Watch Long Weekend For Free

You won't be disappointed!

Absolutely brilliant

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

I liked the scenery and the dog Cricket. And the brief scene when Caviezel strummed his guitar. That's it. For nearly the entire film I'm stuck camping with two unsavory characters. Peter (Caviezel) and Marcia (Karvan) are careless and criminally stupid, stuck in a poisonous marriage. They deserve each other. Peter is particularly careless of nature, but hardly deserving of the horrors that befell him. The script gave these two gifted actors very little to work with, and that's a shame, given that they are center stage for the entire film. The plot is basic and the message even more simplistic: Don't mess with Mother Nature.The tone is just depressing. Lots of bickering, name calling, swearing including F-bombs, some sex and masturbation. It felt monotonous. Not scary in an exciting way. When dead bodies start showing up in the water and on the land, does it draw the couple closer together, for survival? Do they stop fighting long enough to think? Does anything change???The manatee was interesting but it needed more explanation.

(This is a Remake of Long Weekend (1978)The movies 93 % scene from scenes remake, with some twigs here and there in the movie. I was not fan of the 1978 movies at all, I found it very boring and dull, I thought the remake would be better, I do think remake was little better then the old one.I liked how they didn't didn't really drag the first 30 minutes and start movie faster pace the the fist movie, also enjoyed some scenes they added in this movie, I thought it was very decent scenes. The couple in this movie are not very nice people at all, the nasty one and another and mother nature, I could not get less if they were killed or attacked.The original had one think this movie never had was some good actors, Annoying but they could act unlike this actors who were really wooden in most scenes,The ending of the movie, I thought the ending original was funny, this one even funnier and bit more gory as well/

I watched this movie late one night when I couldn't find anything better and the thing that seems to stick out to me the most about it is, it's utterly confusing.The synopsis on the movie read that it was about a couple going camping and suffering nature's wrath, and yet they seemed to be much more dangerous to nature. I should read off the list of offenses. They:Ran over a kangaroo, Sprayed an ant's nest with poison Shot at some ducks, Shot a dugong, Smashed an eagle's egg, Ran over a crab, Shot at an owl, Left a dog to die a slow death in a car.The list of Nature's supposed offenses:Attack by an eagle (just a few scratches), Biting ants (no allergic reaction either), Invaded campsite for food.Otherwise, the couple got lost, was constantly fighting with each other, discovered a murder-suicide, and spent part of the time paranoid about a dead dugong supposedly making its way towards them. And to do what, exactly? Was something supposed to be scary about doogans besides the way they look? Aren't these the same animals that are dying off based on slowness and their own stupidity? Aren't these the same creatures known as sea cows because they live on sea grass?The couple dies in the movie, but natural causes had nothing to do with it. The wife is shot in the throat by a spear of completely unknown origin, a metal spear, by the way, and the husband is ran over by a truck as soon as he finds an actual road. None of the suspenseful moments had decent pay off and some were just down right senseless. It seems to me that nature wasn't anything but a victim of this annoying couple and their endless quibbling from beginning to end and they themselves were just victims of pathetic irony.I just don't get it. Maybe there was something I missed that went completely over my head. Or maybe the screen writer failed to make his or her actual point.

I actually enjoyed this film. The symbolism of the wife destroying the eagle's egg, mirrors the fact that she had got rid of their baby - the whole cause of the friction and distance between the couple. Their relationship is stretched to the limit, the tension between them, combined with the general unsettling atmosphere of being 'in the middle of nowhere'. Lots of creepy crawlies, the haunting dugong slowly creeping up the beach, the mysterious arrows leading round and round. I really thought the tension was built up well, when Pete goes to see the family in the camper van, you realise that something is seriously wrong and even though you don't particularly like the characters I don't think we actually want them to die. I felt a bit sorry for Peter, he was trying to make an effort to rebuild bridges but she doesn't care. The film builds to a disorientating, but claustrophobic ending, getting lost and feeling alone. Then the 'explosive' ending capped things off nicely. I liked it.