Extinction (2014) User Reviews

Oh God, Oh God, Cameraman James, PLEASE for the love of God in heaven stop talking!

[user_unknown-49930 · 3/10 · 6 June 2015]

This could have been an interesting movie, in spite of the "found footage" nature. The location was great, and the B-movie acting talent wasn't bad. Generally, I'm a B-movie fan.

Unfortunately, it is terminally mauled by the premise that a film crew with enough budget to hire a cameraman and a producer in the first place and fly them to Peru, manages to hire a cameraman so incredibly stupid that he doesn't understand that he is not supposed to walk last so that every moving shot in the entire movie is ankles, butts, and ground, constantly turn the camera around and talk to it, take shaky spinny camera shots from behind seats, behind people, behind rocks, behind trees, yammer on and on and on and on and on and on, and shoot perhaps 7x more shots of his producer's erect nipples than of the conveniently available dinosaurs that they eventually discover.

Imagine hiring Steve Stiffler from American Pie to work a camera on a documentary, and you pretty much have "James". Obviously, their SFX budget was minuscule and they wanted to conserve on-screen dino time, but instead, it comes across that James is so mind-numbingly moronic that when he's actually physically pointing the camera at a living breathing dinosaur, he'd rather turn the camera away and point it at his producer's face or nipples and talk.

Did I mention that James is also operating the only documentary camera in the history of documentaries that utterly doesn't have night vision? Because, well, why would you take one of those into a jungle? And they're sleeping in a tent, in the Amazon, with every window zipped up tight as a drum, because god knows that you wouldn't be seeking a breeze in a Peruvian rain forest -- or to well, be able to see out, using the night vision that you didn't bring.

Oh, or flashlights. Why would you bring flashlights to a jungle? Also, early on they lose their guides in a separate car -- who go forward on a one-lane road because they're scared, but who somehow vanish for the entire of the movie because they, I don't know, teleported to behind them, perhaps?

It's perhaps a minor complaint among all the rest, but if your car is stopped because it's broken the night before, it probably shouldn't just start and drive away the next day.

And in spite of the "found footage" nature of the film, including the "we put this together by timestamp" intro, the producer and professor survive. Meaning that it's not truly found footage at all, just film put together by the actual person who'd have been doing it anyway. But of course horribly in any case, because cameraman James.

Unfortunately, no dinosaurs eat James. God, was I rooting for them to do so. He does die at the end, though. So yay.

Could have been so much better

[triggersplace-82096 · 4/10 · 18 May 2015]

The Lost World idea of finding dinosaurs in a remote part of the planet is not new. Peru as a location had the potential, but it was never to be. The idea of driving along a dirt road and labeling it remote for the purpose of the film is ludicrous.

Had they spent a week in a canoe and then 2 weeks trekking to their destination using tribal Indians as guides I would have believed it. Wearing sleeveless tops in a malaria-infested rain forest at night, camping in tents and carrying a table and chair into the jungle just doesn't make sense. Their packs aren't big enough for a day trip let alone a multi-day hike. The nights are remarkably bug-free, I don't know any animal that would come around a camp with a lite fire in it. They find an albino python and don't know its albino? They can hear sounds of something big for 3 days every night but no tracks or scats are found and the scientists don't even seem interested. No discussion on what it could be? Was it a Tapir or Pecari, or Caiman? No picket at night to set up cameras and try and find out what it was. How did they navigate, as I didn't see a compass or GPS on anyone? How did the rain forest suddenly become wet sclerophyll?

In the end, I just watched to see how many things I could spot that were wrong. .

Oh, and the cameraman is an idiot. In all very disappointing.

Oh dear!

[mattsilvey · 2/10 · 25 November 2015]

Wanted to waste some time and I most certainly did!! Shame a lot of low budget films nowadays (and this seemed very much like one!), seem to want to film in a self-filmed view! This film is not worth wasting your time on I'm afraid! Sometimes you get a lower budget gem and its worth it, like tremors, but this isn't anything great! I'd rather watch Cloverfield and thats saying something! Have given it 2 stars because I'm sure I've seen worse, but shut it out of my memory, and it did waste a little time (although not the running length of the film because fast-forward was used!! Thought I'd give a real review rather than sugar-coat it!!

no good

[snusenx · 3/10 · 18 May 2015]

Really not much to say. Its just not any good. I see some glowing reviews here, but that must be the film crew and their relatives writing. If you are going to use this kind of hand-held amateur cam, you need to do better than this. I think 3 is a fair value, cause its not the worst I have seen, but I think I deserve my money back.... its really borderline fraud to charge people for watching this one. Some of the acting is not as bad as a 3, but the overall experience is no good. And its too long as well, I got really bored the last half hour.

If you still want to watch this, consider your self warned.

Good luck and God speed.

Falsey advertised and shows as bad

[thebritwriter · 1/10 · 26 May 2015]

Giving a 1 star is a drastic rating, its not Garbage pail kids level but it is very dishonest, and dishonesty is as bad as a bad film itself.

I'll break this down on the cover we have the quotes from 'reviews' stating: 'An unrelenting, unstoppable thrill ride' 'Packed with Monsters' 'A truly terrifying movie' I'm not making that up, that is how the film is described as by these 'reviews' to cap it off the poster has a oversized T-Rex facing down at one of the characters who is actually (in the film) a seasoned guide/survival expert Professor John Howson played by Ben Loyd-Holme (who is also the writer and producer. It should be noted that this person is the only tough guy in the film and even fights a T-rex in combat.

So already the cover has misleading quotes and spearheaded by someone whose ego is dictating the project.

The cover is mentioned because from the pic to its description of action you wouldn't think it as a found footage film, also the very large T-Rex does not appear, in the last few minutes of the film something knocks the car off but if you were hoping to see that giant then prepared to be disappointed.

And as for 'Packed with monsters' there's only one T-rex and its a small one, now to be fair they don't go CG like asylum do but the lure of exciting adventure and boast of different creatures simply don't exist.

What you get is an apparent cameraman (Daniel Caren as 'James') he is a self centred selfie seeking character he tries to be funny but he is beyond annoying, using a camera to record wildlife to also record breasts and his own face and ego.

None of the characters are likable but James is far more annoying and undergoes a severe character change, early on he freaks out when a stick insect is on his face, yet once the T-rex arrives he becomes macho and the woman who he worked for who was a strong character herself is now reduced to hugging his chest for strength. And am not making that up.

There is nothing in the story its the same 'explore the unknown' routine, with the dino not arriving till 15 minutes from end and even shoddy camera work hinders so much. There is no story with scenes stolen from blair witch project, cloverfield and even lord of the rings. There is just no story and all this does is tick off the clichés it aimed for.

Don't even get this on loan from the library.

I hate it when a movie has some qualities that are overshadowed by such awfulness that it totally destroys the film.

[taoplayer · 1/10 · 19 May 2015]

I hate it when a movie has some qualities that are overshadowed by such awfulness that it totally destroys the film., For me, seeing the characters, most of which seem to know which end of the camera is the important bit seemed to offer promise. But seeing the directors take on what makes a film is both disgusting, and ludicrously bad film making. For instance, every time the camera sets down, it is focused on the female leads breast, crotch, or ass, and remains there while the dialogue plays out.,, or it sits there for some time while in no way advancing the story. Its like it was calculated what shot would appeal to juvenile prurient interest, and tries to exploit it. Then the directors involvement as an actor, talk about heavy handed, there are many, many shots of the cameraman, focusing in for a nattering boring close up that is exactly perfectly focused, no matter how terrified the cameraman is supposed to be. Why are only those shots in perfect focus you might ask. I suspect its due to lack of knowledge of his craft, ego, and a lot of poor taste.

The characters that had the potential of more interest, Tim who seemed to overact every time he had his glasses on, which made a character more like a cartoon; but when he took the glasses off he was someone else. Then there was the alpha male, who specialized in predator, and primate behaviour studies, never really did anything very interesting at all.

Then there is the special effect dinosaurs, looked poorly crafted, shown in very bad light, blurred by motion, and only visible for a second, or two.

From lighting, to camera angles, to acting, to plot, to writing, to acting, to directing, there was such unevenness that the most I could have given the film is a three. However the 1/10 I gave it still stands, as it was such a waste of time from out of my life.

Decent scenery, lousy company

[quincytheodore · 4/10 · 18 May 2015]

Having an obnoxious cameraman on found footage is the equivalent of seated next to a loud texting person in cinema. Extinction has a couple good moments and the setting is presentable, but almost half of the movie is spent on bickering. If it's for realism of human drama, it's doubtful that actual documentary people would argue as much and the banter is not exactly appealing. For the encounter with alleged monster, it has so little impact since the effect is far from compelling, so barely anything works in Extinction.

The film follows the journey of scientists and filmmakers to the depth of Amazon. They soon find out that the forest hides a very insidious secret. The use of found footage is mainly to create a sense of involvement for audience, yet the movie has a very confrontational cast. Nearly everyone would mumble in antagonizing manner almost in every scene, especially the cameraman James who is utterly annoying.

He would instigate people and react poorly when interacting with others. It's probably for humor purpose, but it gets tiring very fast. There are the rudimentary comments on the existence of creature which are plodding the already uninteresting endeavor. Some scenes involving actual fauna is a bit better to establish the authenticity, though these are few between all the squabbles.

As expected there would be unclear shots as the monster eventually reveals itself. It's not half bad since a couple of these instances are engaging. However, the effect for said monster is not convincing. The movie doesn't have the luxury of smooth mix of usual camcorder view and CG like Troll Hunter or Cloverfield. Not to mention the cast is unfriendly, it won't garner much sympathy.

In the end, Extinction doesn't offer an amusing journey, let alone the grandeur encounter the poster falsely advertises.

Not as bad as I expected

[markleachsa-1 · 5/10 · 19 May 2015]

This is a strangely watchable movie. It is found footage and follows the genre quite faithfully. But is has an element of tongue in cheek about it that brings a slight attraction.

The hero, strangely enough, is the cameraman who is brought in as a last minute substitute on a very BBC-like documentary project. Strange because he is a complete nob; inappropriate, crass and somewhat stupid, but at the same time with the innocence of an everyman. And because of that he is strangely likable - probably because we all unfortunately have a friend like him somewhere in our circle.

So when faced with a completely impossible situation in the jungle, he acts like most of us probably would - trying to shout quietly, leaving the camera light on in dangerous times, having a dangerously daft curiosity and other very believable stuff.

It's not going to beat out Jurassic World for quality CGI and in-your-face-believable-graphics, and the jungle looks suspiciously like friendly English woodlands, but I could empathise, and that for me was enough for a couple of hours.

Waste of time

[eric_ccj77 · 1/10 · 5 March 2015]

Yet another home video style movie. The acting is just awful. Had to wait an hour to actually see a dinosaur and even then it was just a nose. Was the most boring crap movie I have ever seen. An hour and forty five minutes of my life I won't get back. The bloke behind the camera was irritating. The film just dragged on and on and on. There was no adventure in this movie. I wish I never bought it. Big mistake big huge. My advice don't bother watching this pile of crap. You're better off Tuning over to syfy channel. Do I actually need to continue with my thoughts on This awful film. It looked so promising and the heading made the film look brilliant but It was totally the opposite. Very disappointed

Who are they fooling with that fake crocodile?

[aidanrawnsley-446-235217 · 2/10 · 9 August 2020]

I should have turned this off when they spotted a supposed crocodile in a river and the following close-up gives away any illusion that it could have been alive.

I will give the filmmakers props for having the balls to try and pull this off, but it just made it look cheap: the dino puppets as nice as it was to see practical effects instead of CGI, still moved like puppets with no weight or life to them. The exotic pet store animals were a nice touch but a little too on the nose, and it seems no one was fooled into thinking this production ever once stepped foot in Peru.

I was confused by the first dinosaur encounter, when it enters their camp at night, because it seemed as though Michelle and James were the only ones to wake up and notice? The next morning it seemed the others had no clue.

The morning after the final dinosaur attack James and Michelle film the dino eating one of the crew from up on some rocks, it's daylight and we see the dinosaur in full view. In the next scene they reunite with the Professor and he asks what they saw and James says it was too dark (implying only what they saw during the night attack) and they didn't get a good enough look, but yet we just saw it in broad daylight a second ago. And why was James dressed like he'd just been playing footy with his mates and not like he was an experienced documentary filmmaker in the jungles of Peru?

As for the acting, it seemed in parts as though there wasn't a script to follow and more so just story beats the actors had to hit, you can tell when an actor is thinking up their next line when they leave big gaps or repeat themselves a lot.

The ending was typical of found-footage movie.

Could've also been a shorter runtime.

Balance

[kosmasp · 8/10 · 16 October 2014]

Yes this is found footage too. After you're done rolling your eyes, hear me out though. This actually balances horror and comedic moments. And it does a good job. It's actually more of a thriller, that really emphasizes the exploring aspect of the story. So there are not many "boo" moments to be found here. Which I think is great. Those fake scares never did anything for me.

Also we have practical effects (par a few shots that had to be done digitally), which is really great. And the "costumes" are good too, which give the movie gravitas and I have much respect for the filmmaker going this way. It might not have been necessary to cast himself into the movie, but even that works out fine, because he leaves the heavy lifting to the other actors. Really good to see a movie like this

A Pity The Reptiles Aren't As Convincing As The Locations

[Theo Robertson · 6/10 · 12 May 2015]

Oh another found footage film ! When you've seen one you've them all and you can only judge them on how scary the scary moments are . To be honest the only film in this sub-genre was GRAVE ENCOUNTERS that impressed me simply because because the scares were genuine . That said EXTINCTION does sound fairly intriguing because it's a British film that involves a scientific expedition to the Amazon jungle and from what I could gather from the location guide on this page it was filmed in Wales ! The Welsh valleys doubling for a South American jungle. This should be interesting

To be fair to director Adam Spinks and the production team do their utmost best to conceal the fact that the location is more Celtic than Latin . They do this filming everything in woodland and as someone who has done a lot of travelling one clump of trees looks very much like another clump of trees no matter where you are in the world and it doesn't necessarily equate heat and blazing sunshine are connected . Just get the cast to wear shorts and tee-shirts and if you've got a cute actress in the shape of Sarah Mac running around all hot and sweaty no red blooded male viewer is going to complain . But Spinks goes further and involves animals such as boa constrictors and big hairy tarantulas which adds to the illusion . The only thing that doesn't work is the reptile monsters themselves which aren't really convincing and isn't helped by having them appearing on screen a bit too long . There is also an annoying aspect of jump cut editing that draws your attention to the fact that it isn't found footage in the true sense . But if someone who enjoys the found footage genre you'll probably enjoy this one

Not what you were hoping for...

[david-09770 · 2/10 · 17 May 2015]

Was expecting a little more - but the high-school dinosaur effects killed it. Sorry - never going to get a big thumbs-up from me. (Plus the "lost footage" camera thing has been very over used...) Turned it off after just over an hour. Luckily my wine was nice... The acting was okay. The sound effects were good. The tension of the "animals" coming into the movie wasn't too bad. The eventual arrival of "a dinosaur" was absolutely terrible. Hopefully the actors have other projects. My room mate didn't come downstairs to watch it, and thankfully so... If you thought this would be an awesome scary horror dinosaur flick then don't bother. Very disappointed. Why don't I have Fox Sports...?

This film made my day!

[paulie-22203 · 4/10 · 13 December 2018]

Whaf a racid steaming pile of dino-dung!... I lovex it!!! 🖐🤣👌

Bad Dino Flick

[TheHoodOfSwords · 1/10 · 26 March 2020]

I feel the need to explain the story behind this movie and my experience with it. Back in 2016, I went to England. During that trip I bought some DVD's. One of these movies was this movie. It then sat on my shelf at home up until today, where I went and watched it. I hoped, I hoped it would be ok. But it wasn't. The movie uses animatronics, I would be bumping this up a 2 for that. However in 1 shot you can literally see the people moving them, and in another shot they use CGI. The characters are all wooden and aren't acted well at all. The camera man is bad, in the sense he just films everything and makes crass and just annoying comments. The setting is obviously not the amazon jungle, and the writing is laughable. There is one character in the movie who I guess is supposed to be shy on camera? but oh god it's awful, it's unbearably awkward. Overall, save yourself the horror of this. I see the vision behind this film, but I just can't give this anything higher.

What was that?

[nogodnomasters · 1/10 · 13 March 2018]

The film opens with a written statement claiming this is real hand held footage, so it is not that good. The print is small, they really didn't want anyone to read it. A group goes to Peru to look for animals. We have the classic "ground cam" running and screaming, the classical tent scene "what is that?" as well as the camera man whispering to the camera with me catching about every third word. Add a rubber head dinosaur, and a guy who acts like Steve Irwin, and you have a fairly bad film.

One of the worst hand held camera films. Recommend Jill St. John in 1960 "Lost World" instead.

No sex or nudity. Didn't catch much in swearing.

Boring

[quasar-08909 · 5 November 2016]

i sat through over an hour of this movie before something finally happened, and even then it wasn't worth it. the dinosaurs were animatronic rather than cg, and were very poor ones too. the found footage style certainly didn't help matters either, with way too much shaky camera shots making it difficult to know what was happening

to sum up, it's basically a bunch of unlikable characters walking through the jungle for days until they get attacked by some very bad looking dinosaurs that wouldn't scare Fred Flintstone. maybe they should have put him in this movie, it may have made it more watchable, but don't take my word for it.

worst movie ever!!!!!!!!!!!1

[supereekgamer · 1/10 · 27 May 2020]

It so bad one of them is that you can not see the main character and the other one is that the t-rex look like something you would find at a kids theme park with bad robots and it just dull and boring.

Aussie Only

[xzaviar44 · 2/10 · 21 April 2019]

Be prepared to use subtitles if you aren't an Aussie!!! Background music and sound effects at the same level as speech, whispering with words flowing together.... Cannot understand without subtitles. Major distraction, can't see the movie... Only readable. The camera work leaves so much to be desired, almost all close up shots and jarring around, the kind that makes you sea-sick. Could have been so much better with voices you could hear and without the (Cloverfield) effect!

Awful plastic tacky Blair witch style dinosaur movie in "peruvian" (uk) woodland

[winnieraymond · 1/10 · 29 March 2024]

Very inconsistent after seeing the dinosaur for the first time in broad daylight James then tells the professor he didn't see much as 'it was dark'

Most enjoyable thing about watching this was the laughter from the very staged feeling scenes. Family described it as 'absolute tut'. The dinosaur models were very fake and very obvious about it

Non peruvian woods??? The overbearing fake rainforest sounds made me want to claw my eyes out as it was obviously filmed in the uk

Hats of to the actors who were able to feign (to an extent) being scared while being poked with a plastic dinosaur head that looked like is was from chessington world of adventures

Was annoyed that the two most likeable characters were picked of first and had to put up with JAMES for the rest of the thing

Definitely NOT going to watch again (if you see this and it spoils it sorry but only watch if u want to waste time)

Not terrible

[Alaysia-04971 · 4/10 · 2 September 2023]

Tbh.. I only wanted to watch the movie for Neil Newbon. I saw the trailer. Knew right away it wouldn't blow through the roof. CGI ofc not good even for its time. But.. for a low budget film, it's not half bad.

The acting isn't unbearable. I just don't like how they made the cameraman so annoying. I understand trying to add humor. But there's good comedy relief; then there's just, dick energy. I feel like they could've done a tad better with the realism. Like it's supposed to be a remote area yet well driven, flat dirt roads. Supposed to be bug ridde. Yet little to no bug etc.

Overall not terrible.

Great B movie, a lot of suspense and some good effects

[pgilcosta-54756 · 10/10 · 12 June 2015]

We need to know, this film is a Series B. For a B Movie with a low budget its a great movie. Have a nice history, a lot of suspense, a acting is acceptable, and have some good visual and audio effects. Overall its enjoyable and for people that love movies like Blair witch, clover field, rec , its similar. For a B movie its a 9 or 10. The camera Angles, focus, the lighting, its very good, causes some ansious and makes the experience more real to the spectator. ITs not a Jurassic Park movie, but the review of 3/4 are very poor. The Films have a many parts of action, some little humor, maybe we will see a second movie. Cheers

Kept me watching until the end

[zhangchaodao · 6/10 · 18 May 2019]

The first half I will give it a 8, I just couldn't stop watching the fakumentary, the suspense is good even though a lot of things are not logical for such a jungle trek, but movies are for entertainment at the end of the day....

The second half, after the dino is out, omg I never thought it would go out like this, it could literally be much better if it is another story, I will just give it a 4, but it still kept me watching though...so averagely it's a 6, a nice B Movie...

Not bad attempt

[warrenjspencer · 5/10 · 23 July 2016]

After seeing some not too kind reviews I thought I'd give this a try as it was on Sky Movies. Firstly it seems a lot of people here don't know what the definition of FOUND FOOTAGE films is. Just because it is filmed partially on a video-camera from a first person perspective does not mean it falls in that genre. Found footage would be when some undiscovered reels of film are found and the film adventure is set off thereupon. OK?? Anyway although probably 10 minutes too long and with some irritating characters (principally Tim) I have to say I was fairly impressed with the dinosaurs themselves (don't expect T-Rexes) which were a step up from the usual guff offered by Crocosaurus and the like. There are also some poor emissions from the scenes (someone gets killed - we neither see it nor see them getting attacked which is then described by someone else - big cop-out). This obviously was made on a budget but there were a few good Dino moments, such as when a Dino nose nudges Tim. But it does take a heck of a long time to finally see them, nearly an hour in. A few bad bits of dialogue and acting, but on the whole not worth the slating it's got on here.

Judge it for yourself.

[frompagescreen · 8/10 · 14 March 2015]

Extinction is shot in the 'found footage' style. Yes the style that people seem to moan about, they moan that its a tired 'genre' and that too many films have been using this style over the recent years. BUT - What Extinction does that many of the 'found footage' films don't do, is uses it properly. It is indeed a 'found footage' and its level of detail is excellent. Right down the cassette glitches now and again, and also the fact that shots don't change at the end of every sentence. Sometimes the shot changes in the middle of a sentence. Having filmed hundreds of hours using a camcorder and then played it back. I loved the fact that glitches have been purposely placed within the film to give it that real feeling. Director Adam Spinks has shot this film brilliantly with the 'found footage' style in mind all the way through production. So don't dismiss this film when you read its a 'found footage' movie. Watch Extinction to see how the style should be used.

I remember watching Eli Roths Hostel for the first time and loved the fact the film had a slow build up, that it just didn't get the beginning credits out of the way and then leap into a 90 minute third act. Extinction is similar. It doesn't feel the need (and works far better for it) to drop us into the middle of chaos and let the chips fly. It allows us to get to know the great mix of characters and actually head into the Amazon rainforest with them. We get to know cameraman James (Daniel Caren) who is fantastic in his comedic role, saying whatever comes into his mind and generally annoying his fellow characters. James had me giggling on many an occasion throughout the film. We also get to meet Michelle (Sarah Mac) who from the offset isn't a huge fan of James and is far more professional than the ultra-personality James. There are more characters in this film of course but rather than list them all, please do discover them yourself. What I will say is that they are all a very realistic mix of people. Not all brave adventurers, not all super scientists, but all realistic people with strange quirks and different roles and personalities for this expedition. Some of them get on well together, some of them don't. Welcome to real life. Where people have different personalities and don't sound like their words all come out of a single scriptwriter. I haven't looked into the writing process of this film, but each character has their own flaws, their own way of speaking and I love that about this script (and of course the performances)

There are lengthy scenes of character building here which are a huge benefit to the film, it would have been so easy for the filmmakers to drop a few personality lacking characters into a pit of hell and then watch them battle for survival, thankfully that option isn't taken and we instead get to know people before (and its not a spoiler as Im sure you know someone is bound to get hurt in Extinction) something happens to hurt them. When someone is hurt we feel their pain and we miss them when they are off screen.

Of course there will be detractors from the film, moaning about it being slow paced, moaning about the found footage style and generally moaning about anything they decide to moan about. But they have their own websites for that. This one is for my own thoughts and I really enjoyed taking the trip into the world of Extinction.