Dead Of Winter

I can see the hidden gem in almost every terrible film. The Final Sacrifice had heart (not to mention Zap Rowsdower.) The Temple had a great premise, if awful execution. The Room and Birdemic were such shining examples of everything you shouldn't do that they were awesome. Dead of Winter... well, it really had nothing to make it stand out.Pros:1. The cinematography was quite good at times.2. Some of the acting was passable. A few of the characters managed to get me to sympathize with them on some level.3. With a few rewrites, the pacing could have actually been good.4. Some of the gore was kinda gross.5. It had all three acts, which is more than I can say for some Free-on-Prime movies.Cons:1. The premise. Extreme geocaching may well be a thing, but it sounds boring. I'm not mocking it; at face value archaeology also sounds pretty boring too, but movies like Indiana Jones and franchises like National Geographic came a long way in making it seem cool in the eyes of the public. This movie really could have done more to sell us on the whole 'extreme' factor, or even explain geocaching to the layman. It brought up something called a "Tarpen" several time, and, while giving us a brief glimpse of some tablet device, never really explained what it was or why it was important.3. The theme. While being the excuse to set the characters on their misadventure, the movie doesn't really do much with the whole geocaching thing. Every once in a while, the characters just get a clue, then literally dash off (often in a seemingly random direction.) Geocaching might have seemed a lot cooler if the filmmakers actually took an interest in it and invested us in the various puzzles.4. The comic relief character was one of the worst I've seen outside of a Star Wars prequel. We get it. He's sexist, he's obnoxious, he's a whiny baby. All of his lines are these cringe-inducingly stupid lesbian jokes that no sane human would ever say in front of another adult. When this sort of absolute prat is written into the story, it's generally so that they can kill him off quickly and up the tension. They're not. To add to that, they're in practically every seen and absolutely refuses to shut up. So what gives? Did the actor fund the film? Did they have some leverage on the director? Did someone actually write all of his idiotic lines, or did he think he could pull off some Bill Murray improv? This character made every character Rob Schneider ever played in a Happy Madison production look likeable in comparison.5. The "whodunit" aspect. See, mysteries are fun, and generally involve the movie feeding you clues until you can logically deduce who did it. Really good ones can actually give you all those clues so subtly that you're surprised when the villain is revealed. This movie doesn't do that. It blatantly telegraphs its villain in the first twenty minutes of run time and never gives you any reason to reasonably doubt that it's them. Every time they're on screen, they say something that telegraphs they're the villain. Every time something bad happens, they're the only one who could have logically done it. This makes the main characters look like absolute morons when the big "I'm the villain" twist occurs in the third act.6. The traps were the usual Rube Goldberg/Wily Coyote designs most villains tend towards. One of them would have been impossible to setup without the victim willingly (and quietly) stepping into it.7. Certain scenes either made no sense or did not flow. In one scene, a character goes from walking in the snow to being seen through a sniper scope to being tied up by the bad guys. What happened here? If we heard a gunshot we'd have assumed the character was shot, but captured? Was it a tranquilizer gun? Did the sniper say "Hey you! I've got a gun, so get down on the ground so I can climb down from this whatever and capture you!" In another scene, some dude is shooting at the characters. Twenty minutes later dude is killed off later without any further development. Who was he? Who killed him? Why did they kill him? Was he in on it? I have a strong feeling certain connecting scenes were deleted to the detriment of the film.

Now the movie is okay to watch. The plot is entertaining enough to keep your interest, but nothing very original. There are plenty of summaries so I will not do this, but the movie's downfall in my opinion, is that very few of the characters are likable. When something horrible happens to a character you are supposed to feel something and this is supposed to engage you more-- love, hate, anxiety, empathy, etc. Instead you feel kind of ambiguous. There are minor plot twists but not worth mentioning.If you like the type of film where the characters are battling the elements, the wilderness, as well as hunting or being hunted, then you will probably take a favorable look to this.

This movie was far better than I expected. Decent job on every front, with only minor issues throughout. Was sort of a modern take on "The Most Dangerous Game", with a bit more gore and a few plot holes.The film has a fantastic set up, but falters a bit in the latter half.Despite its flaws I was entertained. The acting, cinematography, score, and overall story was good, not groundbreaking or amazing, but better than most indie fare.SPOILER WARNING!!!!In fact, the ending was downright terrible, with plot holes and odd choices throughout. So much more could've been done but it seemed as though the writer(s) felt like they had to keep ramping the pace up only to jump the shark about halfway through. The "big twist" at the end was all too predictable.

I liked the idea of the movie and being in the woods during winter time. There was enough action to keep me interested for a bit, when it came to the "gore" factor there wasn't a lot of that. There was a little violence sprinkled here and there throughout the movie but nothing to write home about or over the top. Overall a decent movie if you're looking for something half fun to watch. Ending was pretty much par for this type of movie about half way through you could figure out what's going on.

Scenery was great, acting was good, story okay, editing so-so. The ending won't exactly be a surprise - you'll see it coming. Not a bad movie, though, particularly compared to the normal offerings on Amazon. Just making it to the end puts it in the 3-star category. I would give it an extra half-star if I could, but I just couldn't bring myself to rate it 4 stars.

The movie wasn't bad actually. It did start of a bit slow but eventually I found myself entertained by it. The traps were okay, not quite the Saw/Collector level. Like usual, you do have to suspect belief on a few aspects of the movie, but still didn't ruin my experience.

Garbage movie ... but occasionally fun. The beginning tricks you into thinking it might be a quality film ... because some scenery bits are filmed with a drone, no doubt. But while the plot unfolds, there are many breaks in motivation and logic, leading to unrealistic action.Kudos, though, for doing what so many big budget Hollywood movies don't do ... actually filming an outdoor movie outdoors, in the cold. That's why I give 3 stars, instead of 1.

I liked this movie, I thought it was pretty scary and I like the thriller genre. It was a cross between adventure and thriller. I think the acting was very decent, the landscape was interesting, there was a good amount of suspense and I liked the ending. There is some gore but it isn't drawn out or over the top like SAW, for example. Worthwhile watch!

Enjoyed this. Interesting plot, suspenseful movie shot in the cold weather winter in Parry Sound area. Relatively unknown actors and crew who worked their butts off to carry this