Featured review
I enjoy movies with this type of subject matter, but dearie me, this was really really really terrible.
It apparently took 30 years to tell this story and perhaps it should have remained untold - or at the very least not told in this manner.
Cinematically the movie has nothing going for it. A lot of repeated scenes, even repeated conversations (like telling the buddy it normally takes 3-4 hours to get to the top of the ridge, and there's about an hour and a half left.... They walked really slowly!). I don't know what the budget was for this, but it couldn't have been much, looking at the quality of the filming.
Acting-wise: the less said the better.
There are quite a few "nothings" that the movie is good for:
The one thing the movie has a lot of, is nature... A lot of nature! Made me wonder if perhaps the good people in charge of promoting tourism to Arkansas were in charge of producing the movie, or funded its production.... anyway, there's a lot of nature. From scenic views to (repeated) views of streams and the forest floor... And lots and lots of trees (somewhat to be expected in a forest, but even so). It felt like we were watching an episode of the National Geographic channel, but without the quality of filming or scene development or acting or commentary - actually, not much like National Geographic at all!
If you feel like wasting about 75 minutes of your time, go ahead and watch this movie. Otherwise, stay away!
It apparently took 30 years to tell this story and perhaps it should have remained untold - or at the very least not told in this manner.
Cinematically the movie has nothing going for it. A lot of repeated scenes, even repeated conversations (like telling the buddy it normally takes 3-4 hours to get to the top of the ridge, and there's about an hour and a half left.... They walked really slowly!). I don't know what the budget was for this, but it couldn't have been much, looking at the quality of the filming.
Acting-wise: the less said the better.
There are quite a few "nothings" that the movie is good for:
- no sex or nudity
- no swearing
- no using of the Lord's name in vain
- no violence
- no gore
- no alcohol use
- no drug use
- no smoking
The one thing the movie has a lot of, is nature... A lot of nature! Made me wonder if perhaps the good people in charge of promoting tourism to Arkansas were in charge of producing the movie, or funded its production.... anyway, there's a lot of nature. From scenic views to (repeated) views of streams and the forest floor... And lots and lots of trees (somewhat to be expected in a forest, but even so). It felt like we were watching an episode of the National Geographic channel, but without the quality of filming or scene development or acting or commentary - actually, not much like National Geographic at all!
If you feel like wasting about 75 minutes of your time, go ahead and watch this movie. Otherwise, stay away!
- imdb-88593
- Mar 16, 2025
- Permalink
Storyline
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- The Quachita Beast Incident
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $12,000 (estimated)
- Runtime1 hour 14 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.78 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
By what name was The Quachita Beast incident (2023) officially released in India in English?
Answer