Peppered_Productions
I gave this one a 5 because I've seen better & I've seen worse.The basic premise: Two couples embark on an adventure in backwater country in search of the elusive legendary Tasmanian tiger. The instigator of this mission is Nina, who is trying to validate the research of her sister - who died mysteriously on this very quest. Along for the ride are her boyfriend Matt, his impetuous friend Jack, and Jack's girlfriend Rebecca.From the moment the foursome meet the locals, we're introduced to the same characteristics and vibe of hillbilly, isolated & 'off' people. It is clear early on that things aren't right with this secretive sect of society, and there are 'traditions' that not everyone wants to continue.There are flashbacks and foreshadowing to help build to the reveals at the end. The storyline is simple, but basically the same as many previous horror porn offerings. Although this movie is definitely more tame than most - with only technically a minimum of killing and blood, it definitely follows the trend.Jack is your typical obnoxious a-hole, Matt is the peacemaker, Nina is the troubled soul, and Rebecca is there for sexual titillation. Jack makes a Deliverance joke summarizing the characterization of the locals, and early on there is evidence of their capability to kill and do whatever is necessary for the good of the whole.I think this film took the easy way out, resorting to stereotypes and piecemeal reveals. It is not a bad movie, and the actors are definitely watchable, but could have been better.
JoeB131
This film has all the typical clichés of a horror film. Bunch of city folk deign to go into the rural area. In this case, a woman is picking up her dead sister's search for the Tasmanian Tiger.Well, of course, they run into the stereotypical group of inbred locals who proceed to hunt them down and kill them. There are few real surprises here, other than the bias of city dwellers against rural folks. (Incidently, having spent extended periods of time both rural and urban, I've been more afraid in urban locations, but that's just me.) No surprises and a lot of tedium. Not really worth your time.
GoneWithTheTwins
I always laugh when a horror movie begins and ends with facts to read. Even if the filmmakers are alluding to actual events, do they honestly expect that the plot itself is deserving of a history lesson? At the start of "Dying Breed," we learn about Alexander Pearce, an Irish convict who in 1822 escaped from a penal colony on the Australian island of Tasmania; in 1824, he was caught, tried, and hanged for murder and cannibalism. In the film, he's given the nickname The Pieman, although we now know that this is actually a reference to pastry chef Thomas Kent, another Tasmanian inmate who also escaped imprisonment in 1822. I can understand why writers Michael Boughen, Jody Dwyer, and Rod Morris gave that name to Pearce--students of "Sweeney Todd" know that cannibalism is a lot more fun when it's coupled with the skill and artistry of a baker.This movie also tells us about the Tasmanian Tiger, a carnivorous marsupial that was once common throughout Australia and Papua New Guinea. As of today, some believe early European settlers hunted this animal to extinction, the last one dying in captivity in 1936. Others believe that a select few survived and continue to exist in isolated groups within the bushland of Tasmania. Sightings have been reported, although there's no actual proof of anything. There is, however, the ominous fact that many hikers have gone into Tasmania, never to be seen or heard from again.What exactly do these two bits of information have to do with one another? "Dying Breed" attempts to make a connection, although it's weak, probably because there's no chemistry between them. Yes, there is that fact that both are part of the fabric of Australian legend. And then there's one of the film's most crucial subplots, in which the creepy townsfolk of an isolated Tasmanian village show just how far they will go to keep certain traditions alive; the obvious symbolism is that the townsfolk are struggling to survive, just like the Tiger. But that doesn't amount to very much in the grand scheme of things. Ultimately, two very different ideas are at work in just one story, and that's bad because they don't really belong together.The plot focuses on an Irish zoologist named Nina (Mirrah Foulkes). She has now made it her mission to find a Tasmanian Tiger, which she believes still exists. The proof is in a photo of a paw print taken by her sister, who was also in search of a Tiger before dying mysteriously eight years ago. Nina's superiors refuse to fund a new expedition, so she has to rely on her Australian boyfriend, Matt (Leigh Whannell), who relies on an old friend named Jack (Nathan Phillips). Once Nina and Matt arrive in Tasmania, they travel with Jack and his girlfriend, Rebecca (Melanie Vallejo), into the frighteningly isolated village of Sarah, where it's always gray and rainy and the locals all have a distrustful, psychotic glint in their eyes.The first three-quarters of this film could have worked as a character study, but alas, everyone is so broadly drawn that they come dangerously close to turning into cardboard. Nina, for example, is no more nor less than what the screenplay requires her to be at any given moment; when she doesn't need to be persistent, then she's curious, and when she's not curious, she's scared, and when she's not scared, she's lost somewhere between driven and confused. In other words, I didn't really know who she was. Matt, on the other hand, is so passive and even-tempered that he's just shy of completely boring. Rebecca is just an extra character, serving no real purpose other than being a companion for Jack. And as for Jack, he's probably the most developed character, which is annoying since (a) he isn't the main character, and (b) he's unlikable. He seems to lack the ability to keep his mouth shut when it's most necessary, creating tension between him and Nina, which in turn creates tension between Nina and Matt.The horror element is there, but it's not much of a saving grace since so many of the clichés I grew tired of a long time ago are still being used. Only in this kind of film would anyone even consider exploring a shack located miles from anywhere. And not run when they discover that it's a House of Horrors. And actually investigate a stove when it appears that the contents of an abandoned pot are about to boil over. The only thing that prevented this story from bottoming out: A lack of sex-crazed teens stupidly wandering off alone while calling, "Hello? Is anyone there?" Still, clichés are better than back-stories that don't make a whole lot of sense. I watched the Tasmanian townsfolk in various scenes, and I got that they were driven to keep to tradition, but somehow, I couldn't make sense of the tradition itself, which involves both feeding and breeding. What exactly is director Jody Dwyer trying to tell us here? That one deadly species has gone extinct, only to be replaced by another deadly species? If that's the case, then why even bother bringing up the Tasmanian Tiger? Why not focus on just the townsfolk? I would have liked "Dying Breed" a lot more had it known which story it wanted to tell. The Pieman or the Tiger--make up your mind. I'd go for The Pieman, because God knows that, in a horror movie, watching someone eat a meat pie is better than reading the history of an elusive animal.Chris Pandolfiwww.GoneWithTheTwins.com
