Animals (2009) User Reviews

Skinamax

[acidtwix · 3/10 · 8 November 2009]

I have to say that I enjoyed this film. I relished the stunning cinematography and dynamic acting skills of both the male and female leads, as well as the many, many, many, sex scenes (none of which contributed to the plot. Hey, who doesn't love gratuitous tits every now and then?) Though I feel the ratio of tits to man-ass was greatly skewed in the wrong direction.

In addition I really love how the director utilized the soundtrack to alert the audience of an impending sexual encounter. The throbbing beat really hammers home just how passionate the characters on screen really are. I also love that the viewing audience is made aware of the difference between the female villain and heroin by the differing elevator music. Nasty sex with bad girl=bow chicka bow wow. Good girl sex=bow chicka bow wow+ adult contemporary acoustic guitar. Well done.

I especially enjoyed the fantastic cutting edge special effects. Blue hyena werewolf hybrids? Check. Mighty morphing mouths with sharp teeth? Check. Glowing gold and blue eyes? Check.

I know what you're thinking, this movie sounds amazing. It has everything. And you're right, it does.

shtick

[trashgang · 3/10 · 19 September 2010]

What's up with my favorite magazine. I have them all, from number one up to issue October 2010, talking about fangoria. They used to be the trend setter into horror but sadly they are more into reviewing Hollywood crap and other shite. But still I keep my subscription due to years of searching to have the whole collection. This flick had a two page review and was said to be the next porn flick you wished you had never seen. For one thing they were right. I indeed hoped that I never waisted 9O minutes of my life on it. What the hell was this. There is of course the nudity but what has it to do with the storyline, nothing. And if it's gratuitous than it bothers me. They said porn, well, you never ever, and I've seen the full uncut, see a kitty cat or his bouncing balls giving it to her. So porn, no way. Is there blood. Yes but maybe for only for 5 minutes. To make it all worser, when they become the so called animals it's all CGI. Just watch the last 10 minutes if you want to see the blood. Just take the cheap CGI with it. Sadly it isn't even SBIG (so bad it's good). Why o why fango are you letting me down already for a few times?

More low budget horror crap, this time based on a book.

[poolandrews · 3/10 · 10 July 2010]

Animals starts as down on luck washed up loser Jarrett (Marc Blucas) drowns his sorrows at his friend Jules (Andy Comeau) bar when an alluring stranger named Nora (Nicki Aycox) walks in, Nora show's interest in Jarrett & they end up sleeping together at his place. A rough night of sex leaves Jarrett with scratches & also late for work for which his boss fires him, even though Nora is seductive Jarrett's life begins to fall apart. Then a man named Vic (Naveen Andrews) turns up claiming that Nora is hers, after Nora leaves Jarrett begins to change as his basic animal instincts seem to be heightened. Jarrett discovers that Nora has infected him with the ability to awaken his deep animalistic desires, instincts & powers but at the cost of the craving for human blood...

Directed by Douglas Aarniokoski this horror thriller was based on the novel Animals by John Skipp, I have not read the novel but by all accounts it's far superior to this filmed adaptation which is pretty bad to be honest. The basic concept & idea behind Animals is fairly original with some sort of infection that allows people to unleash their inner animal, be it that their sex drive is much higher or they are more aggressive to killing in cold blood for food. However the reasons behind this are all very ambiguous & unclear, is this some sort of disease or supernatural force? Even though you can call forth your inner animal that still doesn't explain why the affected are virtually invulnerable & can heal quickly, does it? How can Vic land on spiked railings & just get up & walk away? How can Jarrett be blown up in a car & by the following morning he's alive & well without so much as a scar? Animals tries to mix horror with a couple of gory death's & killer monster animals creatures with a few steamy sex scenes which are actually pretty tame & offer little more than some bare breast's. There's no background to the animals, who started it? How long has it been going on for? How many are able to change? At just under 90 minutes Animals doesn't exactly fly by, it's rather dull most of the time & Vic the main villain doesn't even get any significant screen time until the hour mark & it takes until the last ten or fifteen minutes before we see any transformations & the animal creatures coming out to play.

The CGI computer effects are poor, when the animal creatures eventually appear at the end they look like cartoon ghost's & are not what I expected. There's a bit of gore, a throat is bitten out, there's some blood splatter, there are a couple of dead bloody bodies, there's a ripped-out heart & some flesh eating. There's a bit of nudity on show but nothing graphic, a few bare breast's & that's it. The film is rather flat & a bit dull to watch, I mean it's competent but forgettable.

The IMDb says this had a budget of about $5,500,000 which surprises me, it looks a lot lower budget than that & it's no surprise that it has had trouble finding anyone to distribute it. Filmed in Utah & Reno. The acting is average, it's not great but it's tolerable.

Animals is a disappointing attempt to mix horror & sex with a thriller styled plot that just doesn't work. Poor effects, a poor story with no background or reasoning & a predictable plot sink it without trace.

Actual animals could have made a better movie than this

[MBunge · 1/10 · 26 August 2011]

They've been making bad movies ever since they started threading film through a camera, but I think today's terrible 21st century cinema is worse than it's ever been. Oh, those atrocious films of the past had huge holes in the plot, wooden acting, inept direction and poor production values. Modern motion pictures, however, also have those first 3 in spades and add a truly stunning level of incoherence on top. It's the difference between telling a story badly and not knowing how to tell a story at all. Animals is a sterling example of that, as I was left looking at the screen and wondering "What they hell is going on?" on a constant basis.

Animals is a low-budget werewolf flick that features a lot of the pretty Nicki Aycox in the buff and nothing else of any value. Jarrett (Marc Blucas) is a former high school sports hero who blew his chance at success and is back in his home town of Reno, literally breaking rocks for a living at a cement factory. He spends pretty much every night at the dilapidated tavern of his buddy Jules (Andy Comeau) where he ludicrously refrains from flirting with cute waitress Jane (Eva Amurri). And if you think having three main characters whose first names all begin with "J" is a sign this script was written with all the skill of a 7 year old, you're absolutely right.

In addition to those 3, there's a werewolf couple named Vic and Nora (Naveen Andrews and Nicki Aycox), and I'm fairly confident those names aren't an allusion to The Thin Man. They don't change with the phases of the moon but morph into these ghostly and somewhat horse faced werewolves whenever they feel like it. After Nora lures in a couple of dofuses for Vic to feed on, he just leaves her to go hang out in night clubs and hit on skanks. Nora wanders into Jules' bar and immediately starts hitting on Jarrett like he's a pin up girl and she's a sailor who's been at sea for 6 months.

Jarrett and Nora start banging, she bites him and begins his transformation into a horse faced werewolf, Vic returns and wants Nora back…and you can guess where everything goes from there. Well, I hope you can guess. If you can't, you should probably sterilize yourself and thereby improve the gene pool.

Marc Blucas was a major recurring character on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Naveen Andrews was on Lost, for pity's sake. That they both went from that to doing this sort of incompetent, low rent trash should serve as a warning against going into the acting profession. That they're the two best performers in the cast isn't saying much, given that Aycox is only tolerable and the rest look and sound like key grips and best boys who got their roles after the real actors all came down with food poisoning.

The direction of Douglas Aarniokoski is pathetic. He doesn't know how to establish characters, define their personalities or even frame a shot appropriately. When Jarrett and Nora have their first conversation in Jules' tavern, Aarniokoski has Aycox in the right background while he has one-fourth of Blucas' out of focus face in the left foreground. There's another tracking shot through Jules' bar that's so amateurish, I expected the camera guy to trip and fall in the middle of it. Aarniokoski also employs slow motion, fast motion and a host of other camera and editing tricks in such a haphazard fashion that it seems like there's something wrong with the DVD. And after a climactic battle of bargain-basement CGI werewolves, Aarniokoski wraps everything up with what appears to be a feminine hygiene commercial. I'm not kidding about that.

If you cut out all the pointless digressions and pure nonsense, this 90 minute movie might be barely an hour long. That would still be an hour of your life wasted, so don't bother renting Animals.

Not as Bad as the IMDb Rating Indicates

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 7 January 2010]

In Reno, Vic (Naveen Andrews) and Nora (Nicki Aycox) form an unusual couple of predators between human and animals that feed of human blood and enjoy having sex. Nora decides to leave Vic and heads to Clayton Valley, where she meets the former football player Jarrett (Marc Blucas) in the bar Jules' Joint. Jarrett was in college with a scholarship, but he had an accident that interrupted his promising career and he had returned to his hometown. His best friend Jules (Andy Corneau) idolizes him and has many pictures and trophies of Jarrett exposed in his bar; the bartender Jane (Eva Amurri) has a secret crush on him. Presently Jarrett has a problem with his chief Vaughn (Bart Johnson) that persecutes him at work. Nora is harassed by Vaughn in the bar, but she refuses his invitation and goes to Jarrett's house; she bites him while they have wild sex. Jarrett feels his senses more accurate but he does not understand what is happening to him. When Vic arrives in town seeking out Nora, Jarrett discovers that Vic is not human while Nora and his friends are jeopardized by the cruel creature.

"Animals" is a horror movie that blends gore and eroticism like an erotic thriller. Nicki Aycox is very hot in the sex scenes and the director Douglas Aarniokoski abuses in the exposition of the beautiful body of this actress. But this movie is not as bad as the IMDb Rating indicates. The screenplay and edition are confused; the special effects are above average; but the story could be an episode of "Supernatural', with these demoniac beings. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Animais" ("Animals")

Enjoyable erotic horror trash

[Woodyanders · 8/10 · 15 April 2012]

Down on his luck working class zhlub Jarrett (a likable portrayal by Mark Blucas) meets and falls for lovely and enticing, but dangerous and mysterious young minx Nora (a nicely sassy performance by the alluring Nicki Aycox). Nora draws Jarrett into a dark and frightening netherworld where the predatory and animalistic side of human nature gets unleashed. Complications ensue when Nora's feral and possessive lover Vic (robustly played with lip-licking nasty relish by Naveen Andrews) arrives in town looking for her. Director Douglas Aarniokoski, working from an engrossing script by Craif Spector, relates the compelling story at a snappy pace, brings a dazzling hyper-kinetic style to the entertainingly low-rent material, firmly grounds the fantastic premise in a plausibly gritty and downbeat blue collar environment, delivers a handy helping of graphic gore, and provides a substantial amount of tasty female nudity and sizzling soft-core sex that gives the picture an extra scorching erotic charge. The sound acting from the capable cast helps a lot, with especially praiseworthy work by Blucas, Aycox, and Andrews in the leads, with sturdy support from Eva Amurri as sweet and smitten barmaid Jane, Andy Comeau as amiable bar owner Jules, and Bart Johnson as Jarrett's jerky boss Vaughn. The polished cinematography by Mark Williams gives the movie an impressive glossy look. Alan Brewer's throbbing tribal score does the pulse-pounding trick. Only the shoddy CGI monster f/x leave something to be desired. Good rubbishy fun.

Very HOT Thriller - cools with delayed release, but NOT DOA!

[matowakita · 7/10 · 18 March 2008]

I finally got to see the final cut of this film and although I still think it's a good horror film, with a few fairly intense sex scenes, it's a bit less effective than I expected.

It is much better than the IMDb rating indicates. Only the cartoonish digital "animals"(imagine Scooby Doo's angry ghost) weaken what could have been a well-above-average film. I find it interesting that Reno is listed first in order on locations. Nearly all of this was shot in Utah. But I know there was some controversy about the close to "soft porn" sex and the Utah Film Commission. Just filling in the long pause at the end of the first sex scene with talk I heard on set, I suspect that long cut leaves out a lot to be desired.

I worked four days on this film as Bart Johnson's banker buddy, mostly in the bar scene. I loved watching the director working. Animals had a strong cast and crew and the editing and "most" of the effects are fine.

It's certainly worth the price of rental from Redbox!

Quite a Bit of Sex and Nudity

[Uriah43 · 6/10 · 1 February 2014]

After a football injury ended his career before it even began "Jarrett" (Marc Blucas) is now forced to work at a menial job with a boss who doesn't like him. His only respite is a bar where he goes to socialize with the owner "Jules" (Andy Comeau) and the waitress "Jane" (Eva Amurri Martino). One night a sexy young woman named "Nora" (Nicki Aycox) walks in and Jarrett is immediately attracted to her. Jane recognizes immediately that Nora is trouble and tries to warn Jarrett but her words fall on deaf ears. It appears that Nora has a unique malady which turns her into a ravenous beast similar to a werewolf and she wants Jarrett to be her new mate. Unfortunately, she already has a mate named "Vic" (Naveen Andrews) who she is desperately trying to escape from due to his cruelty and insane jealousy. Anyway, rather than disclose the entire details of the movie and risk spoiling it for those who haven't seen it I will just say that this was a pretty good low-budget horror film. Admittedly, the CGI wasn't that good but it had a good story and I liked the performances of Marc Blucas, Nicki Aycox and Naveen Andrews. However, I should probably caution viewers that there is quite a bit of sex and nudity which is certainly not appropriate for a general audience. Even so I thought it was a pretty good movie and I rate it as slightly above average.

Basically a bloody vampire movie, but with some sparks

[robertemerald · 7/10 · 20 October 2020]

It's worth watching Animals for Nicki Aycox as the femme fatale. There is excellent colour, but the soundtrack is a bit dated and ordinary, including the animal sounds. There are moments of good cinematography, some of the interior car scenes or shots of industry at twilight for example, but the movie falls down somewhat when it comes to visual effects. Not entirely though, as I thought some of the lightening movements of the 'animals' were done well. I'll have to just out and say it however ... the 3D animations were simplistic and cheap, and could only have worked if the movie was 1999 rather than 2009. Animals is basically a vampire movie, and if you like vampire movies then this one is interesting and sincere, and certainly bloody, and at least deserves a much higher score than the 3.8 it currently enjoys here at IMDb.

Good, but a shame about the CGI.

[parry_na · 7/10 · 13 October 2018]

"Bite me," instructs Nora (Nicki Aycox), and floundering decent guy Jarrett (Marc Blucas) isn't sure he wants to. But Nora's highly charged, insatiable sexuality doesn't seem to accept uncertainties. These two performers are excellent in what is little more than a series of passionate sexual encounters and gore. Her 'other beau' Vic (Naveen Andrews) also shares her feral instincts and is clearly not someone with whom you would wish to 'mess.'

Stylistically, this reminded me of a kind of cross between the slinky sexiness of 'Underworld (2003)' and the trailer-park atmospherics of 'Near Dark (1987)'. Not a bad pedigree, and Director Douglas Aarniokoski ensures that visually things are interesting even if the story is somewhat thin - and strangely, gets thinner as events take their course. With a lessening of the sex, we are bombarded with more CGI effects the limited budget cannot sustain. This is a shame - with a more physical manifestation of the finale, it would have been more successful. CGI, unless expertly (and expensively) handled, robs a scene of atmosphere and reduces it to cartoon theatrics, and that is what happens here unfortunately. As such, it lessens the otherwise successful interpretation of John Skipp's original story.

Good low budget attempt at fine book

[faollin · 6/10 · 4 April 2020]

I got the book this is based on from a remainder bin and loved it. Movis is not as good. The wild streak that makes the hero a candidate is not as clear. good enough, the acting is fine. I like that the transformation is unlike other films although a bigger cgi budget would help. Great concept just a bit off the mark.