Splinter (I) (2008) User Reviews (224)

Good acting and good script with mediocre effects

[NotMoreMovies · 7/10 · 10 October 2008]

This movie is stuck somewhere between a theatrical release-quality film and a direct to DVD movie, but much better than your ordinary Sci-Fi channel special.

The acting is top quality. All characters, especially the one portrayed by Shea, are portrayed exceptionally well. The plot keeps you glued to your seat, and you can't wait to see what happens next or how they will think of a way out of their predicament.

The only problems lie in the filming of the "monster" and to a lesser degree, the sound. I'm not a personal fan of the "flicker" style of filming so it may work for others. I prefer a fluid style of filming throughout the entire film. It's hard to keep track of the events occurring when things "flash" around rapidly.

But if you can overlook it's extremely minor flaws, you're in for a treat with this one. The acting and the central theme of the plot are strong enough to overcome its shortcomings.

My final ratings: Quality: 7 Entertainment level: 7 Overall: 7 Consensus: This might be Toby Wilkins' break as a writer/director and is a standout performance for Shea Whigham

Far better than I thought it would be

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 19 July 2011]

In all honesty, I actually thought it would be rubbish. However, to my surprise it was quite good. Okay it is not perfect, some of the effects are mediocre, the sound is murky and the editing in scenes could have been tighter, there are times when it is rather shaky. That said, Splinter could have been so much worse than how it turned out. The story is loose, well paced and benefits from a good and well-thought-out idea, the monster is appropriately effective and the direction, script, performances and characters(the antagonist especially is very interesting and original, which was really refreshing in itself) are all good. All in all, I thought it would be really bad, but it was actually much better than expected. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Don't be a prick and see Splinter

[Simon_Says_Movies · 7/10 · 4 November 2008]

When it comes to B movie gold, Splinter is an Oscar contender. Boasting a similar vibe (and name) to 2006's Slither, starring Nathan Fillion, this gory, witty and original flick is what all films of the genre strive to become. Although both films are low budget schlock of the highest calibre that is where the similarities end as Splinter does not need to pillage its ideas or motif from any other efforts. The writing is, for the duration as snappy as anyone could want, and the acting is as surprisingly solid as we could dream. Forget Saw V, or the onslaught of Asian horror remakes, this is the sort of chiller you should rush out and see.

Of the number of remarkable successes that define Splinter, the most refreshing, as I alluded to above, is the acting. Not to say that films of this ilk never associate with competent actors, but in this effort not only has first time director Toby Wilkins managed to scrounge up some talent that beg to ask the question "why are these people not in more movies" but constructs the movie with only 4 of them. The movie in its entirety features 6 actors. Charles Baker as a doomed gas station attendant, Laurel Whitsett as a local Sheriff, Rachel Kerbs as Lacey the drug addict girlfriend of Dennis (Shea Whingham, who steals every scene), Jill Wagner as Polly and her boyfriend Seth (Paulo Costanzo, who I have only ever seen as the nephew of Joey Tribiani on the short lived 'Friends' spin-off 'Joey') Not to ruin anything, but only a few of these characters survive long enough to be deemed as a main character, which basically leaves you with a three man show; and what a show.

The premise is simple, as all B movies are, as we find Polly and Seth on an anniversary vacation to the great outdoors. But after a disastrous campsite set up, they decide to call it quits and hole up in a motel, which they agree, has to be dilapidated to offset their failed wilderness adventure. While on route, they stop to help an apparently stranded woman (Lacey) who is in reality a distraction for the gruff Dennis, so he is able to carjack the happy couple. Taking Polly and Seth hostage, their fortunes continue to deteriorate after they strike a mysterious creature on the road, damaging the car. Struggling to a nearby gas station they soon find out that the thing they hit is not a fuzzy woodland creature, but a spiked sea urchin-esquire, slimy parasitic contaminant that absorbs and kills whatever it touches. The survivors barricade themselves in the gas station and try to deduce a plan to escape un-consumed.

Unlike a number of B movie horror flicks, the crude special effects work to Splinter's advantage. The creature's erratic and robotic movements and the use of quick cut editing truly add a creepy vibe to proceedings. The 'thing' is very well realized and its characteristics can be viewed as an endearing amalgamation of dozens of movie monsters; the gooiness of the blob, the hunting practice of The Predator, the blood lust of Dracula, among others. There is a cornucopia of gore in Splinter, but never seems excessive or vile and certainly provides the scares; notably, a mutilation scene that puts the Hostel movies to shame.

Simply put, Splinter is a whole lot of fun, and far more original then 99% of the fright flicks that are slapped on the big screen yearly. If you have a chance, check out this beautiful barrage of B movie basics, disguised as a much better film. Don't be a prick and check out Splinter.

7.5 / 10

Read all my reviews at Simon Says Movies http://simonsaysmovies.blogspot.com/

Great idea marred by incomprehensible shaky cam

[thecanadian-23317 · 6/10 · 4 July 2021]

Plot wise, this is a pretty typical zombie/infection style story - but the type of infection is a really great twist. I'll keep it that vague just so that you can enjoy it as blind as possible. Acting is decent, and while it's definitely a low budget movie, most of the effects look pretty good (there's some shots that are pretty rough though).

The problem is with the "action" scenes. I can handle some shaky cam, but the shaky cam in this movie is some of the worst I've ever seen - you can't follow anything. In one scene, a character gets killed but I literally couldn't tell until the other characters were reacting to it after it happened. I have to assume that the shaky cam is done to hide the lower budget effects, but it's bad enough that I'd rather see low budget effects.

Overall I do think that the movie is worth a watch because it's a really fascinating spin on the zombie/infection type of story - just know that the shaky cam is VERY bad.

Interesting plot, well acted

[eaglesj610 · 7/10 · 11 February 2009]

Splinter starts off making fun of a cliché, and then develops into a smarter slasher flick than we are used to in todays Hollywood. the monster is creative and the effects are good enough to make me turn away when its attacking. This is a fun little movie that is not pretentious, a ripoff, or cheesy. I had a lot of fun watching the crack-head get it, and the writing was good enough to keep me engrossed in the characters. the movie is fast paced, and where others would drone on it speeds us. at 82 minutes it is a perfect length for a refreshing jolt. I am not a huge horror fan but i gave this film a chance and was not disappointed. overall i give it a 7 out of 10. in a genre that relies on remakes, over the top gore, and bad acting "splinter" comes through with good acting, a fun premise, and great set locations.

Not bad but then again not that good

[eric-fulcher · 6/10 · 23 March 2010]

Low budget horror is always a secret pleasure of mine because I think the genre is the hardest to be creative in. Seriously, how easy is it to scare someone? "Splinter" won't scare you nor necessarily creep you out however it will at some points test your limit in psychological terms.

The dialogue is great at time and then askew: some lines just don't fit and don't add comic relief or insight into the plot of character.

While the acting is enjoyable and worthy of praise the whole story, centered at a gas station, contains the characters rather than letting them break free and show the audience their true capabilities.

The story is predictable but the creature and its concept is somewhat original. It sort of takes a new spin on Carpenter's "The Thing" while adding its own unique spin... perfect combination. I liked the special effects and always keep in mind while watching that it's low-budget. Still, the animators and producers did a fine job at making a gritty creature.

Worth renting.

Pretty good parasite survival horror.

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 7/10 · 19 November 2008]

A young couple Seth Belzer and Polly Watt retreat to the wilderness for a romantic camping weekend,but their idyll is shattered when they are car-jacked by an escaped convict and his drug-addicted girlfriend, Dennis Farell and Lacey Belisleon,on the run from the police.As the foursome travel the back roads together they find themselves in deeper trouble than any of them could have imagined-a blood-crazed,parasitic creature that absorbs the corpses of its victims has laid claim to the woods and the two couples are now in its sights.Finding shelter at an abandoned gas station,they must use their wits and every weapon at their disposal to stave off the onslaught,not only from the insatiable creature,but also each other.The premise of "Splinter" is very simple and quite suspenseful.The film is obviously influenced by John Carpenter's classic "The Thing" and offers plenty of gore.The special effects are pretty good:during most of the creature shots,it looks as if there's a real corpse on screen.The use of hand-held camera is the main drawback of the film.It is obnoxious and should be slightly toned down.Still "Splinter" is a competent indie horror flick with enough grue to satisfy genre fans.7 out of 10.

Good movie spoiled by shaky-cam

[The_Dead_See · 4/10 · 15 February 2009]

In comparison to some of the terrible creature features that the Sci-Fi Channel shows, Splinter is definitely better. It's characters are pretty well rounded and believable and they do sensible things in an attempt to survive the menace.

But, as with many recent productions - every time the action gets going and every time the creature attacks - the camera goes into such chaotic movement that you can't even tell what's going on. I understand in part this may have been necessary to hide some low budget special effects but in this film, it's just way too much. Spinning, zooming, panning shaky-cam and rapid editing just end up frustrating the viewer. The creature concept seems to have taken a inspiration from "The Thing" - in being an organic amalgamation of dead human bodyparts - but I honestly couldn't quite say for sure, because I never caught a glimpse of it that wasn't in blurred motion. Truly a sad way to spoil an otherwise creepy and fun flick.

Decent movie for its' budget

[TheRedDeath30 · 6/10 · 10 July 2014]

I saw this movie around the time that it first came out and I remember thinking that it was fairly good, but nothing I'd watch again. In the interim, I keep seeing this movie popping up on my favorite horror sites as an underrated movie, so I figured I'd give it another whirl.

First, the necessary prerequisite is that you have to like low budget movies. If you are going into this expecting the effects level of your summer blockbuster, or top notch acting, you're going to be disappointed. I don't mind indie films, at all, and don't want to judge them on their limitations. Basically, did the movie entertain me? The other ingredient that seems necessary to mention in a review of this movie is the similarities to THE THING. How you judge that may depend on where you, personally, draw the line between "homage" and "blatant ripoff". I never felt it crossed that line into stealing an idea, but certainly lifted some ideas from that horror classic, especially in the way that the organism seems to take control of human bodies and essentially replicate them, as well as its ability for each part to exist separately from the whole.

The central plot revolves around 4 people trapped at a gas station by some sort of invading organism that is almost unstoppable. They are barricaded inside a small building with limited defenses against the invading threat, so we get a little bit of Night of The Living Dead, as well.

My second viewing seemed to pretty much re-instill what I thought the first time around. This is an entertaining movie that will keep you riveted for the short run time of its' story, but nothing here sticks with me as being a modern classic, or even one of the best indie horrors of the past few years. Shea Wigham is really good, as usual, in the cliché role of a criminal with a good heart. I thought that Jill Wagner does a serviceable job as a strong female lead. Her boyfriend is pretty much annoying and I found myself at times hoping he would die next.

The effects are very limited and most of the violence is shot in quick camera angles, which is a good way of hiding their limitations, but also sometimes leaves the viewer wondering what the heck just happened. This was especially true of the first female death in the movie, as you never got any sense of the violence that might lead to her demise. There are some good shots that do serve to show what the director probably really had hidden in his imagination but wasn't able to translate to screen.

The creature itself presents some interesting impetus to the movie. As mentioned, it's fairly unstoppable which lends to the feeling of helplessness in our main characters. A few of the infected hosts pull off a really good Silent Hill look with twitchy movements and not-quite-in-the-right-place body parts. Ultimately, to transcend the Thing comparisions, they needed to develop more the plot points they introduced early in the film, such as the oil testing site, or this idea of an old forest nearby. That depth might have helped the movie to elevate from popcorn passer to truly memorably movie.

Shaky Shaky Shake-Shake

[matthewhemmings · 3/10 · 19 November 2016]

This film would be a 6, maybe a 7 for me. However the director somehow failed to notice that every time they called action their cameraman was in the middle of a fit.

The movie basically goes like this: Shake shake shake.

Oh someone died back there.

Shake shake shake plot shake shake shake.

It's a real shame as the creature looked quite cool but you never really see it for long enough to appreciate this. Even static scenes in the gas station have to wobble about just to punch home the peril of the situation to us.

The film gave me motion sickness.

M

Very fun flick

[onosideboard · 8/10 · 22 November 2008]

The premise has been done many times before, but this film does it right. Apparently "Splinter" is an independent film, but it doesn't deserve to be lumped in the same category as the hundreds of "low budget" horror movies out there that are hardly more than a few friends with a camcorder and some ketchup packets. The production value here looks as good as many Hollywood movies, and the "monster" is done particularly well. The three main actors are great, and the characters are likable.

This movie isn't going to change the genre or make anyone's Top 10 list, but it's definitely one of the more entertaining horror films I've seen in the last couple of years. It's a fun way to spend 80 minutes. My 8 out of 10 rating is a bit over-inflated simply because there have been so many terrible horror movies put out recently that it was refreshing to genuinely enjoy one from start to finish. A more realistic rating would be 6 or 6.5. Totally worth the price of admission, and I look forward to seeing more from this director in the future.

A Well executed witful horror with minimal results

[jrdragon40 · 6/10 · 22 February 2016]

I am a fan of horror movies; cheesy horror movies, scary horror movies, big budget horror movies, and the latter. However, the unfortunate part about following horror movies is that it can be a difficult genre to articulate masterfully.

The movie Splinter makes the most out of what it is given, and it puts into place horrific devices that make the horror genre really shine. The film offers wit so far as having space for individual character development and unique character choices. However, the pacing of the movie is not cogent and the movie steered too far away from what makes a movie scary.

Still though, it offers sci-fi aspects to it and is well acted throughout - I give Splinter a 6 out of 10.

The editing is TRASH!

[TokyoGyaru · 2/10 · 3 May 2021]

So, it's apparently a good idea to have so many cuts and so much camera waving that we don't get to see a kill? This editing "style" is so spastic that it might as well be an episode of Monday Night RAW. If I can't see what's happening, what is the point of a visual format? Two stars because the concept IS interesting. The execution just isn't very good. Also, the people playing the camping couple are bad actors, especially the nerd boyfriend.

A Must-See

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 9 October 2014]

Trapped in an isolated gas station by a voracious Splinter parasite that transforms its still living victims into deadly hosts, a young couple and an escaped convict (Shea Whigham) must find a way to work together to survive this primal terror.

This film features really cool effects, allegedly without the need for CGI. Toby Wilkins is incredible, and has lived up to the man whose shadow he had been under for a while (Sam Raimi).

The plot is also good, and makes us think about internal and external threats. Externally is the creature, internally is the convict and conflict between people. But perhaps even more internal is the parasite, sort of creating a three-tiered layer of terror.

"Splinter" won six awards at the Screamfest Horror Film Festival: Best Editing, Best Score, Best Special Effects, Best Make-Up, Best Directing and Best Picture. "Splinter" was a nominee for Best Horror Film at the 35th Annual Saturn Awards, but it lost to "Hellboy II: The Golden Army", which is fair. It was also nominated in Spike TV's 2009 Scream Awards for Most Memorable Mutilation for the arm removal scene, but lost to "Saw V"'s Pendulum Trap, arguably a raw deal.

Not brilliant but still engaging

[ClioRickman · 6/10 · 12 February 2012]

A nice little horror movie, "Splinter" isn't brilliant, but it's engaging nevertheless. It offers a creepy atmosphere and competent acting. My main quibble is with the writing -- specifically, the sometimes illogical and implausible things the characters do and the occasionally silly dialogue.

I also would have liked an explanation of what the creature was and how it formed. There's a lot of talk about the age of the trees and how the surrounding woods are an "old forest," but this fact never comes into play in relation to the creature. Nor does the orange sign (which seems important because the camera zooms in to show it to us) posted by the side of the road proclaiming the region an "experimental" area. Perhaps there are plans to explain everything in a sequel. Despite these shortcomings, this film is worth seeing.

Good fun.

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 12 February 2012]

Enjoyable modern creature feature offers a different sort of creature and benefits from its breakneck pacing. It starts with a bang and there's rarely a let up until its literally explosive finish. It's got a minimum of human characters and mostly confines its action to one major location, an isolated service station where a few people have to hole up. Our monster, theorized by aspiring biologist Seth (Paulo Costanzo) to be a mold or fungus that infects animal forms of life and horribly mutates them, rampages outside while on the hunt for blood.

The very high energy level helps to make up for any flaws. These basically amount to some stupid human behaviour and the unnecessary over use of frenetic camera work and cutting, which this viewer feels rarely ever help a movie, as they only serve to make action scenes incoherent. The two protagonists, Seth and his girlfriend Polly (Jill Wagner) are set up right away as likable characters, and even our two antagonists, escaped convict Dennis (the charismatic Shea Whigham) and his drug addict girlfriend Lacey (Rachel Kerbs) are revealed to be not so bad people. It is fun to watch these characters try to figure out the means of combating the creature and surviving the situation.

The rural atmosphere is entirely convincing, with good on location filming in Oklahoma. There's also enough splatter here to keep the gore lover in all of us happy, with some interesting creature design. The strong forward momentum and many action set pieces result in a pretty engaging little genre flick that runs a trim 82 minutes.

In the end, "Splinter" is the kind of thing that takes the oft used phrase "gets under your skin" quite literally and delivers some respectable visceral entertainment.

Seven out of 10.

The fungus among us

[tieman64 · 3 September 2015]

A by-the-numbers horror movie, "Splinter" finds a couple battling both an escaped convict and a violent, infectious creature. Most of the film's action takes place in a small gas-station, where blood spills, limbs tear and mouths contort in pain. This gas-station is given some thematic weight; the film's monster is a product of an oil corporation's attempts at experimental extraction.

Clichéd, poorly written and unimaginatively directed by Toby Wilkin's, "Splinter" never elevates itself above similar, low budget horror movies. Paulo Costanzo and Shea Whigham star.

4/10 – See "Carriers" and "Vanishing on 7th Street".

Fun, well done Monster movie

[AverageJoesDriveInPodcast · 6/10 · 14 October 2018]

This is a quick-moving well done little horror film. It has some similarities to John Carpenter's The Thing, but def isn't on that level. If you like Monster movies/Body horror this is one to check out.

The acting is solid. The FXs were really well done. The movie moves along at a great pace. This is a prime example of a film working because of a shorter runtime. I think any longer and this might have started to bog down some. Instead, it kicks into high gear early and doesn't slow down until the end.

I really didn't have any major issues with anything in the film. Some of it did feel familiar, and there were a few annoying character moments. Overall, that's all very minor and nothing that hurts the film in any sort of way.

If you haven't checked it out, it's worth a watch!

My Rating: 6/10

Curse of the wobbly-cam.

[BA_Harrison · 4/10 · 8 March 2014]

Splinter boasts solid performances, reasonable production values, and some delightfully nasty ideas (including the removal of an infected arm by Stanley knife!). It could have been good, but it isn't..

It doesn't matter in the slightest that the film never explains the precise nature of its threat—we don't necessarily need to know that in order to enjoy what is occurring—but for a film such as this to be truly effective, the viewer at least needs to be able to SEE what is going on; sadly, for much of the movie, it's nigh on impossible to follow what is happening to whom thanks to the dreadful wobbly-cam/rapid editing techniques employed by director Toby Wilkins.

The picture is all over the shop whenever anything potentially exciting happens, robbing the action of any tension and rendering shocks ineffective. I suspect that the use of such erratic camera-work was used to disguise sub-par effects, but all it does is make the whole affair extremely frustrating to watch.

Wilkins does at least get one thing right—he puts his lovely lead actress Jill Wagner in a tight vest for the duration—but even the ever-present eye-candy doesn't prevent this from feeling like a wasted opportunity.

Fast-paced Fun

[thelastblogontheleft · 7/10 · 8 December 2016]

Oh man. My one-word summary for this, if I was forced to give one? FUN. I know, that seems odd, but it was just an exciting movie from top to bottom. The director, Toby Wilkins, really did a good job of keeping the storyline engaging right until the last scene.

I'll be honest, when it started I thought the characters seemed a bit stereotypical and the dialogue left something to be desired — it was just so textbook. I am also not crazy about when a movie basically shows you exactly what's going to happen in the first scene. It opened right up with the gas station attendant being killed by an infected creature, and aside from it setting up the fact that the gas station was abandoned, it really didn't need to happen at all — they could have cut that first 5 minutes from the movie and it wouldn't have changed a bit.

But really, once you get past the stiffness of the first bit of the movie, it's just a thrill ride. The tension is high from the get-go, both from the hostage situation and the obvious anticipation of something else going terribly wrong. The script wasn't the most original in the world but I felt like the actors did well despite that and did a good job at being natural. I also liked that they were much more even keel and rational than some "victims" can be in movies — there really wasn't much that they did to illicit a "seriously THAT'S YOUR SOLUTION!?" kind of reaction, which I feel like happens often. They were overall very smart and tried to use their wits (and Seth's biology knowledge) to outsmart the situation.

Probably my favorite parts of the movie were the infected bodies themselves. The little bit of a hand that skitters its way through the gas station was awesome, and super well done — something that I think could have easily been comical if not, but it was truly creepy. The jerky, staggering motion of the infected people was also freaky as hell, and paired with the almost creaking sound effects they used… awesome.

It went a little stereotypical with the convict, Dennis (played by Shea Whigham), hiding his infected wound. There's always gotta be ONE person who hides their infection from the group, and this movie delivered on that. But I liked how they dealt with it. Watching his bones start to crack and re-set as he's taken over was horrifying, and the scene with him getting his arm bone snapped with a cement block was… intense.

The hybrid of the infected Lacey and the female cop was so good. Both the gore of watching the two bodies get almost sewn together by the parasite, and the final product — it was reminiscent of some of the creatures from The Thing, like it was trying to look like a normal human but didn't quite know where everything went, so the final product is just this terrifying mashup, all jerky and flailing around. When it finally breaks into the gas station it's just this bumbling mess of horror — super well done.

My favorite part might have been when a one-armed Dennis is cocking the shotgun and just going crazy shooting the thing. BADASS. They did a really good job of making your feelings towards him transform from frustration and anger to downright sympathy when you find out what his true motives are.

Ultimately an unexpectedly scary and well-done movie!

What A Shame...More of the Same...The Old Shaky Camera

[LeonLouisRicci · 4/10 · 23 September 2013]

This will have you shaking your head as you follow the lead from the Filmmakers who can't stop shaking the Camera. Why oh why would you go through the effort to Create Creatures and then not let the Audience in on it. Anytime there is a Scene with elevated Suspense and Monster Mania, the Camera seems to have an epileptic fit. It zooms, swirls, shakes, bobs, and is absolutely out of control. The result, not counting nausea and headaches, is that you never ever get a sense, let alone a clear look at what is happening.

It almost makes this "Thing" unwatchable, or enjoyable on any level. It has some stuff going for it and there was no need for the Director to feel so insecure about His Creatures in a Creature Feature. The slim Story and some annoying Characters needed those Monsters to deliver anything more than another anemic amoeba split off from all parasites that came before.

If the Camera would have stood still long enough for some visual thrills and some, any, comprehension of what they were up against (the silly walking hand was not enough), this could have been better than Average. As it stands (there shaking), it becomes just more of the same.

Taut horror outing that means bloody business

[Woodyanders · 8/10 · 11 February 2020]

Spunky Polly (a perky and appealing portrayal by Jill Wagner) and her nerdy boyfriend Seth (a likeable performance by Paulo Costanzo) are taken hostage by escaped convict Dennis (well played by Shea Whigham) and his strung-out junkie girlfriend Lacey (a nicely antsy turn by Rachel Kerbs). Things go from bad to worse after the quartet find themselves being terrorized by a lethal parasitic organism at a remote gas station.

Director Toby Wilkins keeps the gripping story moving along at a quick pace, generates a good deal of nerve-wracking suspense, delivers a handy helping of in-your-face nasty gore, and brings a tough'n'gritty go-for-the-throat sensibility to the harsh premise. The practical makeup f/x are quite gruesome and convincing. Moreover, the tight 82 minute running time ensures that this film never becomes dull or overstays its welcome. Kudos are also in order for Elia Cmiral's rattling score and Nelson Cragg's sharp widescreen cinematography. A smack dab on the money fright flick.

It will get under your skin.

[moviewizguy · 7/10 · 8 August 2009]

A young couple retreats to the wilderness for a romantic camping weekend, but their idyll is shattered when they are car-jacked by an escaped convict and his girlfriend on the run from the police. As the foursome travel the back roads together, each plotting their next move, they find themselves facing a blood-crazed, parasitic creature. Finding shelter at an abandoned gas station, they must use their wits and every weapon at their disposal to stave off the onslaught, not only from the insatiable creature, but also each other....

It's great to see an original monster movie. It's even better to see an original monster movie that contains intelligence and wit. But what's best of all is to see an original monster movie that contains intelligence and wit that uses horror conventions to its advantage to entertain the audience. SPLINTER doesn't want to be a groundbreaking horror film. However, it doesn't want to be a forgettable trashy entertainment either. It just wants to be right in the middle and you know what? The movie works.

This film has the upper hand in startling the audience because the creature (or monster) in this film is original, although similar to the creatures in THE RUINS. It's like seeing the movie ALIEN for the first time. We know it's a creature that kills, but we don't know how it does it and how it acts until the end of the film. This is like watching ALIEN for the first time but with a different creature. It's a good thing because the creature in this flick is so ingenious and great that you go "oooooh" and "ahhhhhh," but at the same time, "What is that thing?"

And part of the reason why this film is good is because of this creature. Although a very low budget film, the visual effects are efficient enough and not cartoonish to take you out of the movie. However, as sad as this may sound, you will never see the creature in full detail by the end of the film. You just see glimpses of it. Maybe it's due to the low budget or maybe "the less you see, the scarier it is." I wouldn't know but what I do know is that it was good enough for me.

The characters in this film are also very, very (very) smart. You haven't seen characters this smart since P2. The film is like a cat-and-mouse movie, although you don't get to see the vantage point of the cat. The performances by the four leads are good enough, although not anything too astounding. And with a running time of just 82 minutes, the film fortunately doesn't drag at all. The film has a steady pace.

As Toby Wilkins' directorial debut, this film is a great start. As a monster movie, it's above average because of the ingenious idea of the creature itself, which gives the film an admirable quality. It's apparent the filmmakers have thought a lot about an original creature. Overall, with decent performances by the cast, along with some violent and disgusting scenes, and scenes that, literally, get under your skin, this is all you ever wanted in a low budget monster movie. You should see this movie if you have a chance. With 82 minutes, what can you possibly lose (other than 82 minutes)?

Shaky camera nightmare

[parkerbcn · 4/10 · 18 May 2021]

This is the classical Thriller-Horror movie of a group of characters trapped in a place surrounded by things/people that can kill them. In this case there is a monster outside, but clearly this is no "Assault on Precinct 13". The movie is mildly entertaining. The characters are not very well written, but they are not horrible either. The special effects are fine; not good not bad. And I would have enjoyed it much more if it wasn't because of the stupid modern resource of the shaky camera and electric editing, that makes the end result just barely bearable.

A really cool flick...

[doctorgonzo23 · 7/10 · 1 June 2009]

The genre of the creature feature hasn't had a good shot in the arm for some time. This is a really great movie that combine elements of monster mayhem (one of the most original I've ever seen), zombie action and good old fashioned morality play (including transgression, redemption and sacrifice). Those of you out for gore will not be disappointed. The very nature of the creature in this film makes for some very squirm inducing scenes.

I feel the acting is somewhat above par. I was genuinely interested in these characters and thought that there was some real development here. It was also nice to see a strong, take-no-prisoners female lead; reversing the classic damsel in distress formula far too common in movies of this type.

It's fast paced, very well produced and completely worth your time and money. Nice to see an "independent" film deliver the goods!