Backcountry

IFC Films | Release Date: March 20, 2015

6.3	USER SCORE Generally favorable reviews based on 43 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

quincytheodoreMay 11, 2015

These people need Bear Grylls. Backcountry is a good example how one simple premise can still be thrilling with clever production and a few grisly scenes. Using scenery and only minimum amount of characters, it succeeds on creating the senseThese people need Bear Grylls. Backcountry is a good example how one simple premise can still be thrilling with clever production and a few grisly scenes. Using scenery and only minimum amount of characters, it succeeds on creating the sense of isolation and overwhelming helplessness. The movie doesn't venture to cheap scare territory and while it can be slow at times, its modest nature delivers what it sets out to do.

Jenn (Missy Peregrym) and Alex (Jeff Roop) go into a camping trip. The weekend is meant for a romantic escapade to see a beautiful lake, unfortunately they lose their way in the thick forest. The concept is simple, it has been done before, but Backcountry does it with smart approach by keeping the focus on the confused couple and develop their personalities. Both the lead actors deliver convincing performance.

They look like an ordinary couple, complete with their own issues and occasional bickering. It makes it easier for audience to invest on their survival. When the danger comes and they find out the trip isn't going well, the reactions are believable without being overbearing or resorting to excessive screaming and blaming even though some poor decisions have been made.

The movie keeps the flow without distraction, in this case the less is better as build up for the encounter with the threat is silently ominous. Practical effect and makeup do wonder at creating the deterioration of battered man and woman. Relying on only two characters alone could be risky, the film doesn't veer off from its original path, although the pace does stumble on halfway point. Granted, the investment on the couple might take a while.

Backcountry provides a survival tale in its natural form. It may not be fancy, but it stays on it course to deliver a decent thriller.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

Xan_RyilJan 27, 2016

Like many recent horror movies, which tend to keep the budget low to make quick break even,
Backcountry too engages only two characters most of the time on screen. Which is one of the qualities of the movie and also keeps audience engagedLike many recent horror movies, which tend to keep the budget low to make quick break even,
Backcountry too engages only two characters most of the time on screen. Which is one of the qualities of the movie and also keeps audience engaged in.

A couple dominated by the female goes out in deep nature to hike on a famous trail. The plot is not very unique but it was the chemistry between the actors which keeps the plot focused. There are moments which are truly scary and then there is enough thrill to keep you with the movie.

Missy Peregrym is very natural in both halves of the movie. In first she is all that calculating and social kind of girl and in second half she is that daring victim who will do any thing to survive. Jeff Roop and Eric Balfoor are good too but not convincing.

Overall, a fine movie to watch alone… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

LeZeeApr 26, 2017

Under the limit, but acceptable for being honest!

I watched the entire film without knowing it was based on the real. Only on the later I came to know that and my stance has changed a bit. Because it's not always about the quality of theUnder the limit, but acceptable for being honest!

I watched the entire film without knowing it was based on the real. Only on the later I came to know that and my stance has changed a bit. Because it's not always about the quality of the product, but something revealing truth is most important to me in films. It was honest and not following the blueprint of a similar kind was the advantage. Obviously it was a small budget B movie with unfamiliar cast.

So while watching it, I thought why they (film characters) not doing like this, that. Because entertainment films should do that for its viewers to please, but its notion was not that. It was depicting the actual event. Well, most of the crucial scene with the beast was just acceptable due to the category of film it belongs. Can't afford graphics nor trained animal, but I appreciate the effort.

Story wise, it takes time to come to the point. And then everything happens so fast before the end approach. Initially, the narration teases with a different kind of thriller, but after some developments, it accomplishes its mission. Like I said don't expect something like 'The Revenant'. This film is not for the recommendation, but trying it out on your own is not a bad idea.

5/10… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

JeanDuchampNov 18, 2015

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Strange enough, I rather enjoyed it, except for the bear, I didn't like it. The bear is the feeblest point, it spoils everything - I mean not a romantic trip, but the movie itself - an utterly unconvincing, stupid, deliberately cruel, but irrational and compulsive bear. It wasn't realistic, in my view. Would it be some unnatural creature, some ghost, zombie, werewolf, lycanthrope, shapeshifter, bad magician and so on, well then - it would be quite a natural and convincing behavior for an unnatural magical shapeshifting zombie-ghost etc. But not for a live creature.

Well, bears may attack people, they may harm or even kill them, but the way the killer-bear is doing it in this movie raises many questions: Why to track just this couple for miles and miles on, if there are plenty of other people in the the forest and a lot of animals? Why not to kill them at once, why to loiter and what to wait for? Why to kill only one and not both of them? If it was so hungry - why didn't it finish eating a deer or whatever it was? Why,if being so obsessed with human flesh ( if it's the case), not to go near places where there are plenty of it, why to stay in some remote area where chances to meet the coveted food are so negligible? If it's protecting something, than what exactly, a hollow in the ground? Doesn't sound convincing... In short - I let for experienced zoologists these tricky matters to puzzle out, for me all this bear stuff looks like a bungle.

As for the rest - not so bad. The forest is picturesque but disagreeable, people are silly just to the point to be convincing. Sadly enough there wasn't any snakes and harmful ants, but here one may have an easy explanation - all these tricks were just held back for a sequel.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews