A lot of the reviews I just skimmed though are pretty forgiving of the effort that they put into this movie. But, in all honesty, there seems to be little effort at all.
It is great for a few things, primarily what not to do if you're a writer, director, editor, actor, or CGI artist.
First, the direction. Every scene feels like the actors were just reciting lines without any direction on how they should be saying them. Some scenes, particularly the ones with Cloris Leachman, are obviously improvisation, but just the first take where there's awkward pauses while they're trying to think of their next adlib. Also, for another great example of what bad direction looks like, pay attention to the blocking in each scene. It's the level of direction that a photographer gives for a big group photo: "squeeze in a bit...a little more...ok, you're in the shot, now stay there."
I don't know whose fault this next thing is, but almost every line from any outdoor scene is ADR'd. Badly. And almost every scene is outdoors. Did they not have a mic suitable for outdoors? Maybe they didn't realize until post-production, but, even so, at least put some effort into re-recording the dialog. Don't just put the actors in a closet with a script and a microphone and not worry whether or not they end up syncing with the footage.
The acting...you can't even really call it that. Our leading man is John Schneider, who delivers every line like he's in an oatmeal commercial. Whether he's scolding his son, flirting with his ex, or looking at severed limbs in a morgue, he has the exact same upbeat, smirking, sports announcer vibe. In fact, no one ever seems the slightest bit bothered, even when they just watched someone get bitten in half. You can tell that the only actors that thought they were making a good movie were some of the younger ones in the son's B plot. They were terrible at acting, but at least they put the effort into facial expressions.
The lone bright spot in this movie, and the reason I gave it more than one star, is the CGI. I don't think I've ever laughed that much at something that was supposed to be scary. The crocodile, which looks like a leftover render from a PS1 game, actually phases through solid objects. It hovers above the ground. It dives into the water without the slightest wave or ripple. And that's just the crocodile! There's also CGI blood spurts that are identical to the ones from the old Mortal Kombat arcade game. And they don't even bother to put any fake blood on the ground! A guy gets his arm ripped off, and the grass below him stays perfectly clean. There's a CGI seaplane too. Why? The hunters could have shown up I'm a boat, why insert a seaplane from GTA3 that, just like the croc, doesn't affect the water?
I'm torn on whether to call this thing "so-bad-it's-good". It definitely is bad enough to be entertaining, but it almost looks deliberate. It's not like Birdemic where the filmmaker thought he was doing a good job, but was just hilariously incompetent. It's more like they knew from the get-go that the script+budget were going to lead to a bad movie, so no one even tried to rise above it or even have fun with it. I'm surprised none of these experienced performers saw what they were making and went full Nick Cage.
Would I recommend it? Yeah, sorta. If you're a film student, you've got a lot of examples in here of what makes a movie terrible. There are a lot of laughs and WTF moments. If you're not entertained in the first 5 minutes though, just turn it off, because it's not going to get better.
It is great for a few things, primarily what not to do if you're a writer, director, editor, actor, or CGI artist.
First, the direction. Every scene feels like the actors were just reciting lines without any direction on how they should be saying them. Some scenes, particularly the ones with Cloris Leachman, are obviously improvisation, but just the first take where there's awkward pauses while they're trying to think of their next adlib. Also, for another great example of what bad direction looks like, pay attention to the blocking in each scene. It's the level of direction that a photographer gives for a big group photo: "squeeze in a bit...a little more...ok, you're in the shot, now stay there."
I don't know whose fault this next thing is, but almost every line from any outdoor scene is ADR'd. Badly. And almost every scene is outdoors. Did they not have a mic suitable for outdoors? Maybe they didn't realize until post-production, but, even so, at least put some effort into re-recording the dialog. Don't just put the actors in a closet with a script and a microphone and not worry whether or not they end up syncing with the footage.
The acting...you can't even really call it that. Our leading man is John Schneider, who delivers every line like he's in an oatmeal commercial. Whether he's scolding his son, flirting with his ex, or looking at severed limbs in a morgue, he has the exact same upbeat, smirking, sports announcer vibe. In fact, no one ever seems the slightest bit bothered, even when they just watched someone get bitten in half. You can tell that the only actors that thought they were making a good movie were some of the younger ones in the son's B plot. They were terrible at acting, but at least they put the effort into facial expressions.
The lone bright spot in this movie, and the reason I gave it more than one star, is the CGI. I don't think I've ever laughed that much at something that was supposed to be scary. The crocodile, which looks like a leftover render from a PS1 game, actually phases through solid objects. It hovers above the ground. It dives into the water without the slightest wave or ripple. And that's just the crocodile! There's also CGI blood spurts that are identical to the ones from the old Mortal Kombat arcade game. And they don't even bother to put any fake blood on the ground! A guy gets his arm ripped off, and the grass below him stays perfectly clean. There's a CGI seaplane too. Why? The hunters could have shown up I'm a boat, why insert a seaplane from GTA3 that, just like the croc, doesn't affect the water?
I'm torn on whether to call this thing "so-bad-it's-good". It definitely is bad enough to be entertaining, but it almost looks deliberate. It's not like Birdemic where the filmmaker thought he was doing a good job, but was just hilariously incompetent. It's more like they knew from the get-go that the script+budget were going to lead to a bad movie, so no one even tried to rise above it or even have fun with it. I'm surprised none of these experienced performers saw what they were making and went full Nick Cage.
Would I recommend it? Yeah, sorta. If you're a film student, you've got a lot of examples in here of what makes a movie terrible. There are a lot of laughs and WTF moments. If you're not entertained in the first 5 minutes though, just turn it off, because it's not going to get better.