The Hunted (1998)

The twists and turns of the plot as well as the splendid acting by Hamlin and Amick who supply equal animus to the product are outstanding for a B-film. There are many non sequiturs that could have been edited out through a couple of rewrites.There is a love-hate relationship between the two characters which is intriguing and lures the viewer as the movie moves along. The HUNTER has numerous opportunities to kill his PREY. Yet he never does. He has killed before without so much as a second thought. As he says during the hunt: the emotion (fear and aggression) is truly exhilarating. She begins to feel it reluctantly. One of the last scenes indicates that she gets the drift and takes over. The last scene shows that her life and the way she looks at life is forever changed (which way?).Take this plot and the two main actors and a couple of rewrites and better supporting cast and end result could be a winner.I ordered a copy of one of films on which this film is based as was recommenced by a previous commentator (I think it is WOUNDED) and look forward to seeing it.

An insurance investigator sent to a mountainous wilderness in search of a downed plane encounters a mysterious huntsman.It is a little unfair to deride this as a knock-off of A SIMPLE PLAN as it also borrows from FIRST BLOOD and, notably, THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME. The result is less than the sum of the parts but still a modestly diverting watch which is better than it deserves to be, largely due to the presence of two fine TV actors.The major draw is the lovely Amick, who manages to remain superbly coiffed and made-up even in extremes, and who exudes a self-confidence the script does not always credit her character with. Hamlin, who sensibly submitted to television's embrace after the movies' rejection, and who is now best remembered for LA LAW, is also a cut above as the grizzled drop-out woodsman. Ironically the film's best moments are the interplay between the two, the action scenes suffering from too many convenient contrivances to convince.Amick and Hamlin are presented as two sides of the same coin: both hunters, though in different environments. The contrast provided by each's struggling in turn to be pre-eminent in the other's world is potentially interesting, as is the question of whether Amick must subvert her humanity in order to survive in a feral world. Unfortunately, neither of these ideas are sufficiently well developed and the film is sunk by its lack of proportion: the main story of her-in-his-world reaching a natural end, only for the him-in-her-world to start up and be played out in a foreshortened coda.Had the film been 15 minutes shorter and better proportioned it might have extended its appeal beyond its leads' respective fanbases.

A weak copy of a great movie - WOUNDED, which starred the SAME woman, but this time being chased by Adrian Pasdar. Check out WOUNDED to see how it SHOULD be done.

What's with the white dog/wolf? Where was the watch dog when Sam came back to the cabin? Where was the watch dog when the cabin burned? How did Doc get out of the cabin? How did this city woman find her way around in the bush? There are more holes.Does whoever make this movie think audiences are so stupid that they won't notice?