If they had kept it simple, it could have been a great watch. Making things realistic and plausible seems less of an option in movies these days because of how fast they're being churned out, which is what spoiled this quite entertaining concept and movie considerably. The gun was used to get to that point in the hunt. So, it's OK to riddle an entire gang with machine gun bullets to get to the prey, but not OK to kill the prey itself with a gun? Don't be ridiculous! If guns are not allowed, that's it you can't just administer the final kill with a knife and say that's acceptable because it's not a gun. Also, the changing of the rules concerning firearms irritated me quite a bit. And the stereotypical hoo-hah-hah villains were just plain annoying, especially the vicar hunter. They tried to explain away the implausibilities through narrative, but that didn't make them any less implausible. There comes a point where you just cannot predict that much.

It reminded me of later Saw movies in which everything is pre-planned in reverse order. Not only that, but commandeering the church, making it inaccessible to the general public and knowing that the prey would go exactly to 'confession' was just too ridiculous. Why? The hunted prey gives out a location ping every hour, so why aren't all five taking part? The ridiculous odds of being able to predict an exact location that the prey would head to is too implausible to be realistic. Five hunters, of which there were a maximum of three in the game at any given moment, and sometimes only one or two. So why doesn't the movie work? For all sorts of reasons.

The concept is great: survive the hunt for as long as possible and get paid an increasing amount of money for every hour survived.

Fairytale fights 2nd player money