The basic plot of this film has already been detailed in several other comments so I won't bother. I'd like to first commend the producer, cast, directors and crew for creating a wonderfully engaging film on a meager, $1M budget, a small fraction of standard Hollywood fare that doesn't LOOK cheap. These people have a drive to make something new and entertaining while not spending a fortune doing it. This is essentially art for art's sake. I know, I know, some of you will decide that this is not art but something less and that's fine. I for one am glad that people like these will continue to put forth the time and effort for our benefit without expecting huge multimillion dollar payoffs.
Now to the criticism. I feel that the scenario presented is credible to a point. It's wonderful when everything works out and the hero/heroine saves the day and all's well that ends well. What gets me is the blatant manipulation of events so that blind luck is responsible more than courage and strength.
When lee was attacked but not severely injured, somehow she washed up on a mud bank right next to the dead guide. Then, miraculously, his loaded revolver is still in his holster and it actually works (after some cleaning and fiddling). Finally, when Lee is attacked on the mud bank and jumps in the water, once again the croc fails to kill her. She ends up with her hand in his (her?) mouth and manages to repeatedly pull the trigger, ultimately to blow the croc's brains out (literally).
I came to the conclusion that having Lee go hand to mouth with the croc was just a way to end the film with the human in triumph. Based upon what I have seen, the croc's attack and continue to hold on until the prey stops struggling. Croc's will spin around and around to dismember and drown the prey. That happened to the first 3 victims but not to Lee. She had teeth marks but they were not deep.
I think that the ending would have been better had the croc won, frankly, thereby proving his dominance of the mangrove, his territory for millions of years. But then, how many of us would have been upset or disappointed that the pretty girl didn't get out alive?
Now to the criticism. I feel that the scenario presented is credible to a point. It's wonderful when everything works out and the hero/heroine saves the day and all's well that ends well. What gets me is the blatant manipulation of events so that blind luck is responsible more than courage and strength.
When lee was attacked but not severely injured, somehow she washed up on a mud bank right next to the dead guide. Then, miraculously, his loaded revolver is still in his holster and it actually works (after some cleaning and fiddling). Finally, when Lee is attacked on the mud bank and jumps in the water, once again the croc fails to kill her. She ends up with her hand in his (her?) mouth and manages to repeatedly pull the trigger, ultimately to blow the croc's brains out (literally).
I came to the conclusion that having Lee go hand to mouth with the croc was just a way to end the film with the human in triumph. Based upon what I have seen, the croc's attack and continue to hold on until the prey stops struggling. Croc's will spin around and around to dismember and drown the prey. That happened to the first 3 victims but not to Lee. She had teeth marks but they were not deep.
I think that the ending would have been better had the croc won, frankly, thereby proving his dominance of the mangrove, his territory for millions of years. But then, how many of us would have been upset or disappointed that the pretty girl didn't get out alive?