Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

This movie really lets you in on a little secret...other than "Jaws", there is really nothing original about Peter Benchely's work. He basically uses the same plot elements in everything he writes the only thing he does differently is substituting sea creatures in for the shark from the hit "Jaws". This one though was somewhat fun to watch, a lot better than the horrid "Creature" that would come out a couple of years later. Why he titled this book "Beast" and not "Giant Squid" is beyond me, well maybe not. The latter just sounds stupid. Well that is what this movie is about, a super giant squid. Granted there is a bit of a twist in the middle of this one, but nothing to great of note if you have seen the movie "Jaws 3-D". The story is almost the same as "Jaws" except fishing and fisherman play a more prominent role and the beach is not used as much. Still, it has the typical mayor that will have his event or whatever no matter what evidence comes up to support closure or stopping of the event. My guess is Peter had a really bad run in with a mayor at some point in his lifetime. Still, there is enough to keep you entertained once. I would not really track down this movie to see it again.

My Take: Enjoyable, made-for-TV monster movie.After watching "Jaws" and "The Beast", I could conclude that Peter Benchley should be proud when his novels translated well when filmed. I've heard many bad reviews about this movie, mainly because it was loosely based on Benchley's bestseller. But, hey, this is a movie. Not everything has to go by the book. Directors and screenwriters have to add a couple of twists from the novels. okay, a lot of twists, but this has been a case in many Hollywood movies, and some turn up to be very good, why can't this? The plot is quite like the plot for sci-fi monster movies, a hungry creature makes snacks out of unwary victims, and a good guy tries to stop it, while a money-hungry guy tries to capture it and put it on display. But still, that kind of plot is what makes this kind of films really good, and "The Beast" uses it effectively.The performances are fine. William L. Petersen (from "C.S.I." fame) is okay as a the hero Whip Dalton (the surname was Darling in the novel). Charles Martin Smith is fine as the profit-hungry town owner Schuyler Graves (the Liam St.John character from the novel). Creature effects were great and Don Davis' score is terrific.So I would still recommend it, although not as good as "Jaws" was, it is still a very effective B-style sci-fi sea-monster movie.TV movie rating: **** out of 5.

This initially appears to be a televised version of author Peter Benchley ripping off his own book "Jaws". Actually though it's worse than that--if anything Benchley is actually ripping off "Jaws 3" (not to mention the infamously crappy 70's film "Tentacles" which was itself a rip-off of "Jaws"). Like "Tentacles" this TV movie has a giant squid terrorizing a seaside community. But it also borrows a ridiculous conceit from "Jaws 3" by having TWO giant squid--the first an over-sized baby and the second the even larger mother out for revenge. Well, I'm no marine biologist but even I know that sharks and squids lay eggs and then abandon them and wouldn't know their offspring from any other shark or squid, so neither would be too motivated by revenge. But, much like the movie, let's leave logic aside.As in "Jaws" the main appeal is supposed to be the cast. But this movie doesn't have the stellar cast of "Jaws", or even "Jaws 3" or "Tentacles" for that matter. William Peterson is okay in the lead, but his usual intense, overly serious performance, which works in a movie like "Manhunter" or "To Live and Die in LA", just seems goofy in a movie like this. Larry Drake and Charles Martin Smith are better in smaller roles which they seem to take a lot less seriously. I have always suspected that Missy Crider, who plays Peterson's daughter, is actually Amy Locane with her hair dyed red (think about it--has anyone ever seen the two of them together?). Of course, Peterson also has an improbable love interest who works for the coast guard (so the American TV audience wouldn't think he was gay or anything), and his best friend and partner is black to show that even in remote Washington state fishing villages racial harmony has been achieved. The squid looks more real than the one in "Tentacles" (but then again so does your average dust mop). But it's just not enough to carry a three and a half hour movie.

The reason it went down quite well in Oz is because most of the footage is of the most beautiful island in the Caribbean - St. Lucia. They spent about 3 months filming down here - mostly in the fishing port of Soufriere in the shadow of the much shown Pitons, St. Lucia's national landmark and also a World Heritage Site. About the movie itself, WHERE EXACTLY HAVE THE ACTORS GOT THE TERRIBLE CARIBBEAN ACCENTS FROM???? - Why do Directors think we all sound like Jamaicans - What is that all about? - Clearly there was no local coach involved as had there been, they would have stopped the swearing in the local Creole language 'Patois' which seems to have slipped through the sensors net - Anyone who knows the lingo - check out the scene where the local boy is challenging the young hero to jump the cliff - at the end of his line, you'll hear him drop an almighty curse on a part of his mothers anatomy that best remain unstated - very common down these parts - just thought I'd mention it!! Shockingly bad movie by the way