IMDb > Unearthed (2007) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Unearthed More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]
Index 45 reviews in total 

47 out of 67 people found the following review useful:

93 Minutes of Wasted Time

Author: t-h-fields from Washington, DC
18 November 2007

This movie was playing at the Union Station cinema in Washington, at 7:30 on a Saturday night. The place should have been completely packed, but it was nearly empty. We soon learned why.

Unearthed has a generic, by-the-numbers plot crammed full of the same old tired horror-movie clichés. It had no direction to speak of. The camera work was amateurish at best, and the dialog nearly incoherent. The camera was pointing all over the place, providing an occasional glimpse of something like a face, a vehicle, or a building. Most scenes were too dark and cluttered to make out anything clearly.

Don't even imagine that this stuff belongs in the "so-bad-it's-good" category. Those movies at least have some originality, humor (even if it's unintentional), and other qualities that make them stand out. They are the kind of movies that people remember, whether they want to or not. Unearthed has nothing worth remembering. I can barely recall even one single scene; the only thing I can remember clearly is waiting for it to be over. It seemed to drag on for several hours or more.

Very soon, this thing will be dead, buried, and totally forgotten. May it rest in peace--FOREVER.

Was the above review useful to you?

26 out of 34 people found the following review useful:

good cast and interesting characters deserve better than this misfire

Author: dbborroughs from Glen Cove, New York
24 December 2007

Long Buried creature is dug up at an archaeological dig, it then goes off and terrorizes the people around a remote filing station. good characters are lost in a movie that just doesn't work. It looks good, the actors are there but there is something about this that just doesn't work. To be certain the monster scenes don't make a hell of a lot of sense. They seem to be more structured to produce an effect rather than follow the plot. The problem is the early scenes where we don't see the creature are just confused and then once we do see the monster-which looks like a version of HR Giger's Alien with a smaller head, it just feels like we've been here before. A misfire thats more of interest as puzzle to unlock as to why it doesn't work, rather than as a scary movie. I really do wish the characters (and the actors) had something better to be in.

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

better than the other reviewers would have you believe

Author: inkslug from United Kingdom
6 March 2008

I'm the first to be critical of these types of -monsters on the loose in isolated community films-, but if you can get past the stunningly bad cgi monster there's a reasonable amount to like here. There's nothing original but name me one that is original in the last 20yrs, there aren't any. The stories are the same it's how they're handled that varies.

The story:- Out in the dry wastelands of America an archaeological dig unearths and sets loose an ancient monster not seen for 900yrs. Several outsiders stop for gas which has run out due to the tanker being attacked by said monster en route to gas station. They mix with and are stranded with several locals, all of whom become stranded and spend the night fighting for survival.

On the whole the acting is good but unusually Goss seems to struggle with his dialogue as if his heart's not in it. However I blame that on the director and the script rather than Goss. There's very little in the way of excess, unnecessary or cheesy dialogue, which is always a big plus in my eyes. There is also a totally unnecessary flashback thread running through the film. The camera work is a bit shaky and often too dark which does at times detract from the fun. The musical score is fine. The body count is low because there are few characters but the deaths are nice and gruesome. There's a great Eddie Murphy wannabe who gets wot he deserves (and provides the only laugh).

There are two big problems with this film as far as I can see.

1. The monster effects are on a par with the original Jason and the Argonauts from way back when - seriously they're that bad. The actual design of the monster is rubbish as well, it copies too much from alien and it's head is laughable with eyes and teeth all over the place. If you can imagine an alien working at a circus as a clown you'll get some idea.

2. There's a local biologist who keeps telling everyone she knows nothing but keeps coming up with the answers via massive jumps in her conclusions and it just gets stupid when she finds a Geiger counter lying around and then proclaims 'I've got a uranium extractor back at the house.'

If you can ignore these things, and accept that this was done on a tight budget, this is an okay movie.

I watched this back to back with 'Living Hell' and what confuses the hell out of me is that that piece of total garbage got the thumps up from the IMDb reviewers and an average score of 4.7 while this gets a total roasting from the reviewers and an average of 4.8. I feel 4.8 is fair for this film (coz i'm critical) but only if living hell received 0.0 otherwise this deserves more.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

Should have stayed 'Earthed'

Author: The_Void from Beverley Hills, England
12 October 2008

In 2004, director Matthew Leutwyler's first feature 'Dead & Breakfast' received praise for some circles; none of which included me. Unfortunately three years on and while at least he's moved away from rubbish zombie films; he has unfortunately gone on to rubbish sci-fi/horror films, and this desert-set rendition of Alien is just that. It's a shame that this film is so terrible because the plot actually sounds like it could turn into something quite decent. The film takes place in New Mexico and focuses on a small town. A bunch of cows have been found dead and naturally the local farmers believe that a wolf is to blame. The farmers send for a Sheriff to deal with that, and a big truck accident that's blocking the road...but things take a turn for the unexpected when the Sheriff discovers that there's been an archaeological dig in the area, and that an Indian has accidentally released a giant CGI alien creature into the town. Then a bunch of people end up getting stuck and the alien picks them all off one by one.

OK, so let's break it down. Acting - terrible, special effects - terrible, plot - clichéd, death scenes - it really doesn't have all that much going for it. Emmanuelle Vaugier is the lead actress and she's very good looking, but doesn't have enough about her to carry the film. Luke Goss, one half of the awful eighties pop group 'Bros' also appears in the film (luckily, the other half isn't in it, and even luckier is the fact that he doesn't sing). The plot is turgid and uninteresting and basically gives us a little bit of info, followed by a death scene, followed by a bit more info. The central creature doesn't appear all that often - and that's really a good thing because it when it does appear, it's just disappointing CGI nonsense. The action sequences are no good either, mainly because director Matthew Leutwyler has opted for the MTv style quick cuts that never fail to ruin a movie (even, it would appear, one that is already ruined). Overall, this is a dreary and boring horror film that definitely isn't recommended.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Alien? Oh no, more like Zoidberg...

Author: terrible2 from Istanbul
30 April 2008

Kind of a bit confused by this one, as the 2006 films were so much better and seemed to push the boundaries of independent horror. So far, I've viewed "Borderland", "Deaths Of Ian Stone" and this little stinker, yet none have had much of an impact on me, especially not this one... Besides the obvious sub-par special effects, I found the dialog to be incredibly weak and amateurish. The acting (for the most part) is not that bad, but when talented actors are forced to deliver such unintelligible lines, you begin to feel a bit sorry for them. I found this most offensive when veteran character actor M.C. Gainey was on screen, I've always respected his talent, which is horribly wasted here. As for the special effects... What can I say? They suck, and suck real bad at that... Crappy CGI mixed in with shaky camera tricks and quick cuts, make it next to impossible to see what is supposed to be taking place, and the story doesn't fare much better. On a good note, much of the (daytime) cinematography looked above average and added a grainy feel to the desert scenery. I believe director Matthew Leutwyler will have a bright future as long as he leaves the writing to others, and throws away his CGI software.

After-all, no-one is frightened by Dr. Zoidberg...

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Well the plot summary made it sound like it would be good.

Author: Aaron1375
8 April 2008

I thought this movie would be the best film of the new Afterdark releases, however, upon watching it I am hoping that is not the case. It had promise and for a second there I thought it would be good, but it just has way to many flaws. I will get to them later, but first the plot. Something is unearthed in a cave and goes on the rampage, a sheriff with a past is on the case. A truck isolates the town leaving four strangers in town stranded, monster begins rampage. An Indian girl and this other guy seem to know a way to stop it and there is some cat and mouse as the survivors and their decreasing numbers hide here and there. So what are its flaws? First, the whole sheriff with a past thing. It is a female sheriff and she had an incident that was so troubling to her that she has been drinking and having problems for a year. A plot straight out of a lifetime channel movie plot. Do not get me wrong and I am not disparaging the channel, but those types of plot points do not belong in horror movie of this type. Also, when it is revealed what she did you will wonder how the heck she has stayed sheriff for a year. It did seem to be because of incompetence on her part and I don't see how anyone could have let her be sheriff after that. She is also way to pretty for someone who has been drinking for a year and living under the sun. Most would have developed wrinkles and would have aged considerably, however she is still quite modelesque. Then there are the four strangers in town, never before has there been four more pointless and underdeveloped characters to enter a movie. You know not their motivations, or anything. The girl bit by the rattler, her friend, the city dude, and the broken down hitchhiker. Heck, you learn more about the trucker whose rig crashes five minutes into the movie than you do any of the four strangers. However, all is not bad as there are a couple of good kills...the dude in the car at the end and the girl in the café. The one rancher is actually a good character, to bad he is not in the movie much and the monster is okay too, although it is just a cheap version of the alien and its origin is a bit far fetched.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Ever heard of tyranids ?

Author: Frederic_B from Switzerland
15 April 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I usually don't post reviews but since there was no comment yet about the creature I had to make one.And well people who already watched the movie may learn something about the creature they didn't know.

I found the movie a bit boring, it was dark all the time and the action scenes felt like a movie trailer, a flash of action here and there, a lot of it but always very fast and where it seems like you miss half the action. Something just didn't "work" in this movie for me, I have nothing against simple stories or the characters or the acting or even the creature FXs but the movie in the end isn't that good sadly.

!!! HUGE SPOILER !!!! The whole concept of the creature has been entirely copied from a tabletop game called warhammer 40'000 made by Games Workshop.I'm not an expert considering I only read the "tyranids codex" for fun but I can tell you that the creature is some kind of "Genestealer" from the Tyranids alien race in that game (there are many different kind of tyranids and it may be closer to another unit type) I don't know if the movie producers ever mentioned any link to this but it's obvious, the "gene collecting" goal the scientist explain in the movie, the creature design which looks exactly has the miniatures in the tabletop game and even the burrowing worms that are shot by the alien by some kind of bio-gun.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Could'a been good, but made every effort to be bad.

Author: indyj1 from United States
9 November 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Let me preface this review by saying, while there may be some plot spoilers contained below, I doubt that if I transcribed the script word-for-word I would spoil the movie for anyone. The director/producers managed to spoil this movie quite well on their own.

OK, a movie about an archaeological dig unearthing some ancient creature that starts killing people stranded in the area. Certainly nothing original there, but, ya never know. The director may come up with some new twists. Well, if the director did, he did an impressive job of not sharing it with the audience. Nor did he make any attempt to reveal whatever he had in mind for tying all the unidentified story-lines behind the characters together. Characters are barely introduced at the beginning of the movie, and there is but a hint of character development for anyone but Sheriff Annie.

As far as the filming goes, I've seen camera phone recordings of higher quality than was used in this movie. Apparently, the director dealt with a shoe-string budget by making extensive use of shaky out-of-focus shots whenever there's action, the monster attacking people, people running, caves collapsing, etc. And in today's film-making age, where night shots are shot in daylight/artificial light and then darkened on a computer in the editing room, this film nonetheless shoots it's night scenes outside at night using cheesy night-vision filters. How innovative. Let the audience barely see what's going on so they can feel like they're truly in the dark.

The computer graphics are state of the art....were this still 1992. It's blatantly apparent that one of the director's favorite films is Alien3, as the monster graphics look like he pulled old footage of the alien scampering along the walls from the David Fincher film. And worse than that, he copies the scene in which the alien moves its face close to Sigourney Weaver by having Unearthed's monster, dripping goo from its mouth and all, move its head close to the face of a cringing Tonantzin Carmelo (who is covered in radioactive muck, yet never seems the least bit bothered to be so). What's really sad is, the real creature apparatus which is used in only a handful of shots did look well-crafted. However, most of the scenes of the creature are such pitiful CGI, they make made-for-Sci-Fi channel movie special effects look good.

Had any effort been made to develop the characters, explain what was really going on with them early in the film, and some legitimate filming done instead of rough-shod disjointed quick cuts and camera angles, this COULD have been a decent film.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

A Waste of Time

Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
9 September 2008

In the desert area of Hat Creek, cows are found partially devoured and the farmers believe that a wolf is attacking the cattle. The alcoholic Sheriff Annie Flynn (Emmanuelle Vaugier) is called by the local farmer Rob Horn (M.C. Gainey) to witness the remains of an animal to request reimbursement from the government and for an accident with a tank truck that is blocking the road. However, Annie sooner discovers that an ancient alien creature sent to annihilate life on Earth hundreds of years ago was released by the Indian Kale (Luke Goss) during an archaeological excavation in the desert. The Indian Caya (Beau Garrett) and a group of travelers stranded in the spot without gas together with Annie and Kale try to find a means to destroy the alien and save mankind.

Watching "Unearthed" is a waste of time, since the forgettable story is nothing but a collection of clichés. Most of the characters are unpleasant and non-charismatic and the lead character is actually the anti-heroine Annie Flynn that is a drunken sheriff tormented by the accidental death of an Indian girl. The scene of Caya and the alien creature is another ridiculous rip-off of the classic scene of "Alien" with Sigourney Weaver. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Aniquilação" ("Annihilation")

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:


Author: morrigan1982 from Greece
17 February 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Why? why would someone make this film? why would someone want to see it?why did I see it? We have an archaeological dig with an ancient alien creature buried inside.this creature looks a lot like the xenomorph from the movie Alien! The characters where flat, even the main character there hasn't anything there.You see some flash backs that you could do without because they don't make a lot of sense and their only work the end of the film. Actually even at the end i don't think they fit!!! Also sometimes it is not easy to see what is going on in the movie, it is too dark and it moves too fast not in a scary good sense.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
External reviews Parents Guide Official site
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history