Excellent adaptation.

Brilliant and touching

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

This contains a minor spoiler, a reveal about a character which will come as no surprise anyway. But now you've been warned.I saw this horror film last night, and just found it to be amazingly inept. Even Lance Henriksen, who is an awesome genre player, could not save it.Very traditional setup of a group of people going to a remote place, to fetch something valuable. Very traditional cast of.. The experienced outdoors-man/guide. The adventurer author, who turns out to be a useless alcoholic. The rich man who pays for the expedition and turns out to have a hidden agenda. The woman who turns out to be more resourceful than we initially thought. The other woman, who didn't really have a function for the story, so why was she there? And the nerdy expert who knows how to operate the tech thingamajig they're looking for. The tech thingy is not a Hitchcockian mcguffin, it actually has a function for the story, so points for that.Oh, and there's a monster, which looks surprisingly good for a film that otherwise doesn't seem to even try. While watching, I was thinking that this should have been made in the 1950s. Then it might have some of that B-movie charm of those sloppy adventure-monster movies from that era. Bride of the Gorilla (1951), just to name one which is not good, but somewhat saved by the style of that era. As is, The Untold just creaks along, really predictable, bad performances, uninteresting dialog. You very quickly stop caring about all of it. The editing attempts to spice things up, but somehow ends up being lame and annoying instead.This one really has nothing to offer. Don't even watch it if you're a fan of Lance Henriksen. Being the consummate pro he is, he does a fine job of delivering his lines, and he makes you believe in his character. But that doesn't lift the film up from being intensely uninteresting. Skip it.I give it two stars for a passable monster, a functioning mcguffin, and Lance Henriksen. Take my word, it's not worth your time.

Hmm, How could I best describe 2003's "Sasquatch" (originally titled "The Untold")? If you can imagine a low budget version of both "The Edge" and "Predator," substituting a Bigfoot for the bear and alien, with some elements of "The Blair Witch Project" thrown in, you'd pretty much have "Sasquatch." The story involves a plane crash in Bigfoot territory and the group of people who search for the wreckage. As a matter of fact, the ENTIRE FILM takes place in the forest except for flashbacks, shot in British Columbia near Vancouver.I'm kind of a sucker for these types of crisis-in-the-woods stories, so I have to admit that I marginally liked "Sasquatch," especially since the tone is totally serious. The film is marred a bit by some strange directorial techniques; particularly the irritating overuse of the 'fade-to-black' technique. Moreover, some of the characters and dialogue come off unbelievable.On the plus side, the tone is serious and the filmmakers throw in a literal 'babe in the woods'; and, yes, she does have a nude hotspring scene (not that you see much, so don't get too excited), but the character's too much of a biyatch to be appealing and the actress, Andrea Roth, isn't THAT attractive anyway, at least not to me (the older woman who plays Nikki is actually more of a babe). Lance Henriksen is always good, of course; and some of the BC locations are quite scenic. I also liked the ending as it was more profound and moving than anticipated, but there's too much marking time; the film could've easily been cut by 15 minutes.But, you ask, what about the appearance of the creature? In other words, is the 'payoff' any good? I kinda liked what they came up with, although it appears as if one of the beast's ancestors mated with Ben Franklin. Just joking; it's not the conventional look of the creature, but it's pretty cool.This is not a great bigfoot flick; it's not even very good. In fact, it's one of the lesser recent SyFy films on Sassy (discounting the abysmal "Yeti: Curse of the Snow Demon" and that one with 'Greg' from The Brady Bunch and that other guy from The Partridge Family). But if you're a fan of the creature or a sucker for these types of stories, "Sasquatch" is mandatory.The film runs 86 minutes.Here's how I rate the various bigfoot flicks since the new millennium (see my reviews of each for details):"Sasquatch Mountain" (2006): A- "Sasquatch Hunters" (2005): B+"Abominable" (2006): B"Snowbeast" (2011): B- "Clawed" (2005): C+ "Sasquatch" (2003): C"Yeti: Curse of the Snow Demon" (2008): F

Bigfoot movies tend to be bad, so I'm not inclined to watch them. However, there were some good commercials on The Sci-Fi Channel, so I decided to watch. A climbing expedition heads into the Pacific northwest to find a a fallen airplane carrying the daughter of the expedition's leader (played by Lance Hendrickson), and have brought a revolutionary DNA detector that could be used to prove the sasquatch's existence. And it actually generates some suspense at first. The sasquatch is unseen, but sees the mountain climbers' body heat (like the alien in "Predator"), and I did wonder when it was going to strike. The acting is passable, as is the background music. The dense wooded location is well-used. And when the creature is finally seen, the costume is not bad, though nothing great. But as the film grinds on, it becomes increasingly annoying and absurd. Most of the characters are unpleasant people, rude to each other and only in the expedition for money and publicity (except for Lance Hendrickson's character), so that it's impossible to care about what happens to them. And their behavior become increasingly stupid. One man shoots the creature (not fatally), then gets drunk and sits alone in the dark. One female camper puts on a slinky silk negligee before crawling into her sleeping bag, then barely escapes being dragged into the woods by the sasquatch, without getting her hair and make-up messed up. Then, the survivors conclude that the sasquatch is really after the DNA detecting machine and will let them live if they leave it behind ("a creature knows what threatens it"). Obviously, the instinct doesn't apply to these actors, or they wouldn't have appeared in this movie. And the ending is so stupid, you'll want to kick the TV screen. If it weren't for the script, it would have been a decent horror film.

I would have sworn I had already reviewed this one. I saw it a couple of years ago and thought it was quite solid. It ranks in there with Deadly Species & Below Loch Ness, as good, meaty, if predictable horror fare.Yes, many of the seemingly required "group stalked by predator in woods" techniques are present. Yes, the ending seems just a tad contrived. Still, it is unlikely that anyone who thinks movies begin with Citizen Cain and end with Wild Strawberries would be watching a Bigfoot film, anyway! The drunken author is great as he slowly comes unraveled & the sexy ingénue is nicely cunning. The video camera scenes from the crashed plane are both horror-invoking and heart-wrenching. They add much to the film.So what if this is basically the Congo plot with the Deadly Species & Curse of the Kamodo characters recycled? It's a fun way to spend an evening.