Beyond Loch Ness (2008 TV Movie) User Reviews

Nessie with attitude

[MartianOctocretr5 · 4/10 · 6 January 2008]

Some of the early victims find out all too late that the 40-foot Plesiosaur is not the placid, gentle giant that minds its own business paddling around the Loch as we've been told, but a rampaging monolith with an attitude that likes to waddle its way out of the water, wreck boats, roar like a foghorn, chase victims, bite them in half (it doesn't eat them whole, for whatever reason), dismember, decapitate, etc.

And it swam its way through some "undersea tunnel" (about 4,000 miles long?) from Scotland's Loch Ness to North America's Lake Ontario. No, really. It did. A vengeful scientist. a cross of Capt. Ahab and Indy Jones, wants to get even with the thing, having witnessed it devour his dad and two other men. The guy comes complete with all the clichés: an Australian safari hat, enough fire power to blow up a city, and he mumbles when he talks.

The movie plays like a remake of Lake Placid, which in turn was an apparent satire of Jurassic Park and Jaws type flicks. However, this one seems to want to take itself seriously. The actors play it this way, and make most of the characters work (even the clichéd ones).

The biggest problem was shoddy CGI. In one attack sequence, for example, Nessie decapitates its victim. Nessie's animation is so obviously pasted on to the picture it makes you laugh. Even phonier looking is the resulting "blood spray" which looks like somebody blew up a bottle of Cherry Soda (and pasted that in poorly, as well).

Decently entertaining, and at least it was free.

This is not a film for audiences with critical faculties

[arkent-2 · 4/10 · 24 March 2008]

I watched most of this film using my DVR to fast-forward through the early parts, so I missed the explanation of how Nessie gets from Scotland to North America. The more interesting question is *why* she would make the trip. After all, she and her ancestors seem to have done fine in Loch Ness for untold centuries. (Incidentally, Loch Ness is a freshwater lake–contrary to what one person posting here says. Some "lochs" are indeed saltwater sea inlets; however, Loch Ness isn't that kind.) I've enjoyed watching science fiction monster films since the Golden Age of Radiation during the 1950s, when I must have seen every film featuring dinosaurs released from the depths of the sea by atom bomb testing or mutant giant insects and mollusks running amok. I can still enjoy many of those films, but I've not yet been able to make a habit of watching the Sci-Fi Channel's made-for-TV films. Apart from their weak scripts and dreary acting, the films are hard to watch because of their almost uniformly poor CGI. Other people have commented here that the special effects in BEYOND LOCH NESS are a cut above the Sci-Fi Channel's usual standard, and I think that's probably true. There are moments in this film when it's almost possible to believe that the dinosaurs are real. However, those moments are both few and brief. A general problem with this film is that the dinosaurs are on the screen far too long; the longer we look at them, the phonier they appear. Wouldn't it make more sense to have less dinosaur footage and to make the effects in the footage that is used better? There are scenes in this film in which Nessie waddles across dry land like a duck; I almost expected it to quack.

Another problem I find with this film may be more a matter of my taste than an objective criticism of the film–namely its emphasis on gore. Is it absolutely necessary to show graphic images of people being bitten in half and chewed up? Older films are often much more frightening for the off-camera violence and carnage that they suggest. Nowadays, I suppose, it's necessary to show audiences the blood–and lots of it. It's a shame that audiences are so desensitized that they can't be frightened unless they see closeups of people being dismembered and eaten. Personally, I find graphic gore more repulsive than scary. Moreover, in BEYOND LOCH NESS, the gore often merely looks ludicrously unrealistic.

I have one final question about this film that another person here has already raised: What does become of the deputy sheriff at the end of the film? Is it possible that a scene accounting for his fate was cut, leaving an awkward continuity problem? Oh, well. The same thing has happened in far better films, such as THE BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER KWAI (exactly what is Jack Hawkins trying to explain to the Burmese women as they leave the river in that film?).

Beyond mediocre...

[TheLittleSongbird · 3/10 · 26 April 2012]

I wanted to like Beyond Loch Ness, as I liked the idea. And I have to say that and the acting, which is not great but at least adequate, are the only redeeming values of the movie. Plus at least it is better than something like Warbirds, which also had Brian Krause(and he was the sole redeeming quality of that movie). Other than that, it was a mess. The special effects are terrible, with Nessie especially abominable in look and movement, the editing is haphazard, the colour schemes right at the beginning is much too grainy and the gore is lame, not disturbing in the slightest and as cheap as the effects. The film is also full of clichés not just in the stereotyped characters but also in the cheesy dialogue and the often tedious and over-familiar story. All in all, a beyond mediocre movie, more like lame. 3/10 Bethany Cox

As bad as the title suggests...

[LoneWolfAndCub · 1/10 · 15 August 2008]

I never went into this expecting a particularly good movie, with a title like Loch Ness Terror, who would? So, when it finished, I got what I expected. The plot is nonsensical, there are lapses in logic, clichéd characters and sub-plots everywhere, poor CGI and an ending that is beyond anti-climatic. Basically, the film revolved around a grizzled (and unintentional Clint Eastwood rip-off?) cryptozoologist who witnessed his father consumed by Nessie many years ago. Thrown into the mix is a "crazy" uncle who claims to have seen the beast, a sheriff whose husband passed away and is now looking after a son. Surprise surprise, he is still in love with his ex-girlfriend who is now dating a rich jerk! If that is not the most predictable and boring story you have heard of, please tell of another...

Honestly, none of the actors are any good. Brian Krause, who plays Clint Eastwood...I mean James Murphy (zoologist) has it all. The hat, the scar, the cigar, the low voice...not Eastwood at all! All the other performers are just as bad (well, maybe except the old deputy guy, he was pretty funny). At times I was rooting for the dinosaur to eat them, as I could not stand their presence any longer. And on the topic of the dinosaur, could it be any faker? Honestly, there has been numerous cases of sub-par CGI, but this tops them all. All the digital effects stand out to the point where they look like cutouts from a video game. The gore could have been a tad redeeming, if it had looked somewhat mediocre instead of pathetic.

Paul Ziller, the director, has not got a shred of noticeable talent. The POV shots are unoriginal and poorly done (Jaws much?) and for a horror film, there are zero scares. In fact, if this were a comedy it would be excellent, as I found myself laughing through pretty much the entire running time of 74 minutes. When the end comes around, it is so lackluster it is almost hard to believe. Recommended for lovers of bad films and people who love a good laugh.

½/5

Bloody Yanks.

[Scunner · 9 July 2008]

Not content with stomping round the world getting up to all sorts of nefarious mischief now it seems the Yanks also want to steal our monsters.

Well the joke's on them this time because you see...it's not the real Nessie.

Being Scottish I have, of course, met Nessie and be assured all ye across the pond, she doesn't remotely resemble the ridiculous waddling monstrosity portrayed in this moving penny dreadful. In fact anyone in the know is fully aware that Nessie appeared as herself in the Doctor Who tale 'Terror of the Zygons' and became, during the production, a personal friend of Tom Baker (there are even rumours of a brief romance), so I can only presume the producers of this nonsense were disgracefully lax in their research.

Now stick to your own monsters in future or we'll set Gorgo's mother onto you.

ram*

[rps-2 · 1/10 · 26 October 2008]

*Really awful movie. It has one saving grace. It's one of those movies that is so bad, so sloppy, so inaccurate, so incredibly and truly dreadful that it's actually fun to watch. I enjoy the odd stinker full of howlers, bad lines, improbable events and just plain terrible acting. Then of course this is one of these disguised Canadian films where American flags are planted in every other scene. We wouldn't want anybody to actually find out this is a Canadian movie. And when they're this bad, maybe that's a good thing. Gawd. Why don't we just get out of the movie business instead of continuing this demeaning tax subsidized pandering to Americans. Who knows, if we actually set a Canadian movie in Canada --- a radical notion, I know --- people might actually like it. The acting is appalling. The photography is mediocre. The story is absurd. And it carries cinematic licence too far to pass off the BC coast as Lake Superior. They're both beautiful but they don't resemble each other in any way. Warning. Do not watch this movie unless fortified by several stiff drinks. Mumble...grumble...growl..mutter...snort...

Not Bad for the Sci-Fi Channel

[runner-15 · 5/10 · 8 January 2008]

The Sci-Fi Channel seems to have a penchant for making B-movies, some are unwatchable, while others are simply OK. This one falls into the OK category While much of the science was a bit dodgy (A microwave gun you can carry? Tunnels to the open sea from lakes who's levels are above sea level?), the acting was competent and the story interesting. And while the outcome was somewhat predictable I still enjoyed my time spent watching this. Overall I gave this a 5. If you are the least bit interested in cryptozoology and can suspend disbelief for a couple of hours you might enjoy this, as long as you don't raise your expectations too high.

Pretty bad

[craigy101 · 4/10 · 27 July 2009]

Beyond Loch Ness could have been such a great B movie, I mean like cult classic good, if only it didn't take itself so seriously! The acting was terrible, the CGI was laughable and the script was so wrong - all the key ingredients for a brill B movie, but alas - it was trying to be some rehash of Jaws or Jurassic Park when it should have been aiming for Lake Placid. Not a single joke in the whole film, and the only laughs it arises are the unintentional ones. And another thing, why is it called Beyond Loch Ness when its set in America? Loch Ness had some a small amount of screen time that it didn't really make much sense naming the film after Nessie!

I could give it a proper review but I've already wasted 1.30hours watching the damn thing!

Craig

Nessie I think we are not in Scotland anymore.

[swedzin · 4/10 · 19 August 2016]

Yet another attempt to bring back good old Loch Ness monster to the big screen. In this case, smaller straight to video screen. The movie opens with group of lousy scientists who found an egg of plesiosaur. And few minutes later, Nessie founds them, and eats them. Along with the leading scientist, leaving only his son James. 30 years later James arrives at Lake Superior, somewhere in North America, near Canada, because he thinks that Nessie might be there.

Now, let's start with some questions. How did Nessie got there? Did it really took 30 years? Isn't this supposed to be about fabled Loch Ness monster? Yeah, Brian gives us answers during the film but those are not plausible at all. So, this is one of those low-B movies, with the revenge element. Because our leading hero James, played by Brian Krause (once a well known actor from late 80s and early 90s), who is a cryptozoologist, but only presents himself like that, because he only uses his knowledge to find the monster and kill every last one of them. So, that is the only one-dimensional motive that James has. James is rather dull, boring, non-charismatic, just settled to find and kill a monster, nothing more. And he looks clichéd with his rugged looks, fedora hat and long, trench coat. Just to give you an idea that you don't mess with him. Cuz' he hunts monsters. So, that's just about it. The movie revolves around James, and a sheriff Karen Riley and her loser son Josh. None of these characters are interesting, or developed, they are just there to get us through this boring ordeal. We also have supporting cast consisted from dumb, obnoxious and naïve teenagers who are just there to give a generic treatment to Josh. You know, the usual - bullying and mocking. We also have late Don S. Davis as a deputy sheriff. Don was a good actor, and not worthy of these kind of movies. Nothing much to say about other stuff, the CGI is friggin' terrible, script is usual stuff about vengeance, acting performances are not convincing, editing - meh, camera work is just wrong. While subjective camera is there to show Nessie's vision, the monster is show to move underwater, but when the camera is showin the vision, it's clearly ABOVE the water. Camera operator and the crew needs to get informed on how creature of this background works under and above the water. Now, one more thing. About the monster. I think it's important to say a thing, or two about the monster. It's silly. As I stated, the CGI is terrible, and at one point James's father said that Nessie is Plesiosaur. The monster doesn't even look like Plesiosaur, nor even like any of those dinosaurs of the same order. It likes like some sort of... well, dragon. And that's it. This is one of those movies that you should watch with friends to have a good laugh, or just trash it.

not bad...for what it is

[TheUnknown837-1 · 7/10 · 12 January 2008]

No, "Beyond Loch Ness" is NOT a good movie. That is not what I'm saying. The point I am trying to make is that although it is pretty much just another formula-based, low-budget sci-fi flick with a monster that decides to kill people all of a sudden for no reason, people trying to stop it, people who refuse to believe it, and a love story mixed altogether in it; the film itself is alright for what it is. It is much, much better than some of its predecessors and certainly going to be better than its descendants, who will inevitably follow.

"Beyond Loch Ness" is one of the rare sci-fi flicks to actually feature decent CGI. It wasn't perfect, no, and sometimes there were some parts that didn't really seem to make sense. Such as this early shot where all we see of the Loch Ness monster is just her lower torso as she approaches. It didn't really give her an impressive appearance and just didn't seem to fit right. But at least the creatures look 3-dimensional, aren't blurry or too slender, have muscular structures, etc.

Acting was okay. I won't say that it was worth writing home about, and neither was the screenplay. The character said lines that I knew were going to come up, and they said them the exact way I knew they would. Many times, characters would get irritating, or just bland, but for some reason, they do well enough to keep us watching. And the screenplay does have some plot holes. For example, if these plesiosaurs have been breeding in freshwater lakes for hundreds of years, and they span numerous offspring, who come ashore and kill vast numbers of people every season, how come they go undiscovered until just now? Maybe they usually stayed under water until just now, this one time, when they decide to take a family stroll? Good a guess as any, I suppose.

So bottom line, again, "Beyond Loch Ness" is not a good movie and it isn't a special one, not even for a low-budget made-for-TV sci-fi flick. But it is decent enough and is kind of entertaining. It's better than others such as "Python", "Alligator 2", "Gryphon", "King of the Lost World", and others. Recommended...only if you like low-budget flicks.

Not your "garden-variety" cryptozoologist

[suzmuth · 1/10 · 2 November 2012]

"See now, that's why, in general, a mad scientist is less desirable than your garden-variety scientist." although this one is a vengeful scientist rather than, strictly speaking, a typical "mad scientist".

Playing now on the Syfy channel. Amusing, but awful.

What you need to know: 1. the hero (smoking Eastwood/Man With No Name cigarillo and wearing Indiana Jones hat ) is a cryptozoologist 2. the monster eats people the way my dog eats dog-snacks 3. probably way too graphic for small kids, although I am finding it very entertaining while eating breakfast 4. special effects work on the theory that they will REMIND you of "Jaws" and you will know when you should be scared 5. hero smoking his cigarillo in guided, chartered, small (10 ft) open-engine fishing boat and while donning air-tank for scuba diving (well, I guess it's just air, not oxygen, so no danger) 6. dialog(while watching on-board radar screen) "40 ft! There's nothing that big on this lake; must be a school of bass... " "We'll see, kid."

"The Water Horse" it ain't...

[orloprat · 8/10 · 28 March 2008]

I have to admit that I'm a sucker for monster movies, particularly of the "aquatic beast eats people" variety. Here is a modern example of the genre, and folks, it ain't bad at all.

It is very conscious of it's roots. It's ancestors are films like "The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms", and "The Giant Behemoth", both staples of my childhood. The monster is not really a plesiosaur, as the cryptozoologist in the movie calls it, but a real Hollywood fantasy beast, and a darned cute one at that. Against all the notions of modern paleontology it waddles about on all fours, belly to the ground and head held high. It owes it's appearance to the earlier films' notions of what "dinosaurs" looked like, and owes more to the nineteenth century reconstructions of Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope than it does to actual scientific fact. All for the better. This isn't "Jurassic Park", this is "Oh my god there's a monster loose and we gotta stop it!" movie.

An old fashioned monster movie with modern cgi, and a goodly amount of blood n' guts. I have no problem with gore in movies like this. It's only a movie, boys and girls, it's special effects, and my reaction is usually not "yuck! No sleep for me tonight" but rather, "that's interesting,I wonder how they did that?" Does that make me a bad person? I think not.

An interesting story, decent production values, adequate acting, and every cliché in the book all add up to a funfest for watery creature fans everywhere. And the baby monsters are a real hoot. A nice refreshing change from the slew of copycat teen slasher and torture porn flicks we've been bombarded with lately.

I had a good time watching this one.

Things I learned about Plesiosaurs from this movie.......

[merklekranz · 6/10 · 3 August 2008]

"Loch Ness Terror" is perhaps the most scientifically incorrect monster movie of all time, and that is precisely what makes it so much fun. I learned that Plesiosaurs look like a cross between the "Loch Ness Monster" and the "Flub-A-Dub". Plesiosaurs waddle around on land and cannot see you if you remain motionless, but a 40 ft. Plesiosaur can easily sneak up on unsuspecting fisherman and eat them. Small fry Plesiosaurs like to hide in speedboats to scare people. Plesiosaurs can travel from Europe to North America through under ocean tunnels. A real Plesiosaur hunter looks like he just walked out of a "Spaghetti Western", complete with cigar, duster, and a weak Clint Eastwood imitation. I could go on and on. By not taking itself seriously, the movie succeeds as entertainment, where so many others have failed. Recommended. - MERK

Another Sci-Fi Channel Original Disaster

[lububbye · 3/10 · 6 January 2008]

Much like a train wreck, you don't WANT to watch, but you HAVE to...I can't explain the twisted delight I get from the bad scripts, unpredictable acting (or lack there of). Or perhaps its to silently weep for the careers of a favorite supporting/character actor. Beyond Lochness was beyond bad, but with so many familiar faces, you have to wonder "did they need the money that badly?" And like all the Sci-Fi Channel movies, so much potential--ruined by a dreadful script, what one could only call indifferent directing and of course embarrassing "special effects". And the greatest tragedy --the creature did not eat "Josh Riley" (Niall Matter).

Very familiar stuff

[Wizard-8 · 24 August 2009]

Apparently the truth in advertising laws have finally caught up to filmmakers, since after the Loch Ness-set opening scene, the rest of the movie moves to Lake Superior. That's certainly beyond Loch Ness. Though in both of those locations, it's obvious that, if you know even a little bit about geography, that the location the filmmakers used for both Loch Ness and Lake Superior looks NOTHING like how those locations look in real life.

That's just one of the problems I had with this movie. But first, is there anything of merit in the movie? Well, I thought that for a cheap Canadian movie, the CGI used was above average. In fact, the CGI creatures actually look better that the animatronics built for when there are close-ups of the creatures. (I never thought I would say that about a movie.) Also, there is some serviceable splatter here and there.

But the biggest problems I had with the movie center around this fact: You will have seen all of this before. For examples, the characters. We have the mysterious stranger who comes to town, we have the arrogant rich jerk who has it in for the youthful protagonist for no apparent reason, etc. etc. All the monster hunting and fighting, you will have seen it all before. Maybe, just maybe, if this was all directed with some spark and injecting a little originality now and then, it could have been a pleasant display of the familiar. But everything seems very tired, and you'll feel just as tired by the end of the movie.

Certainly not a movie to pay to see. Even if it's free and it's raining outside, you'd be better off going out for a walk in the rain.

Surprisingly workable though still mediocre creature feature

[Bloodwank · 5/10 · 24 September 2010]

Ah, the Loch Ness Monster. One of the hardy perennials of cryptozoology, yet figures in a tiny quantity of movies compared with Bigfoot or any other mystery beast. It was inevitable that the Sci-Fi Channel would use ol' Nessie in one of their original films, what is surprising about this one is that its actually quite fun and handled with a measure of skill. It's a standard tale of a lake plagued by attacks from a mysterious beast, which turns out to be a plesiosaur that has managed to relocate from Scotland to Canada, causing bait shop owner Josh, his mother Karen and vengeful cryptozoologist James Murphy to team up to save the day. The film moves at a good clip, we have an arresting flashback to the death of James' parents to set the scene, then the feed of attacks is pretty regular until a tense final showdown on an uninhabited island. The design of the creature is quite good, it bears little resemblance to fossil records but is a good sized lumbering toothy malfeasant complete with cool head crest and even a semblance of musculature and effort put into its skin colouring. Make no mistake, its still quite obviously CGI, but a colossal advance from the likes of Cerberus or Sabretooth. As well as the effective (well, much more than usual for this sort of film) creature, an unexpected verve is put into the action and the creatures general antics, with the climax especially notable in this regard. Its not that exciting, but the fact that it achieves any measure of excitement at all is rather pleasing. There's even a modicum of OK gore, with little in the way of CGI to it. Regrettably the acting and writing fail to stick to the same level of the direction and effects, everybody here talks and acts exactly the way characters in Sci-Fi originals are expected too. Niall Matter is a vapid younger lead, Carrie Genzel conveys barely a jot of authority as his sheriff mother, most of the rest are just there. Brian Krause appears to be the "name" star here (well he was in Charmed) and does a Clint Eastwood impression, he seems to be having fun but is a bit laughable. The writing is as stolid as can be imagined, po faced, unintentionally amusing, unneeded exposition, all that sort of thing. Still, this is much, much better than expected, probably the best Sci-Fi Channel release I've come across and recommended if you dig their output in general. Never "good" exactly then, and not memorable or all that worthwhile, but I could bear it, which is more than can be said for stuff like the aforementioned Cerberus or the space bear "epic" Savage Planet. Heck, its even better than the hysterical Sabretooth! A semi satisfied 5/10 from me then.

You think salmon have it tough swimming upstream? Try swimming from Scotland to Michigan...

[Phillemos · 4/10 · 29 April 2008]

You really have to suspend reality to enjoy this one, but if you can do that it's not bad. The problem is, supposedly our ol' plesiosaur pal Nessie has gotten tired of Europe's socialism and snobbishness, and left her Scottish home of 1,000 years for...hold onto your hats...the Great Lakes! Why she would do that is beyond me. Not that America doesn't provide her with opportunities (then again maybe she's set up shop on the Canadian side), but it just seems like an extreme step to go swimming from the interior lake of one continent to the extreme interior lakes of another on the opposite hemisphere. Besides, I'm sure Nessie would find New England's rocky shores much more to her liking than Michigan, so why not stop in Boston instead and save yourself some additional wear and tear? Further adding to the improbability, she's nesting and four or five baby plesiosaurs join the fun of terrorizing small-town Americans. They're all cute and blubbery, and seem to have a blast. They actually have rudimentary feet too instead of the usual plesiosaur fins, which gives them an inherent advantage because they're much more mobile on land. Once you get past the overwhelming adversity of how Nessie got here, the movie is formulaic SciFi Original. People in a small town are up against more they can handle, have to kill the monsters before they run out of supplies, and several get decapitated. The CGI is, as usual kind of weak; the monster and her babies actually look pretty cool, but the blood-splatter scenes were ridiculous. A good move by SciFi Channel to release this in early 2008, a couple of months before they premier the similarly titled "Beneath Loch Ness." And hey, a good trend by SciFI to move away from the stupid disaster movies and start wheeling out the dinosaur flicks -- the "Loch Ness" movies, "Warbirds," the coming premier of "Aztec Rex." While this isn't a perfect movie by any stretch, I'll give it a 4 just for that trend alone.

No masterpiece

[panzerman47 · 3/10 · 31 August 2008]

This film is not good. I've seen worse. Fair is fair. But I certainly have seen better. The acting is quite wooden (although not utterly so) and the premises for the plot are, at best, very silly.

Nevertheless, the characters act reasonably intelligently in several scenes, which is a first for movies of this kind and there are several shots of beautiful natural scenery.

As for the special effects and the CGI... No. Bloody awful. I don't expect anything along the lines of Jurassic Park but surely they could have done just a little better?

There are some scene inconsistencies that lowers the effect too.

Still, I give it a 3 for fairly bearable characters, nice scenery and the occasional spasm of decent acting.

If you don't have to pay for it, have lots of popcorn and soda and nothing better to do, I guess it might actually be enjoyable as a pass-time.

Monstrous

[gjcannon · 2/10 · 29 March 2021]

Plenty of other have pointed out the failings of this clichè-ridden rubbish so I will just point out one that struck me, in Scotland, with an Irish background, and that is...the makers don't seem to know the difference between Scots and Irish. Of course there are people in Scotland called Sean and Michael and Murphy (the main characters), but I'm pretty sure the makers just think Scotland and Ireland are y'know, just the same thing. Maybe they just didn't know any Scottish names.

Just horrendous

[teebear817 · 1/10 · 14 June 2022]

As bad a movie as you will ever see. The acting is OK, but the writing and special effects are a disaster. Just absurdly unrealistic, and awful. People waiting to be killed and don't run away, etc. Oy.

Entertaining creature feature effort

[kannibalcorpsegrinder · 7/10 · 9 May 2015]

Following a rash of disappearances around town, residents living on Lake Superior find the cause to be the Loch Ness monster and join forces with a hunter tracking the creature before it eats through the residents.

Overall this was a rather enjoyable and exciting creature feature. One of the better aspects to this one is the fact that there's the usual high amount of action scenes found here that bring about a rather enjoyable pace here as scenes where the creature attacks a cameraman in a dock or the ambush at the house along the lake that really highlights this factor quite well. They're all based on those shorter scenes that get by on the supposed sense of awe at the creature in such a terrifying situation which makes the longer scenes all the more enjoyable by comparison. There's plenty of big exciting action here that begins with the opening attack on the research party which sets the tone for this one quite early on as it takes out the team throughout their campsite, and that kind of action is weaved through the other big scenes. The attacks on the group along in the jungle are quite fun with the combination of sneak attacks used to great suspenseful effect while showing the action of the chase along the beach as well as the running around trying to find everyone, and a second scene during the day where the evasion of the babies occurs in the same area as the mother the night before so there's an added element of the infants here to really boost matters. Truthfully, the film's biggest set-piece is the final encounter at the lair which gets in some tense moments from the rescue mission, a couple of gory kills and a slew of exciting action scenes of both the multitude of creatures as well as the attempts to escape away from it. All of these varied action scenes combine with the plentiful gore and rather impressive creature design here that gives this one the good parts to overcome the film's few flaws which start with the main premise. The fact of such a location-challenged beast appearing in a place so far away with without effectively answering it doesn't make a lot of sense which such a simple throwaway line really could've done wonders for that. Likewise, the only other part here that doesn't work is the usually typical CGI on display, being quite badly animated that really looks or moves realistically. There are what really hold this down.

Rated R: Graphic Violence and Language.

casting miracle

[atesixnine · 4/10 · 11 February 2023]

I have to assume the budget for this film was very low, either that or the capabilities of the sfx crew were. What should have looked like viscous arterial blood squirting some distance, looked more like a bucket of rose wine being splashed across a log. I have to say, however, that the acting talent was, for the most part, adequate.

Be amazed as producers try to pass off a 36 year old Carrie Genzel as Karen Riley, mother to Josh Riley played by 28 year old Niall Matter. Beautiful lady but poor casting choice. At only 8 years apart they look more like a couple than mother and son. It isn't any wonder Josh didn't obey his mother.

Once you've witnessed this folks, you have seen EVERYTHING.

Highly enjoyable Monster Movie!

[fisherbee1-1 · 8/10 · 3 May 2013]

I have been a fan of monster movies/creature features all my life, and am frequently frustrated at the abysmal quality offered so frequently. In this case, I was NOT disappointed, and found the movie quite enjoyable. Loch Ness Terror (as it was titled on the DVD rental) is worth the watch. The actors aren't big names, and sometimes, that's not a bad thing. Brian Krause delivers an effective and convincing performance as a tough cryptozoologist on the trail of the aquatic monster, Niall Matter plays a very convincing small town guy, and the rest of the cast is equally realistic. Not one role was poorly done; all were most believable and convincing. The scenery throughout is breathtaking. The plot is well-ordered, and enjoyable. As a bonus, the characters aren't all the usual foolish clowns we so often see, that make you long for them to be victims. These seem instead like real people, mostly likable, and amazingly capable of coherent thought. Then there is the beast herself. Nessie is quite scary in appearance, and even if the effects aren't top of the line, they are convincing enough for a lower budget film. There is a little gore (though not excessive), as would be expected in a monster movie. If you enjoy creature features, you should like this one. If you want a movie with stupid characters, too much gory FX, poor humor, and overused plot elements, you might be disappointed. If you want an enjoyable monster movie, with an actual plot and realistic characters, get the popcorn and drink ready, and sit back and enjoy. Even my NOT-a-big-fan-of-monster-movies husband liked this one. All I have left to do now is look for more from these people. Well done!

Exact Same Movie As Sea Beast With Different Monster

[dougstancil68 · 7/10 · 25 February 2011]

I love cheezy horror movies and thought Beyond Loch Ness (my DVD was titled The Loch Ness Terror) was really fun and a slight cut above the average SCI-FI original. The monster looked fake but cool and most of the actors in it were bearable. Then tonight I caught another flick called Sea Beast and felt like I was re-watching Loch Ness all over again. Both had water monsters that could come on shore. Both featured female monsters that had laid a nest worth of eggs. Both took place in similar locales - a bay fishing community. Both had islands nearby where teenagers became trapped and the finale took place. Both movies even had a main character who smoked cigars. I became curious about how they could be so similar and did an IMDb search - Surprise! Turns out the same director, Paul Ziller directed and wrote both of them. They even both came out in 2008. To top it all off, I noticed Ziller also made The Snakehead Terror in 2004 - another (hilarious) movie about water monsters coming on land and trapping teenagers on an island. Dude is milking that idea for all it is worth. Of the three, I'd say Loch Ness was the one with the coolest monster, best gore and most fun.

Absolutely Terrible

[c_garvin · 1/10 · 22 April 2021]

I cannot fathom why some people have given this movie any stars let alone the ones who have rated it highly?!? If you do enjoy good horror/sci-fi movies, do not expect this to be one of them.