IMDb > Hunting Humans (2002) (V) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
Hunting Humans (V) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
Index 27 reviews in total 

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Good plot, quality and acting were not

Author: noizyme from Escondido, CA
4 November 2004

So I got this movie recommended by a horror-film buff at the local videostore, and I somewhat appreciate that he told me about this movie. It has a good plot and great potential to do something with it. It has a good soundtrack with mostly electronic songs on it. But it felt too much like a student project film for some course on film-making.

The main actor gets annoying fast and can't deliver dialogue at all. (Probably why they cast him in a serial killer role) And having the serial killer talk about what he's doing the entire length of the movie gets really boring and drawn out. I don't know where they got any of these actors, and I hope I'm not "fortunate" to see them in another film. The plot itself falls flat when the multi-twist ending gets pushed in your face and you feeel like screaming, "Oh man!" and feel ultimately disappointed. And if the main guy gives me one more Nietzsche quote, I'm gonna be his new killer.

Overall, a good concept which goes dry and actors who can't act or speak so they speak over the action. And the quality is sub par if that means anything. 4/10

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Intelligent, but raw and unpolished

Author: Lawrence Griffin from United States
17 June 2007

Not bad at all. This is a very low budget horror movie, and the picture quality is total crap. Acting is pretty bad, too, except for the main character, who does a genuinely okay job of it. The real reason to watch this movie is how intelligent some parts of it's a battle of wits between the two men, and despite how low budget it all is, there are some fun kills and intelligent plot elements/twists for you to sink your teeth into. It surprised me how entertaining this could get, compared to the hundreds of other terrible B-flicks coming out all the time. The creators of this one definitely did their homework.

It's really cheesy at some points, though, and the directing is pretty sloppy. I guess that's something you can expect when you're walking into a B-flick though, so don't say I didn't warn you. This is raw, uncompromising, and rather unprofessional, but who needs polished refinement in this genre, anyway? Recommended to horror fans only.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

hunting humans review

Author: jbarker71 from brooklyn, ny
21 December 2004

I found myself enjoying this. I understand what goes in to an indie production. I know what it's like to work on a low-budget feature. There were some decent twists in the end. AND a good story from start to finish. The low-budget aspects came through quite often, and some of the acting was spotty, but I really respect what the filmmakers were trying to accomplish. I enjoyed Ganz's acting.

The bad- for the most part was the sound mix. It sucked, you could pick out where sound tracks were added- not much was seamless. I don't know if this was shot on 16mm or super -16, but you could often hear the camera sound. Until I heard the camera sound i thought iit was shot on a cheap miniDV cmaera. i don't know why the footage looks below average, but it wasn't too distracting.

But i'd have to say that the orchestral score ROCKED. it was great. don't know where you got it, but it was really good.

Ultimately I respect what the filmmakers were doing, and I say keep rockin'. There was a good story here. Just get better actors and a better camera next time. Rick and Kevin rock, though.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Poor writing, worse acting.

Author: DamageX16 from San Jose CA
17 September 2003

From the opening monologue the movie drags. For a movie so obsessed with patterns you would think that they would notice just how monotonous the narration is. First we talk about patterns and how the guy doesn't have any. Then we go kill someone. Then back to the pattern talk again. While the premise of two killers going toe to toe is a good one the acting cannot save the movie. While the main characters can be overlooked the supporting cast must have been picked up from the local bus stop. Avoid this movie at all costs.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Nicely done low budget slasher

Author: Bezenby from United Kingdom
18 March 2013

Now, here's a very cheaply made film that seems to have a great deal of effort put into it. Made around the same era as textbook slasher movies Bachelor Party Massacre, Memorial Day Massacre, and Massacre Day Massacre, Hunting Humans puts a spin on things by having us accompany the killer everywhere, and hear his thoughts.

That's been done before, but when our killer finds himself being hunted by another serial killer, things get interesting. The film becomes a game between the killers to see who is smartest and rather than descending into gore or banality, there's actually a lot of twists and surprises along the way.

Hunting Humans isn't a gore fest, but has a lot going on plot wise. Who exactly is stalking our guy, and how? What does he actually want? Who do you root for when your hero is a cold murderer himself? This film has a lot going for it despite the budget, and gets highly recommended by me.

Only down points? Some of the acting is shaky, but that's about it. Well done, filmmakers!

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Above average plot for a very low budget film; worth a viewing...

Author: scott8823 from United States
13 November 2011

For a LOW BUDGET FILM, this was actually a fun watch; my wife and I took it in on a rainy Sunday afternoon here in Knoxville. It was included on a four movie DVD with a British film from 1970 entitled "The Beast in the Cellar," but I digress...

O.K. the previous review just before mine is correct about the opening. A famous on-line reviewer once wrote that if you see a woman's breasts in the first five minutes, it is a bad movie. The narration was annoying, just as the previous review mentioned. However, if you're killing some time, give this movie a chance. The writing is pretty well done after the first eight to ten minutes of the movie. The plot is about a serial killer, and there is an interesting twist. THE MAIN PROBLEM I had with the film was THE SOUND. One could hear the lead character's voice, but the supporting cast's voices were harder to hear for all of the office scenes.

The reviewer before me commented on the bad acting. Not all of the acting was bad, just most of it was... The lead character and his antagonist were played by good actors, IMO. Many of the film angles were creative, surprisingly so for such a low budget film. A trick the main character plays on a detective is darkly funny.

Finally, this is no "Silence of the Lambs," "Seven," or "American Psycho." But it is somewhat original, and it has a good plot, which makes it a fun view.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

A serial killer hunting a serial killer.

Author: jakehmltn1987 from United States
3 January 2010

It disappoints me to see how the horror fan base has been reduced to internet trolls who (likely) sit in their parents' basements watching movies all day. I mean seriously. One horror review on IMDb was posted by someone who rated over 16,000 movies (!) on the site. I mean, come on! I didn't know 16,000 movies existed, let alone could be watched and rated since this database was launched. Dude, go out and take a walk or something. Run a marathon. Do something. Anything! Sheesh…

I point out the above merely to illustrate how the bulk of the message board comments on films like "Hunting Humans" typically ferment and hatch from the weak brains of people with no lives. Kevin Kangas' debut effort is SUPERB, and it pleases me that so many people who have actually taken the time to review the film gave it the benefit of the doubt.

The concept of a serial killer being stalked by a serial killer is both novel and deftly executed (on a shoestring). The use of voice-over helps gloss over the acting deficiencies, and the score is impressive. If you are prepared to give a low-budget shot on video film a chance, you will be IMMENSELY ENTERTAINED. Ignore the trolls. This film stands out as one of the better no-budget thrillers made in the DVD era.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Not bad for a low budget movie

Author: hjp-
16 November 2003

The story is not too bad.

Even though you can easily get bored in the first half of the movie it is worth to watch it until the end.

I mainly enjoyed the last 15minutes of the movie when the story really gets going and you find yourself twisted every 2 secs.

5 out of 10.

Was the above review useful to you?

For a cheap horror movie, watchable

Author: Brad-Lee Gorda from Canada
24 January 2012

The movie starts out a tiny bit dull and "what the..." The killing scenes are a little poor but the story and depth of the story, is about all there is.

Personally my sister and I loved it, it had a certain catch to it. I'd recommend watching it if you are a fan of B-Movies, it feels kind of unique and has certain things in it that made me bust a gut laughing. Like all B-Movies. Some of the ridiculous murder scenes. There tends to be moments of absolutely needless swearing and crabbiness in the main character that reminds me of a vulgar 10 year old who didn't get their candy from the store.

The ending, is ridiculous. No spoilers or anything, just saying. It's pretty awesome but a little over the top and... well it kind of left a lot of holes.

Anyway, pick it up if you're a B-Movie fan who likes 'low intelligence' psycho-esque movies that try and sound smart.

Was the above review useful to you?

Like Maxwell Smart, Kevin Kangas missed it by THAT much

Author: MBunge from Waterloo, Iowa
15 June 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

One of the famous lines from the Dirty Harry movies is "A man's got to know his limitations". If writer/director Kevin Kangas had known his limitations, Hunting Humans may have become an entertaining piece of cheap trash. Instead, it's like a really bad joke.

This film tells the story of Aric Blue (Rick Ganz). Aric works at one of those companies that helps you refinance your mortgage over the phone. When not working, he lounges around his house like an underwear model. Oh, and he's also a serial killer. Aric studies people's patterns and habits, then he uses that information to murder them. The movie never even tries to explain why Aric does this, but he's been doing it for quite a while and plans to keep doing it forever…until another serial killer enters the picture. Calling himself "Dark", he challenges and taunts Aric over who is better and deadlier. Aric tries to track down his enemy and that leads to an ending that is completely cartoonish.

There's no reason Hunting Humans should be any good. It's a punishingly cheap movie, shot with probably only one camera, using the most basic sort of sound and lighting equipment, at locations that were probably the homes of the cast and crew and with actors that cannot act at all. These filmmakers don't even have the money or technique to pull off any decent scenes of violence or gore or shock or suspense. This should have been one of those films that you can't even make it all the way through before you shut it off in bored disgust.

But writer/director Kangas actually comes up with a fairly neat idea. He tells almost all of the story through voice over narration, where Aric describes his life and how he kills people to the audience. Not only does that greatly limit the amount of painfully stilted acting from the cast, but it lets Kangas set up some interesting juxtapositions of the real Aric we hear in the narration with the facade he presents to the rest of the world. There are even moments where that juxtaposition allows the audience to understand things about Aric that he doesn't even understand about himself.

That relatively simple storytelling device got Kangas one-third of the way to an okay film. He got another third of the way their by keeping his direction primitive but competent. None of the camera work in Hunting Humans is at all good but none of it is laughably bad. There was just one more thing needed to make this a movie people would genuinely enjoy watching.

Unfortunately, Kangas thought what he needed was a wildly clever ending…and he completely blows it. He comes up with a conclusion that has not one or two twists. No, he bombards the audience with seven separate twists in the final battle between Aric and "Dark". That's right, 7 plot twists in the space of about 10 minutes and only one of the twists had any build up at all in the story. The others are totally pulled out of Kangas' butt. To execute a big ending like that you have to lay the groundwork for it throughout the film without the audience realizing what you're doing. While Kangas may have seen The Sixth Sense or The Usual Suspects, he doesn't have the talent or skill to pull anything like that off. Like a bad joke, Hunting Humans leaves you with a punchline that makes you regret wasting your time.

If Kangas had known his own limitations and admitted to himself he couldn't execute a big ending, he might have seen what his movie really needed staring him in the face. More naked chicks. There is one nude girl who gets killed at the start of this movie, but every other person who gets murdered is a fully clothed dude. A series of attractive, bare assed women running around in terror before being slain is exactly the sort of crude, prurient, exploitative fun that Hunting Humans needed to make it worthwhile. It would have made it a very low rent, low class, low brow sort of movie, but it's one you would have told your buddies was worth a rental.

By thinking he could come up with a great finish, Kevin Kangas ruined his otherwise admirable work in this film. If he'd gone with the lowest common denominator, instead of fooling himself that he's a great filmmaker, he would have actually made a better movie. Sometimes aiming low and hitting the target is better than aiming high and missing badly.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history