@Background Pony #0A20  

 
 
@Background Pony #0A20
 
And while some MAY have suggested that she may have been trained, this was also highly unlikely, given how cunning and intelligent for an animal she was.
 
 
With all of that said, while no one will ever have definitive answer for what exactly kind of animal the beast was, her history and such was already interesting, so there was really no need for the movie’s director to take so many liberties with her, especially given the consistent historical accounts.

I realize there’re people who like this movie, but I have some major issues with the movie’s depiction of the beast.
 
Keep in mind, I realize the director’s intention to take “creative liberties” to make the creature interesting… But, the problem with that is the actual history of the creature and the attacks she (yes, the creature WAS in fact a female) committed.
 
First and foremost, while there were a couple of varying descriptions that differed, but that was mostly fact that there was likely more than one member of the beast’s kind roaming around Europe at the time of the attacks.
 
Other than that? The description of the specific beast’s appearance by witnesses was generally consistent for the most part. In fact, it was usually as followed:
 
1.) Many people who witnessed the creature have said that it reminded them of a bear, hyena, wolf and panther all at once. But their testimony also consistently gave descriptions that matched up the most with a canine with a large head, ears that were small and round and lying close to the head, a large wolf-like snout with a mouth which exposed very large teeth, a long and strong neck and fur that was mostly red.
 
3.) She was HUGE. Much bigger than any wolf, lion, or hyena. In fact, it was mostly and consistently described as being the size of either a cow or a horse. Yet, according to the placement of footprints that were found while people were attempting to track her down, she was athletic enough to make nimble leaps, which suggested a build that gave her cat-like agility.
 
4.) She had a long tail resembling that of a panther’s or a lion, but it was also so thick and strong that the beast actually used it as a weapon. Even hitting with enough force to knock a grown off his feet. And last I checked, normal hyenas, lions, and wolves don’t use their tails like that.
 
6.) Her hide was so tough that bullets actually bounced off. And last I checked, even though bullets at the time didn’t have the exact same penetrating power as our current ones do, the bullets could still pierce through the hide of a wolf, big cat, and even a bear to some degree.
 
Having said all of that, what made the creature SO unusual compared to a wolf or any of the other deadly predators in Europe at the time was the record of killing, which wasn’t even synonymous with any natural animal!
 
She always directly attacked humans, and never attempted to kill other animals, with most of the beast’s victims being women and children. In fact, she never even went for the throats or the entrails, despite there being a common survival strategy among carnivores; which is to eat as much of their kill as they can to leave nothing behind for other scavengers as potential competition.

I’ve read about the Beast of Gevaudan! I had no idea there was a movie.

Haha, yeah, I thought it was pretty cool, myself.

@omera251
 
The final battle was a giant “WTF!?!”
 
I love it!

Awesome movie, when I first saw it I thought I would hate it. French hunters and Kung-Fu Indians seemed like too much, but in the end it was a wonderful B-movie.