A couple and their 13-year-old daughter live in a remote cabin in the
Canadian wilderness -- fur-trappers in an age passing them by -- when a
wolf, an old adversary, returns to menace them. Because the NR-rated
HUNTER HUNTER is very prone to spoilers, I'll say only that I found its
production quality unexpectedly high, and its plot's path... well...
unexpected. Take the NR-rating seriously. Somewhat recommended.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 15:17:05 -0400, moviePig wrote:

> A couple and their 13-year-old daughter live in a remote cabin in the
> Canadian wilderness -- fur-trappers in an age passing them by -- when a
> wolf, an old adversary, returns to menace them. Because the NR-rated
> HUNTER HUNTER is very prone to spoilers, I'll say only that I found its
> production quality unexpectedly high, and its plot's path... well...
> unexpected. Take the NR-rating seriously. Somewhat recommended.

Crikey!
There's a disturbing coincidence. I watched this last night.

Agree about the PVs but not with your recommendation. Act III was a mess in
all senses of the word.

alvey

On 7/21/2021 5:56 PM, alvey wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 15:17:05 -0400, moviePig wrote:
>
>> A couple and their 13-year-old daughter live in a remote cabin in the
>> Canadian wilderness -- fur-trappers in an age passing them by -- when a
>> wolf, an old adversary, returns to menace them. Because the NR-rated
>> HUNTER HUNTER is very prone to spoilers, I'll say only that I found its
>> production quality unexpectedly high, and its plot's path... well...
>> unexpected. Take the NR-rating seriously. Somewhat recommended.
>
> Crikey!
> There's a disturbing coincidence. I watched this last night.
>
> Agree about the PVs but not with your recommendation. Act III was a mess in
> all senses of the word.

NO OVERT SPOILERS BELOW, BUT DISCUSSION THAT SHOULD NOT BE READ BEFORE
VIEWING !!!!!!!

What's a PV?

Metacritic didn't even review this flick, but at RottenTomatoes it gets
significant critical respect. Somewhat like you, I first wanted to
write, "It's an adventure thriller, followed by a Shakespearean tragedy,
followed by a snuff film", but of course that'd be the worst sort of
what I think of as a spoiler. Just as well, as I think I've changed my
mind. Now, I'm thinking it might've been a seriously intended (and well
executed!) comment on the feral nature of the world ... a la "You think
THIS is primitive?" Anyway, glad you saw it, so I could unload this...

NO OVERT SPOILERS ABOVE, BUT DISCUSSION THAT SHOULD NOT BE READ BEFORE
VIEWING !!!!!!!

On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 18:34:26 -0400, moviePig wrote:

> On 7/21/2021 5:56 PM, alvey wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 15:17:05 -0400, moviePig wrote:
>>
>>> A couple and their 13-year-old daughter live in a remote cabin in the
>>> Canadian wilderness -- fur-trappers in an age passing them by -- when a
>>> wolf, an old adversary, returns to menace them. Because the NR-rated
>>> HUNTER HUNTER is very prone to spoilers, I'll say only that I found its
>>> production quality unexpectedly high, and its plot's path... well...
>>> unexpected. Take the NR-rating seriously. Somewhat recommended.
>>
>> Crikey!
>> There's a disturbing coincidence. I watched this last night.
>>
>> Agree about the PVs but not with your recommendation. Act III was a mess in
>> all senses of the word.
>
> NO OVERT SPOILERS BELOW,

UPDATE: MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!

>
> What's a PV?

Production Values.
>
> Metacritic didn't even review this flick, but at RottenTomatoes it gets
> significant critical respect. Somewhat like you, I first wanted to
> write, "It's an adventure thriller, followed by a Shakespearean tragedy,
> followed by a snuff film", but of course that'd be the worst sort of
> what I think of as a spoiler. Just as well, as I think I've changed my
> mind. Now, I'm thinking it might've been a seriously intended (and well
> executed!) comment on the feral nature of the world ... a la "You think
> THIS is primitive?" Anyway, glad you saw it, so I could unload this...

No probs. It's frustrating when your non-movie friends roll their eyes and
move in the direction of Further Away when you say, "I saw this movie the
other day and...".

Anyhoo, re your revised opinion... It actually supports my opinion that the
end was a mess. They dropped the wolf entirely (his agent wouldn't have
been pleased) and didn't know what to replace it with. Slasher, sex or, as
you say, statement, so confusion reigned. Like, why was there so much focus
on the pudgy female Wildlife Officer duing the final scenes? She'd only
been a minor and insignificant character till then. And why did mum depart
so dramatically off character and go all Ed Gein?

That aside, it did have some good moments. I'm all for these survivalist
nutbags meeting a sticky end. Especially when their brayed "living off the
land" lifestyle includes vehicles, guns, two way radios etc etc.

alvey

On 7/21/2021 7:57 PM, alvey wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 18:34:26 -0400, moviePig wrote:
>
>> On 7/21/2021 5:56 PM, alvey wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 15:17:05 -0400, moviePig wrote:
>>>
>>>> A couple and their 13-year-old daughter live in a remote cabin in the
>>>> Canadian wilderness -- fur-trappers in an age passing them by -- when a
>>>> wolf, an old adversary, returns to menace them. Because the NR-rated
>>>> HUNTER HUNTER is very prone to spoilers, I'll say only that I found its
>>>> production quality unexpectedly high, and its plot's path... well...
>>>> unexpected. Take the NR-rating seriously. Somewhat recommended.
>>>
>>> Crikey!
>>> There's a disturbing coincidence. I watched this last night.
>>>
>>> Agree about the PVs but not with your recommendation. Act III was a mess in
>>> all senses of the word.
>>
>> NO OVERT SPOILERS BELOW,
>
> UPDATE: MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!
>
>>
>> What's a PV?
>
> Production Values.
>>
>> Metacritic didn't even review this flick, but at RottenTomatoes it gets
>> significant critical respect. Somewhat like you, I first wanted to
>> write, "It's an adventure thriller, followed by a Shakespearean tragedy,
>> followed by a snuff film", but of course that'd be the worst sort of
>> what I think of as a spoiler. Just as well, as I think I've changed my
>> mind. Now, I'm thinking it might've been a seriously intended (and well
>> executed!) comment on the feral nature of the world ... a la "You think
>> THIS is primitive?" Anyway, glad you saw it, so I could unload this...
>
> No probs. It's frustrating when your non-movie friends roll their eyes and
> move in the direction of Further Away when you say, "I saw this movie the
> other day and...".
>
> Anyhoo, re your revised opinion... It actually supports my opinion that the
> end was a mess. They dropped the wolf entirely (his agent wouldn't have
> been pleased) and didn't know what to replace it with. Slasher, sex or, as
> you say, statement, so confusion reigned. Like, why was there so much focus
> on the pudgy female Wildlife Officer duing the final scenes? She'd only
> been a minor and insignificant character till then. And why did mum depart
> so dramatically off character and go all Ed Gein?
>
> That aside, it did have some good moments. I'm all for these survivalist
> nutbags meeting a sticky end. Especially when their brayed "living off the
> land" lifestyle includes vehicles, guns, two way radios etc etc.

Yeah, there seems no way around at least the initial impression that the
whole ending first went off the rails, then off the earth. And that's
certainly an impression that has to count. Even rehabilitating it with
a later divination of what he was trying for -- and achieved -- doesn't
erase the movie that, for its duration and then some, everyone saw.