I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

I'll tell you why so serious

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

After a series of strange attacks and incidents in a small town, a group of friends get together to hunt down the malicious beast stalking the residents and put an end to it's reign of terror.This turned out to be a pretty disappointing Bigfoot entry, as this one really could've been quite good had it managed to keep attention and focus on the strange attacks afflicting the towns-members instead of the ungodly amount of time with the residents and their problems. Not that a little info isn't bad on them, but they come at the expense of the creature attacks as it's mostly getting a complete history of the locals before stuff starts to happen, and the creature doesn't start getting in on things until just under the hour mark. Those are really good, with some pretty brutal attacks getting in some pretty decent gore shots and the day-time setting for the whole film is rather pleasant, if only the creature's costume would've looked better. Still, the lowered amount of time spent here on these sections of the film means it's quite a while before we get to the good stuff, flawed as it is by's low-budget nature that somewhat hurts it, but overall this is a throwback to the Grindhouse style of shockers so those who enjoy them will find a lot more here instead of more traditional creature-feature fans.Rated R: Graphic Language and Graphic Violence.

You have to love this for the characters. The majority of the town where this event is supposed take place are drunks sipping moonshine all day. They are more believable drunks then say the characters in the HBO series Deadwood. I.E. they don't drink and seem sober they drink and look and act drunk.The man who owns the property where the wild man lives is not only believable but sympathetic. His wife is barely able to move and lives in a wheelchair. They have a loyal(?) male Mexican servant. Who pulls his pants off and fondles the wife's underwear when the husband isn't home. This servant even fondles the wife, who can't speak, by covering her mouth while he does whatever. The husband must suspect something. When the wild man carries the servant off the husband hides the wife rather than try to save the servant. There are some good people in the story. Two of the best, a man and his son go hunting in the river bottom which has been closed for years. This is the place where the wild man dwells. He has been kept at bay for years with a diet of skinned rabbit provided by the property owner. But because the owner lost his job and the wife needs her medications, the property owner has opened the bottom land to hunters. This pisses the wild man off and he kills both father and son. In fact he kills a bunch of people by gutting them with antlers. When a couple is attacked, the husband, stabbed through the ribs with an antler, runs, hitches a ride and goes not to the hospital but the bar where he tells everyone what happened. A posse is formed. This is a posse of drunks. Why any sheriff would recruit these people is one of the least believable things in the movie. The other is that these heavily armed drunks don't shoot each other. But at least one of the posse (a drunk's son I think) gets killed. But then the property owner finally uses the big shinny shotgun he has been polishing throughout the movie. And only a bunch of drunks would string up a dead man who was just shot like he was a prize elk with razor-back tusks. But there suspense is here. The movie is engaging. The acting so good these people seem like they are drunks in a documentary. I highly recommend this, especially to independent filmmakers.

I'm one of those kind of horror fans who supports the efforts of dye-in-the-wool buffs living the dream, putting together whatever monetary funds they can scrape up in order to make a little homage to movies that inspired them. That's not to say there hasn't been a fair share of rotten apples along the way, particularly within the slasher genre. But in the past few years I've come across a number of flicks made by horror buffs on peanuts which have more enthusiasm, energy, and verve, while also containing elements hardcore horror fans can enjoy such as Gutterballs, Hatchet, Behind the Mask:The Rise of Leslie Vernon, among others, than most high-budget fare without a soul churned off the Hollywood machine these days. I think The Wild Man of Navidad is such a film, and it pays loving homage to films like The Legend of Boggy Creek, with nods to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre(..in particular, the "room of bones" scene, except this time we see the remnants of the wilderness man-beast's meals over the past few days, the camera lens closing in tight showing buzzing flies entering gaping wounds in rotted flesh)as well.The movie focuses on the oddball trio of Dale S Rogers(Justin Meeks who also co-wrote / co-directed), his paraplegic wife(played by his relative, Stacy Meeks), confined to a wheel-chair after a devastating car crash, and pot-bellied Mexican hand, Mario(Alex Garcia)who keep the hostility of a carnivorous half-human / half-animal at bay through skinned rabbit meat each night at 9:00, while also containing 600 acres of prime hunting land off-limits to those who desire to use it for their leisure as deer season starts up. Through mounting medical bills, Dale sees few alternatives to make some necessary quick-cash, opening the land for local hunters, resulting in one of them firing off a shot directed at the wild man of the woods, sparking a violent, bloody rampage resulting in humans being ripped apart and eaten.I think what made this work for me was using real areas in Texas and locals from nearby small towns who would act for little to nothing while tolerating demanding conditions. Directors Duane Graves and Justin Meeks studied under the tutelage of Kim Henkel(who wrote the screenplay for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and directed The Texas Chainsaw Massacre:The New Generation)who was teaching at a Texas college they attended. There's a good use of the rural setting and people who live there. The southern "hick" accents are thick and unrestrained and these people actually look like those who would live in a small rural area where everyone knows each other. The acting itself is often suspect because you are dealing with a great many non-actors who have never been in a film before. Graves and Meeks accentuate a variety of stylistic shots, using any number of make-shift apparatus which could compliment the scenes and characters, giving them an extra boost due to their limitations in budget. I believe an actor discusses a little buggy the duo rigged up as a rolling vehicle substituting for a dolly they couldn't afford..this is the same kind of motivation and ingenuity often elicited on Hooper's TCM.The gore scenes are shot in a way to obviously avoid confronting the fact that they had little in regards to effective make-up effects. We see screaming victims, blood all over the place, the girth of the wild man(..always covered by skins)nearly engulfing the frame with animal guts tossed throughout from off screen. Not every filmmaker has access to a Tom Savini or Greg Nicotero, so these young guys combat their restrictions any way they possibly can. I think something has happened as the opportunities for obtaining cameras during the digital age have evolved..it seems that the attempt at developing and maintaining atmosphere and dread has dwindled. I'm not sure what it was about low-budget film-making in the 70's that gave it an edge and power that seems hard / difficult to duplicate in this day and age where anyone can make a movie with the right kind of support in place. I think Graves and Meeks give it everything they have in their being to establish dread and atmosphere, attempting to evoke that spirit the 70's had..but, again, it remains untouched. This is 2009, not 1974, but filmmakers continue to strive for tapping into the "grindhouse wellspring". Charlie Hurtin, as local back-stabbing moonshiner Karl Crabtree(..he practically took Rogers' steel welding job from him), also provided the very restrained, quietly moody score. Seems the film is a sort of tribute to Charles B Pierce, the director of The Legend of Boggy Creek and The Town That Dreaded Sundown and The Wild Man of the Navidad almost succeeds. It does have the eccentric, colorful sort of Texas citizenry one might find in a film made by Pierce or others during the 70's, lacking only that needed atmosphere that seemed to be in abundance during that decade.

What would you expect from one of the producers of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre? More of the same realistic butcherings? A movie based on a true story? It would take place in backwoods Texas? It would have extremely hickish and super rednecks that are whacked out and just plain crazy? If you answered yes to all of the above, then you know what to expect from this interesting character-driven tale.Kim Henkel produced this indie flick with director Duane Graves at the helm. Graves most definitely is a student of the Chainsaw films and faux-documentary style the first film was shot in. He puts it to good use here, making you feel like you are right there on location. Now, I'm not talking faux-documentary like The Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield, or District 9. It doesn't make you feel like you need an airplane barf bag to watch it. It's like a documentarian shot it that has actually had some experience shooting film or video before.The film looks absolutely genuine. There's no reason why it shouldn't. It seems that most of it is shot on location in and around the rural areas of Austin, TX. Every single whacked out and tobacco-spitting character and person in this film sounds and comes across as completely real. Like Graves walked into a town hall meeting and asked regular townspeople to star in his movie.