5.7/10
After reading a lot of generally positive reviews stating that "Rogue" was the "best giant crocodile movie ever", I just had to see the thing. For one, I saw it in hopes of it being better than director Greg McLean's first feature, "Wolf… More
5.7/10
After reading a lot of generally positive reviews stating that "Rogue" was the "best giant crocodile movie ever", I just had to see the thing. For one, I saw it in hopes of it being better than director Greg McLean's first feature, "Wolf Creek". I also saw it because I'm a sucker for potentially intense movies starring convincing giant crocs. I was not disappointed. "Rogue" is probably the best giant crocodile movie since whatever movie started the whole line of generally uncommon creature features. I don't know why it's as easy as it is to take a giant crocodile and do literally nothing with him or the plot; but the directors of previous giant-croc flicks such as "Primeval" and "Crocodile" seem to know. "Rogue" is not a good film per se, but it delivers a surprisingly good amount of thrills for most of its running time. This means that it stays plenty entertaining, but that also means that it has the potential to be boring as well. And believe me; "Rogue" has no intent on staying consistently entertaining. The biggest flaw, among others, is the fact that "Rogue" too often feels like it's taking a bathroom break in-between each sticky situation. The premise itself shouldn't let a whole lot happen, but then again, a whole lot more goes down than one would expect. I don't want to call a movie such as "Rogue" the king of killer croc movies, but judging by the other crap that's been released recently, I'm going to have to go along and say just that. It's not that bad of a film, and the thing is pretty pleasing for a lot of the time. The crocodile is convincing, and the cinematography is pretty. The scenery is beautiful, and the acting is decent enough. However, another big flaw with the film is its distinct lack of substance. This film doesn't have too good of a story, and therefore, it doesn't have too good of characters. Most of our heroes and heroines are pretty stale; and the equally as bland plot doesn't keep them afloat. The most interesting character turns out to be- you guessed it- the giant croc himself. But even the beast lacks characterization. What a pity.
Like McLean's "Wolf Creek", this film is about outback terror in Australia. I admire the set-up, and this time the killer is a giant crocodile. Now, I'd love to see someone make a truly genuine crocodile film, and "Rogue" could have been the movie to do it. As it is, it's a well-directed film, for the most part at least. So we have a group of tourists who go for a cool boat ride in crocodile-infested waters. They're having good fun until a particularly huge croc attacks the boat, which eventually sinks. They're stranded on a nearby island, with nowhere to go since they all know that the crocodile is swimming beneath the dark waters. But they're willing to take risks; because that's what it's going to take in order for them all to make it out alive. I know I'm spoiling a little of the movie when I say this, but when regarding how many people make it out alive, I'm just going to say this: a few people die. But that's what you'd expect from this kind of movie anyway. The plot itself is ridiculously boring, and so are the characters that inhabit it. Some of them seem to have at least SOMETHING going on, but no such thing is ever explored further than a one-shot wonder. In the end of the day, I guess I do admire "Rogue". It does not put a spin on the giant-crocodile sub-genre of films, but it is an entertaining entry none the less. And considering Tobe Hooper was even involved with this area once, it's good to see that someone else has stepped in and filled the shoes of whatever masters may have started it. I suppose you cannot make a great giant-crocodile/alligator movie without ripping off "Jaws" completely. But I do believe that you can make an entertaining movie out of a giant croc eating people. "Rogue" gives me hope; if only some.
Who am I to call the acting here "bad"? In fact, none of it really is. I wouldn't call any of the work by our actors and actresses particularly good or inspiring; but I would not for one second call any of it unworthy of at least some praise. Michael Vartan plays our hero, who is as generic and characterless as heroes can get. Some people don't go to these movies to get characters, but unless it's meant to be stupid and campy, then you've got to at least have a convincing hero. The heroine (AKA, possible love interest of the hero) is played by the somewhat talented Radha Mitchell; who has done decently in the past and does decently here as well. None of the acting is memorable, special, or unbearable. But you know you have somewhat of a problem when the leads aren't interesting enough, thus leaving the audience to find some decent solace in the people who work on the side. I didn't mind the supporting cast; but even their characters needed more time to develop.
"Rogue" feels stupid. It probably IS stupid; but it's still quite fun in spite of this. I appreciate this flick, but do not particularly "like it". It's an enjoyable little movie, complete with the kind of gore and muscle-power that you'd expect from a film like this. It has thrills, spills, but no honest chills. In short, it's not a scary film, but it's still an exciting one. I guess there are some who will really enjoy it, and then there will be those like me who just admire it for being better than what is out there. It's a competent film; helmed by a competent director who definitely has style. The scenery is pretty fun to look at, as it was in "Wolf Creek". The scenery was mildly different in that film; but the NEW location is just as breathtaking. And the cinematography sure helps. If there's anything I honestly can say I liked about that mess of a directorial debut known as "Wolf Creek", it was the look. That film was beautifully shot, but gratuitously violent. "Rogue" is about as violent as it needs to be, and it's still pretty fun to look at. Oh, joy. And it's also accompanied by a pretty good atmosphere, a pretty good (be it repetitive) score, and an at least somewhat convincing sense of dread. Sadly, nothing can stop the kill scenes from being pathetic. They're not poorly staged; they're just uninspired, unoriginal, and repetitive. But how else could such bloody madness be dished out? I mean, honestly; think about that. But then again, people have put a spin on movies like this. I'm waiting for someone to do great justice to giant-crocodile films. It will happen someday. But "Rogue" ain't all that bad.
I've complained a lot about "Rogue", and that's because it's a very imperfect film. If I have one more bitchy complaint, it's that the final showdown between man-and-monster, which is hilariously hyped on the back of the film's DVD case, is just plain stupid and disappointing; not to mention pathetic. But hey; the movie is plenty entertaining and is sure to please those who have had enough of shit like "Primeval". I know that I have. And maybe that is why I accept "Rogue" for the film that it is, as well as the film that it wants to be. The crocodile doesn't look half bad, and neither does the whole film. It's made with some skill, but it's never truly crafty. I enjoyed it. But that's about it. I'll probably forget about the thing none the less. But then again consider that all giant-crocodile movies are pretty much forgettable. I just can't get into them. And I couldn't get into McLean's previous feature, "Wolf Creek", either. So it's a wonder how the mixture could accumulate something that isn't actually all that bad. I don't recommend "Rogue". But it's worth watching if you have a rainy day on your hands, or if you're just looking to kill some time. It's corny as hell, but it's a good time waster. We do not get enough of those. "Rogue" means that something good could happen soon to giant-crocodile movies. I sure hope that something does happen; because I'm getting bored to. And "Rogue", as entertaining and decent as it is; just ain't good enough to convince me that the sub-genre of giant-croc movies can be genuinely good. But it's a decent step towards good territory anyways.
