Gnaw (II) (2008) User Reviews

What a pointless movie

[dschmeding · 3/10 · 16 May 2009]

OK, first of all I have to jump in and support the thesis that a huge bunch of comments in this thread are fake or promotional. Gnaw is by all means a below average horror movie that is so damn full of clichés and at times funny in a definitely unintended way. The plot is already paper thin considering we are talking about a movie thats basic idea is a bunch of kids arriving in a house at the countryside that turns out to be inhabited by cannibals. There is not much gore here for a 2009 horror movie and many scenes are pointless to ridiculous like when a guy is strapped to a table and has his tongue removed with pliers while a girl is watching it through a window. This scene is the essence of uninspired and badly edited horror even ending in her bumping in a bucket and alarming the evil cannibal.

I will give the movie that the cinematography is pretty good and visually it delivers what it can't on the story, suspense or gore side. A really large part of the movie works with no dialog at all and considering its so clichéd and lacking any suspense or surprise that sure is a bad idea. The movie doesn't look but surely feels like a film school project gone wrong so don't bother wasting your time on a uninspired and pointless ten thousandth take on the "Cannibal Weirdos in the last house on the right" premise.

Crap

[tbor8 · 4/10 · 13 May 2009]

Pretty boring horror.

• Little to no atmosphere - No background story whatsoever - Useless mask on killer - Very unoriginal - No/crappy music

The acting was not bad and the film quality was great.. Just wish they had done something worthwhile with it..

I love horror movies, especially ones about serial killers and cannibals, but sadly there are not a lot out there that are any good. I fell for the "rave reviews" about this movie, I have to say they did a pretty good job marketing it. And it doesn't look like a crappy camcorder movie either, it actually looks like a quality movie.. Sadly there's nothing special about this and all in all it's just boring. Sorry for you actors and filmmakers, but I have to advice people to not waste time on this movie.

All the UK reviews are fake.

Gnaw Or Bore???

[Systreco · 2/10 · 15 May 2009]

OK firstly, this has been done over and over and over in the past few years! How many times can we be subjected to the same old story and cliché characters?? A group of friends go for a holiday in a remote cottage in the middle of nowhere! Amongst the characters are the "Jerk", "Bitch", "Nice Guy" and "Misunderstood Girl" oh and we shouldn't forget the "Psycho Maniac"!!!! Jeez! Anyone that has seen Severance or The Cottage will have seen this without even knowing it! Basically it is just a combination of the 2 movies! One saving grace was the direction, it was pretty tight! If only the acting, story and characters could have been as good!

Occam's razor

[carlshere · 5/10 · 13 May 2009]

A small observation about the merits of this film and these reviews.....

ALL FIVE of the preceding posts are from single posting members (in the UK)and were all posted within two weeks of each other.

What? Did a memo go out to the entire movie cast to post positive reviews on IMDb?

Did someone really "like this film so much that she saw it several times and recommended it to several of her friends"?

Night of the living dead it ain't

For shame.

Gnaw: Nasty throughout

[Platypuschow · 2/10 · 21 November 2018]

Gnaw otherwise known as Cannibal Kitchen was pretty much doomed from the start for me. For a start it's UK cinema and I don't have the habit of enjoying British stuff very often, second it's cannibal themed and thats a sub-genre I rarely appreciate.

It tells the usual story of a group of 20 somethings who go away together for a weekend of debauchery only to run foul of a psychotic butcher who turns his victims into meals.

The most alarming thing here is the lack of originality. People turn up, get picked off one by one, screaming, stabbing and the obligatory final girl type character. We've seen it so many times that any aspiring filmmaker should surely think twice before releasing such generic garbage like Gnaw.

It has nothing going for it at all. It had one single "Twist" which I predicted within the first quarter of the film. It's just so paint by numbers it made my head hurt.

If you aren't going to try then why even make the movie?

The Good:

Nope

The Bad:

Devoid of originality

Predictible nonsense

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

I'm starting a #leavecatsaloneinmovies hashtag, this has to stop!

Common going away with your friends supplies must include pregnancy tests

Aw Hell "Gnaw"

[lovecraft231 · 1/10 · 18 September 2009]

Six dumb, stereotypical friends go to the English Countryside for some drinking, sex and other activities. So, what's with the old lady and all the meat they've been getting? Oh, and look out for a bloodthirsty cannibal with a sheep skin covered mask.

"Eden Log", I congratulate you: you are no longer the worst horror flick I've seen this year. A poor attempt at doing a gory, tongue in cheek cannibal/slasher flick, "Gnaw" is a film that desperately wants to be a British answer to the "Wrong Turn" and "Hostel" films, as well as a British "Texas Chainsaw Massacre." That's fine and all, except it lacks the fun 70's/80's horror throwback aspect of the "Wrong Turn" flicks, as well as the Black Humor and Social Commentary of the "Hostel" movies and the choking atmosphere and claustrophobia of "Chainsaw." Hell, there's already a British answer to "Chainsaw"-it's called "Raw Meat", and it's much better than this movie.

It also doesn't help that everything else falls flat. The Black Humor of the film is neither clever or interesting, while the attempts at more serious, dramatic moments are laughable at best. Plus, while there's plenty of gore, it's all so lethargic and monotonous-there's no energy to any of the violence or viscera on display, and it's a bore to sit through. Add to an twist so predictable it would be insulting to call it a twist, as well as an annoying score and poor acting, and you get a really bad horror flick that borders on unwatchable.

On the plus side, at least the killer has a unique mask. In the end though, "Gnaw" isn't worth your time or consideration. For a better British Slasher flick, see Christopher Smith's movies "Creep" and the satirical "Severance" instead of this. For a better British Cannibal flick, see the aforementioned "Raw Meat" instead of this. Trust me, you're better off doing that.

weak.

[sedition-1 · 2/10 · 28 May 2009]

the fact that it was a cast of unknowns didn't help it rise above 'budget horror flick' as the acting throughout was hammed and even the old lady Mrs Obadiah managed to be completely unbelievable.

the cinematography stumbled from one horror cliché to the next doing almost nothing original and failing to create any atmosphere or tension.

the gore was weak. the plot was shoddy. the music wasn't great.

overall a terrible flick with no redeeming features that I can think of.

couldn't recommend this film to anyone

just sad

[brewkenny · 1/10 · 21 May 2009]

it's one of the worst movies i have ever seen....i could of shot better film with my 8mm camera....just a waste of film i do not have anything good to say about this so called film i don't even know how it ends...because i didn't even get that far just terrible the person who made this film needs..by the way the people in the film needs to be shot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OK they will not let me post my comment unless its about ten lines they need to change this some movies do not deserve more than one line so im gonna try to spread it out a little bit hope it works.

now they saying do not pad your comments this crap sucks man i really don't have anything to write..so back in Detroit where i was born we had some fun

good gore, really bad script

[sifort2012 · 1/10 · 1 August 2009]

i watched this based on the poster and for the fact that i like checking out low budget uk horror films.

its awful, its shot OK but the script feels like the first draft of a script writing student. whoever read it and said to the film makers 'thats good, shoot that' should be shot.

the poor actors have to wander around either spouting meaningless nonsense or obvious exposition, the story hits all the beats that the books teach you to hit when writing a horror film but thats not enough to make a film work. its boring, the characters are all stereotypical to the point of nausea and its only positive point is that the make up fx guy should get some work from it.

avoid, even if its on the TV.

Simply Gnawful

[thesar-2 · 1/10 · 18 July 2009]

After just watching the ironically un-amusing 'Amusement,' I took an even further step back with the playfully titled 'Gnaw.' Such as, if you see this in the video store, you should move on while saying, "Gnaw, we should watch a decent movie tonight." This movie was bad on many levels, and though mercifully it was only 90-minutes, it seemed to drag on to 3-hours. This definitely was my error, but I had thought I was getting into another giant mutated animal low-budget horror, thinking back to the 80's creature feature: 'Gnaw: Food of the Gods 2.' Nope, this was just an extremely simple, 100% rip off of, say, every single horror movie made. I mean, not an original idea was thought up. We've got all (but mainly #2) 'Texas Chainsaw Massacres,' (any one of the dozens of) 'Wrong Turn' (films), 'Motel Hell,' 'Friday the 13th,' 'Hostel' (or, all torture-porn films) and many, many more. Get this for a premise: six friends of all clichés and statuses venture out to a seemingly "normal" house in the middle of nowhere on a holiday when no one really knows that much about this place, but it sure sounds like a vacation full of booze, sex and relaxation. Someone not even born knows what's coming, so it's no spoiler to say there's a (sometimes) masked psycho bent on, go ahead guess. I'm really no killer, and I've already covered this in my apparently poorly conceived review of 'Shuttle,' but if you get a chance to stop/kill your attacker, you should do it. I would. 30-40 stabs would be released from me to make sure my initial bonk on the head of the killer wasn't the only blow. 1/funniest scenes involved someone ignoring this rule and reaching for his, what? Inhaler? Simply gnawful.

very unique sense of humour

[jontyrhodes1 · 8/10 · 16 March 2009]

Okay-It's derivative, and the acting was solid if nothing spectacular, but that's the bad stuff out of the way. As Gnaw is rather good.

Director Mandry shows a penchant for creating jump scare tension, and solid gore sequences (with a couple of standout moments), which are all exceptionally executed and a must for this horror fan.

The mood of the film is dark, and omni doom driven (if occasionally too downbeat), which help to create a type of horror we haven't seen since the 70s.

The film has a very unique sense of humour which is very difficult to achieve in horror. I.e. it's not too tongue in cheek to be farcical, rather on the cusp of being tonely spot on (doesn't take it's self totally seriously, but is able to go up a gear at the right time, to remind the viewer what type of film they are watching).

terrible movie

[jinmoon · 2/10 · 19 May 2009]

This was a horrible movie. As someone pointed out earlier, the cinematography was good, which makes it even more baffling that absolutely no effort was put into making this movie scary. This movie had no sense of timing for horror because I wasn't scared, or even startled once. In addition, the plot as well as every single character was over the top cliché. The movie progresses incredibly slowly and nothing really develops. I will admit that the the acting was not at all bad. If the actors had anything resembling a real script to follow then this might have turned out OK. All in all its an absolute waste of time and inspired me to make an IMDb account and post my first review ever. I'm also not sure why this is listed as a comedy.

Could of Been so much better...

[grantham-666 · 3/10 · 18 May 2009]

I love British Horror's, and i was really looking forward to this film, but looking at the acting, well, i was disgusted with it. I have not seen such dry acting in a long time until now. The characters were predictable, bland, and most of all annoying. I wish they had better deaths, oh yes, and they were tension and gore free also. The most gore seen was with a pair of pliers and a tongue. The main Villain, wore a creepy hooded cloak, with an animal as a mask type thing (you'll just have to see it) He did look quite creepy i guess. Also what annoyed me with this film, was the final scene, there was no relationship shown between the two cannibals of this movie, and the final scene was way too quick and unsatisfying. They could of done a lot more with this movie, with the characters, the atmosphere and location. It was a real shame. If your after a lot of tension and gore, DO NOT watch this film.

mediocre horror flick

[trashgang · 4/10 · 18 January 2012]

This is Gregory Mandry first attempt to direct a movie. Did he fail, no and yes. But the way it failed was more a fact due the low budget and the weak script. It starts pretty well but once the victim is captured by the disguised killer you can see were it goes wrong. The killing is done off-screen. Not that I mind but the result of the killing is also not shown. But if you look who is in it as actor and who are the writers or the team behind it than you see that they all are involved in Zombie Diaries 1 and 2. So clearly a bunch of friends trying to make a horror.

The killer isn't convincing at all, why he's wearing a mask is never explained. When the gang is going for a weekend to a house that they hired the landlady is clearly involved in the killings from the first time she appears. The acting was okay but you never get involved into their characters. Someone is having an affair with the girlfriend of his girlfriend and some want to have sex and you see things coming but it is never expanded towards their characters. When one of the girls is being captured she's bear breasted but once the chainsaw of the killer is shown she just sits there and waits to be hacked. You know what I mean.

I won't going to say that it was all that bad, some effects were okay like the acid scene and the scene with the pitchfork but overall it lacks here and there. For buffs it will be a disappointment but for teenagers it will be a delight.

Gore 1/5 Nudity 0,5/5 Effects 2/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5

What's up with the extreme reviews on this flick?

[scootmandutoo · 5/10 · 12 March 2011]

There are 2 sets of reviews for this flick. The first, obvious batch, is from those involved with making it, they give it incredible raves. Those have been rightfully called out for being bogus.

What I do not understand are those who have made this out to be one of the worst horror flicks ever. It's not even close to being that bad.

Come on, any horror fan who decides to watch this flick knows exactly what they are going to be viewing...a cinematic marriage of "Motel Hell" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre." As if any of the "Saw" sequels, or "Fridays the 13th" sequels, or "Halloween" sequels (except for #3) were going to offer something original and different? So why rag on this one for being derivative? Were you expecting "Inception"? As opposed to some other low-budget flicks I have seen, this one offers some pretty good cinematography and while the characters are fairly stereotypical, the acting is actually rather serviceable.

This film does have a few very gory moments, including a tongue-removal (a la "Mark of the Devil"). But in many other scenes, the gore is mostly left off screen. I think this was partially due to budgetary constraints, but I didn't mind. I watch horror more to be scared, not to be completely nauseated.

The major flaw I found with "Gnaw" was its essential incompleteness. Without giving too much away, was the vegetarian fed 'meat' in the captivity which the film suggests, but doesn't show? Her fate? Unresolved. Perhaps, intentionally.

Also, why would someone find an elaborately painted fingernail in their dinner and not react? Shouldn't there have been a scene where the innocent victims suddenly have a realization about what they are eating, while they are eating? Not in this movie, where a cohort rushes in with a revelation that quickly overshadows the discovery.

And yes, why on earth would the 3 not attempt an escape together? Having said all that, this film did deliver its share of creepiness.

Was it as awful as some posters would have you believe?

Naw.

Underwhelming splatter flick.

[Hey_Sweden · 5/10 · 9 August 2012]

The legacy of "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" continues with this UK production that has much juicy violence to satisfy gore lovers but little else. When all is said and done, this really doesn't bring anything different to the party. It's best recommended to those horror fans that just want some undemanding thrills. The story has a group of young British folk taking a vacation at a secluded country home who are then victimized by the local savage, who loves to turn human beings into chopped meat. They dwindle in number quickly mainly because none of them are too bright. Granted, some of them are likable enough. At the very least, the screenplay shows that all of them are fair game; there are no guarantees of anybody's survival. That doesn't change the fact that this is all very thinly written and routinely directed. The movie depends a little too much on its shock value and its overdone jump scares. It does create some effective atmosphere from being set in the real country. The soundtrack is a good counter balance to the grim and sadistic goings-on throughout. There are some nice touches on occasion, such as things being shown from the perspective of a character who's been blind-folded, and the choice of mask for our antagonist, which is somewhat creepy. Production design and widescreen cinematography are impressive, the pacing adequate enough. But what few assets there are can't really make up for a familiar premise and presentation, right down to the ending. The performances by most everybody involved are nothing special, save for the delicious scenery chewing (or maybe I should say gnawing) of Carrie Cohen as Mrs. Obadiah. All in all, this is one gore fest you can safely skip unless you just can't get enough of this sort of thing. Five out of 10.

More Humorous than scary.

[red_blooded_monster · 3/10 · 29 March 2011]

The opening is probably the best part of the film. It's got a bit of suspense and a decent actress playing her part of screaming victim.

The scene where the blindfolded girl walks into her own fate, with the misguided thoughts that its her boyfriend guiding her, was the best scene after the opening. I thought it was cleverly done and worked well.

The film did go down hill after that (and before that actually) as the script was not so good and the characters were not very likable. The stereotypical characters are a bit boring, most of all the blond girl who makes countless mistakes and like always sets her self up many times to him kill her. I mean who actually even thinks about there phone when someone is trying to kill them, let alone go back for it. Unrealistic and annoying.

The part where he gets he tongue ripped out is the most gore this film has to offer, it lacks any gore or a decent amount of blood that a film about cannibals would expect.

I'm going to give this film 3/10, I'm a harsh marker and believe this is a decent film. If you've got a night where you've got nothing to do then i would recommend watching it to pass time.

It's all been done so many times before, and much better.

[BA_Harrison · 3/10 · 30 November 2015]

A cannibalistic mother (Carrie Cohen) and her son (Gary Faulkner) feed on holidaymakers who rent their farmhouse (located in the only part of the UK still without mobile phone coverage), clearly not deterred by the fact that most people usually tell someone where they are going, and that—if logic were to play any part in this movie—it would only be a matter of time before the police came a calling.

Having conveniently ignored logic, the makers of Gnaw also turn a blind eye to originality: I've seen more creativity from a photocopier, the film employing every tired slasher cliché imaginable. Hell, it even shamelessly rips off the Halloween theme and borrows the 'ki ki ki, ma, ma, ma' sound effect from Friday the 13th.

None of this would be such a big issue if only director Gregory Mandry actually managed to deliver either effective scares or creative deaths, but because everything in his film is so predictable, genuine frights are in short supply, and to keep his budget down, nearly all of the kills occur off-screen. Most of the 'gore' consists of minced beef drowned in fake blood, although there are one or two severed body parts on show towards the end. That other staple of the slasher genre, nudity, is limited to one pair of bare, bloody breasts, courtesy of Julia Vandoorne.

Pointless people in predictable peril.

[still_not_here · 2/10 · 27 October 2012]

I really wanted to like this film, I like to see British horrors, but the script was predictable and badly written making the characters very one dimensional, not only did you know what was going to happen but you knew exactly what they were going to say.

They stuck every cliché in there: sex starved young people in an isolated place, the strange cook who was in on it all along, the killer who wears a mask for no reason, the slow walking bad guy always catching up easily with the running characters, the Gothy chick who has a strange bond with the killer, lots of people wandering off by themselves to make them easier to kill, even down to a 'shock' victims hand slamming against a car window after exactly three seconds of silence. This really did feel like horror making by numbers.

The gore wasn't gory, everything was off screen with a couple of exceptions of bits that were too much on screen and brightly lit so you could see how fake they were.

The suspense wasn't suspenseful, there was a big deal in the 'what's in the kidney pie' even though you saw someone having their kidneys removed in the very first scene and one character finds a human hair in her food right near the start which destroyed any chance of prolonging the mystery.

This is to British horror what x-factor is to real music, bland and damaging.

And after I figured out that 'Gnaw' was 'Wang' backwards I couldn't take it seriously anyway ... even though it was from Poundland I felt slightly ripped off.

Well paced gritty UK Horror. A must for TCM fans...

[thejukewolf · 10/10 · 11 March 2009]

This low budget (and surprisingly high quality) English horror flick pulls no punches and delivers a steady stream of chills and jump scares from the menacing residents of an isolated country hotel. If you loved Texas Chainsaw Massacre then this is for you. Features no famous faces, but this aids the believability of the desperate situation facing a group of young holidaymakers who pick the wrong hotel. Gore factor is fairly high, and executed well, as some films in the genre try too hard with this element. If you have a weak stomach then stay away. As a horror veteran I rated this film and feel it falls into the category of "pure horror" and delivers a fresh perspective on an age old format..... LH.

For once, take heed of the bad reviews.

[RatedVforVinny · 3/10 · 19 March 2019]

Brutal but instantly forgettable film about a ravenous family of cannibals. It's hard to even find a good set of words to describe this movie and no doubt there are many better examples for you to seek out and watch. Although there is always a strong market for such movies, this one is just unoriginal and routine at best.

Low-budgeter plays like a student film

[RogerB-P3RV3 · 3/10 · 24 February 2020]

Six friends on vacation at an English countryside discover something is amiss in the cottage where they are staying. Low-budgeter plays like a student film. The cast does a commendable job only to be let down by a mediocre plot. The murder segments are strictly amateurish. Major exposition at the end - supposed to be the highlight of the movie - is unsurprisingly predictable.

Hell Gnaw

[marvel_devitt · 1/10 · 1 January 2010]

This is a list that I have compiled of CRAP that makes horror movies totally suck:

1.Creepy lullaby music and mysterious la-la singing out of nowhere. 2.Predictable villain one liners(which sometimes are awesome, but not here.) 3.Lame music during sex scene. Pitiful. 4.Predictable death sequence. 5.Obnoxious college student characters that take FOREVER to die! 6.Total lack of murderer's personality. No psychological fear. Boring. 7.Cellphones.

In my humble opinion, movies that fail the horror genre in these ways are all too common in modern cinema, especially in the 2000's. At least I could laugh the discarded fashion choices of films from the 90's, but these bratty college kids are to familiarly irritating to laugh at yet. I want my precious hour and sixteen minutes back, you bastards.

Not as bad as I thought

[kittenkongshow · 4/10 · 23 October 2012]

One thing I shouldn't do before watching a film is read the reviews on here.

I wonder if some of the slating is due to the early reviews being fake ones probably cast/crew.

So the film...It's really a Brit Low Budget run through Texas Chainsaw with the added food factor, It's not badly done and runs nicely through the Horror film clichés that we all know and love.

It's a short film (without credits around 65m) so it doesn't outstay it's welcome (although the scenes of the people getting there are in need of an edit) - Take it as a homage to TCM and such like and you can except the fact it isn't original.

It's another one I got from a pound shop and it was worth the money.

Nadir of the British horror film

[Leofwine_draca · 2/10 · 15 February 2016]

GNAW is a cheap, shot-in-the-dark, British cannibal horror film about a group of young friends who are stalked and menaced by a masked slasher who plans to put them on his menu. It's a grim and scuzzy entry in the torture porn genre, a film whose sole existence is to show people being killed in increasingly grisly fashions.

Sadly, it's an awful film to sit through, with very poor cinematography which stays dark throughout to hide budget constraints. There's shaky-cam work of people being chased through the woods, more bad acting than you can shake a stick at, and a general lack of storyline which makes the whole thing a chore to sit through. Why it's described as a comedy horror I don't know, because there's no comedy in it whatsoever, funny or otherwise.