Brad Pitt/Morgan Freeman category of actors, does offer a pretty solid character in most of his roles and this (in my view) is no exception. I think that his mannerisms were pretty natural considering he may as well have been sharing a row-boat with badger for how safe he was.
2. A lot of people felt that the snake was poorly done, and perhaps they had higher definition on their TVs (which wouldn't surprise me). The scenes with this snake are very short and not very frequent. As far as problems, I would say that the biggest one is that somehow the scenes made the snake look smaller then it was suppose to be (comparing them against the size of the hole it made in a wall). The snake looked to me to be about three or four feet wide, and the hole in the wall was at least six feet in diameter (probebly more like eight).
Sub Note: The movie indicates that this snake makes a tunnel through ice that is roughly wide enough for two grown men to walk through side by side, and is about 30 paces long. My imagination cannot accept that as a possibility (even a drill would take a very long time to force through that much ice), and that did kind of weaken the plot for me.
3. Pretty much all of these characters are undeveloped. I am guessing that this became apparent to the director at some point, because there are poorly timed arguments between the two co-stars which were (in my view) an unsuccessful attempt at giving them substance beyond the monster experience.
When I am going to watch a movie about a giant snake, I am basically more concerned with his eating habits then the character development. I suppose this is a large part of the reason that I enjoyed this movie, and a large part of the reason that it achieved a 7/10 from me.
Since pretty much everyone before me has been ragging on it, I suppose I should say my piece.
1. Dean Cain, while not in the Brad Pitt/Morgan Freeman category of actors, does offer a pretty solid character in most of his roles and this (in my view) is no exception. I think that his mannerisms were pretty natural considering he may as well have been sharing a row-boat with badger for how safe he was.
2. A lot of people felt that the snake was poorly done, and perhaps they had higher definition on their TVs (which wouldn't surprise me). The scenes with this snake are very short and not very frequent. As far as problems, I would say that the biggest one is that somehow the scenes made the snake look smaller then it was suppose to be (comparing them against the size of the hole it made in a wall). The snake looked to me to be about three or four feet wide, and the hole in the wall was at least six feet in diameter (probebly more like eight).
Sub Note: The movie indicates that this snake makes a tunnel through ice that is roughly wide enough for two grown men to walk through side by side, and is about 30 paces long. My imagination cannot accept that as a possibility (even a drill would take a very long time to force through that much ice), and that did kind of weaken the plot for me.
3. Pretty much all of these characters are undeveloped. I am guessing that this became apparent to the director at some point, because there are poorly timed arguments between the two co-stars which were (in my view) an unsuccessful attempt at giving them substance beyond the monster experience.
When I am going to watch a movie about a giant snake, I am basically more concerned with his eating habits then the character development. I suppose this is a large part of the reason that I enjoyed this movie, and a large part of the reason that it achieved a 7/10 from me.