This wreck is not even suspenseful let alone scary! The monster looks so fake! THANK GOD ITS ONLY 69 MINS LONG..the monster looks like an aged tele tubby

'Wreck' is very indie, very low-budget, and the first feature film of writer-director Ben Patterson. And it rather shows. The root concept is simple, but I think there's solid potential in it. This strikes me as an instance in which the filmmaker just didn't have the resources to fully realize the premise - and that's unfortunate, because the resulting deficiencies are glaring. There is no aspect that's been convincingly executed or achieved, and the integration of all the constituent parts is sadly just as faltering.

I can overlook modest production values broadly, but even recognizing the humble origin of the picture, the editing is coarse and inelegant. The creature design is good on paper, but this is an instance where more careful camerawork, discreetly limiting what we actually see of the beast, would have been more effective - and highly beneficial; the animatronics of 'Five Nights at Freddy's' come to mind. In too many instances, performances and the orchestration of scenes feel directionless, as though Patterson declined a particularly active guiding hand for his vision.

Early exposition mostly feels extraneous; if deemed necessary nonetheless, the same minutiae could have been glossed over with a mere handful of lines of dialogue while more directly advancing the plot toward the primary setting. Once the story does progress to the titular wreck, frequent cuts limit the impact for viewers of protagonist Corman's ordeal, and the opportunity for star Gemma Harlow Dean to spread her proverbial wings and meaningfully illustrate her acting skills. And at that - for all the superfluous cuts, which we conventionally infer in film or TV to indicate the passage of time, very little of consequence actually happens while Corman is "trapped." The establishing idea of being pinned under a vehicle doesn't mean there can't be robust eventfulness at the same time, and the lack of it here is another regrettable fault.

Again, I like the premise; it's full of possibility. I like the ending, even though I think that is also very rough around the edges. Why, I'll grant that maybe I'm being too generous - maybe Patterson intended utmost incomplete schlock all along, and I'm just reading too much into the fine details. Either way: there's an overarching sense of inauthenticity to 'Wreck,' and whether that's owing to deliberate forthrightness or an earnest lack, it severely limits our engagement.

For good or for ill, I'm inclined to say this was an honest effort that just didn't have the means to bear fruit. Given another chance to make this screenplay all it could be, I'd happily sit to watch that remake. As it is, I see 'Wreck' as a swing and a miss. Better luck next time.

This is possibly one of the worst watchable films I have ever seen. Some are unwatchable, this I made it to the end mostly to see how much worse it could get. We love indie films but this is just too low budget and too low talent. Except for the opening titles and stock footage, it looks horrible. It is a handycam horror because it looks like it was shot on a handycam - out of focus, badly compressed, jittery and simply downright ugly. The copious amounts of stock footage look good but begs the question, did they really have to buy a shot of a leaf, couldn't they even shoot that right? Sound was uninspiring but generally without fault. The editing is dire, there are constant fades to black and endless repeated stock footage. Many scenes have nothing happening, which brings me onto the story. There isn't one. It's a 90-second high-concept short dragged into a feature. Nothing is explained. If they had done something interesting like the beast was the trapped lady's spirit animal protecting and it was all in her mind it might have been entertaining and you'd forgive the bad technical aspects. Either good story, good technical or good actors, without any you have nothing. Each scene consists of stock footage, some talking about nothing, more stock footage then fade to black, repeat for 70 minutes. Nature documentaries have more action. Onto the beast, it looks terrible, comically bad. The costumes were awful, not just the beast but the cast - quite why these gangsters transporting something illegal are dressed in the most conspicuous cliche suits with retro walkie-talkies (wouldn't a mobile phone with a bluetooth earpiece be better and casual clothes draw less attention to themself?) is beyond me. Acting was dreadful, the man hiking in the woods was the standout worst. The sleazy club boss was far and away the most entertaining character, sadly after the opening scene he is never seen again. The final battle is quite entertaining but it's let down by the stupid story and that dumb briefcase. Overall, it is worth watching purely to see how bad it is, even with its short length it is still boring. Credit where credit's due; it got released! Film students everywhere can learn from all the mistakes these filmmakers made.