When a large meteor crashes into a quiet town, pet dogs become mysteriously aggressive - attacking and killing the residents. Now the citizens are forced to fight back against their once bel... Read allWhen a large meteor crashes into a quiet town, pet dogs become mysteriously aggressive - attacking and killing the residents. Now the citizens are forced to fight back against their once beloved companions.When a large meteor crashes into a quiet town, pet dogs become mysteriously aggressive - attacking and killing the residents. Now the citizens are forced to fight back against their once beloved companions.
I didn't say it was good. Just better than the average Asylum feature. Asylum movies are characterized by a formulaic construction using an outlandish plot, poor acting, egregious errors in common sense, and insultingly horrific computer animation.
So what did "Night of the Wild" bring us? Outlandish plot. Check. We got it here. A meteorite crashes, causing all the canines from every quaint little hamlet in the county to converge upon one little town and maul every happy citizen with a sleeve. Great, I love it. It's nice to see that the townsfolk won't let a few glowing rocks from the heavens stop them from going about their town-ish business.
Then comes the acting. Absolutely sub par, but not to the point of being distracting from the movie's action. I'm traditionally very easy on the actors of such films since I don't think anyone can really save a bad movie movie by eloquently delivering poorly written dialogue. What it comes down to is staying in character, and the actors managed it well enough. I'm sure others here will be happy to rip the acting apart, but frankly I don't see much to comment on here one way or the other.
Next, we get some absolutely ridiculous distortions of common sense. I mean of course that the characters, when faced with disaster, seem to choose the most obviously insipid course of action available to them, every time, without fail. For many viewers of this genre, herein lies our blessed entertainment.
Lastly, the aforementioned terrible CGI. I'm happy to report that for most of the movie, this element is lacking almost entirely. It seems that when faced with a plot line that does not involve mutated fusions of various reptiles and sea creatures, hideously gooey and slimy otherworldly visitors, spectacularly impossible or improbable natural catastrophes and/or large robots, the Asylum studio has enough presence of mind to actually reject hastily constructed and unconvincing computer animation.
Or so I had hoped.. Unfortunately by the end of the film it became apparent that the budget was running short and they had to finish the movie in a hurry, so they filmed the car ride and the plane ride in a studio (you never get to see the vehicles moving), recycled and misplaced a scene or two (the blood and makeup mysteriously vanished for about 8 seconds), and then finally surrendered to the urge to do what they do best: add some hastily constructed and unconvincing computer animation. A patchwork finish if I've ever seen one.
(Spoiler, the ending credits are apparently ashamed of themselves because they zip up at a truly confounding speed. I knew I should have taken that speed-reading course in college.)
Altogether the movie was still entertaining, and in my humble opinion a good move in the right direction for the Asylum studio. It earns one of my higher Asylum movie scores.
- Jan 5, 2016