MovieChat Forums > Eden Lake (2008) Discussion > Possibly the worst movie ever. Oh, you w...

Possibly the worst movie ever. Oh, you want reasons?? Let's go!

posted 10 years ago by Rupert__Pupkin
51 replies | jump to latest

(spoiler alert)

If either of the main characters had any shred of common sense, this movie would've been over in 20 minutes. Examples of amazing stupidity:

1) Once it was discovered that the kids intentionally punctured the tire and then bragged about it, you DON'T go back to the same beach. I would find a whole new lake to camp on, or at least a different beach on the lake. The kids were already rude, profane, disrespectful, voyeuristic, and now damaging property. Steve had tried to approach the kids once rationally and tactfully, and it was obvious that the kids weren't going to be reasonable. Once the tire gets punctured, you leave and don't come back. End of movie. Once they returned to the same beach for another night of camping, the whole movie became unbelievable.

2) When Jenny leaves Steve pinned down in the Jeep, she obviously should have run for help. But no. What does she do? She decides to get her 40 winks 10 ft. from the crashed jeep while Steve is being tortured by the kids. Then when she finally wakes up, instead of getting help, she decides to follow the blood trail to find Steve. Why??? Does she really think she's going to wrestle him away from 6(!) teenagers? Once she observed what was going on, she should've run for help. But no. She pulls up a chair and watches every minute of the ordeal where the kids take turns cutting him up. Then she gets the idea of calling for help. That's a fine idea, but why didn't she do it from more than 10 feet away? The kids just turned around and saw her holding the phone like a dummy. Why not walk over the hill and make the same call for help? Or better yet, why not call 8 hours earlier?

3) Every time they were running from the bad guys, they stuck to trails. Is there any worse way to try to lose someone in the forest than sticking to a trail? How about you get off the beaten path and hide someplace that's not obvious? In scene after scene, we see Jenny walking on a trail, and lo and behold she gets spotted.

4) How about the scene where Jenny steps on that railroad spike and she dives down that hill to avoid being found? Diving down the hill was a good call because she got out of sight. So what does she do next? She climbs right back up the hill and collapses in an open clearing, only to be found by a kid.

5) How about the scene where Jenny's running away, and she comes across that little trailer with the walkie talkie in it? Here's some advice: If you're ever running for your life from a gang of killers, don't make stops on the way to look for supplies. Get to safety first, and THEN gather supplies.

6) If you're driving a vehicle, don't wreck it! The town was only 10 miles from where they were camping. It's not like she was driving across the Rocky Mountains. She had to get 10 miles without wrecking the car. Oops.

7) The stupid behavior wasn't limited to just the good guys. Remember the scene where one of the kids tries to call 999 while Bret is right there? What does he think Bret is going to do? Just let him make the call? It's late at night. Why not walk 30 seconds in any direction and THEN make the call?

8) Why didn't the kids just kill Steve and Jenny right away? Why toy with them? It was almost like watching an old cartoon. Rather than just kill them, they try tying them up and burning them at the stake. Next thing you know, they'll be tying them to railroad tracks. Just kill them first and THEN burn them.

9) The part where Jenny jumps in raw sewage. She's in a forest surrounded with natural places to hide, and what does she do? She jumps into a receptacle full of raw sewage. Of course. And why did she fully submerge her face and hair? I'm not sure why hiding in there had to include her plunging her face into it.

10) I almost forgot. What about the scene when Steve just walks into Bret's house? Because that's something most of us would do, right? Just walk into someone's home and start walking around. And of course at that precise moment, Bret's dad just happens to come home...which leads me to the stupid coincidences and ridiculous scenarios, like these:

Jenny just happens to meet a guy who happens to be the brother of one of the kids chasing her. Jenny just happens to wreck her car in front of the house of one of the kids. Bret just happens to call his dad as soon as Jenny shows up.

Here's something else that really bothered me, and this was probably the dumbest part of the whole movie:

How big was this forest? After watching this movie, I have to assume the forested area they were in was no bigger than a football field. After running for three days and two nights, Jenny never got out of earshot of the kids. No matter how fast she ran, or what direction she was running, she could never escape being near the kids. Hello! Have the writers of this film or the director ever been outside? Outside is a big place, and if you give me a 30-second head start of running into the woods, you aren't going to find me. Is this because I'm a lean, mean, survivalist machine? No! It's because nature is a big place, and there are a million places to hide. And if you run in any direction, you'll be miles away within an hour. But in this movie, every scene takes place within 100 yards of the first scene. Yeah right.

Another thing that bothered me. Every character in the movie (other than Steve and Jenny) was over the top angry, mean, and nasty. The kids, their parents, the dogs. Hell, even the waitress in the cafe is rude and nasty to Steve and Jenny for no discernible reason. Virtually no one is like that, let alone an entire town.

And finally...the ending.

After spending 90 minutes watching people do stupid things and watching impossible and ridiculous scenarios fold out in the most absurd way, I was holding out hope that the end would offer something satisfying for the viewer...some sort of revenge sequence similar to "Last House on the Left" or "I Spit on Your Grave." But no. Jenny manages to kill just two of the kids, both of whom were bit players in the whole thing. The first kid she killed by stabbing him. Then she felt really guilty about it. The other kid she ran over with her car. This was sort of intentional/unintentional. The girl was in the road, and Jenny was making her "escape." There was no sense of revenge, or payback, or retribution, or justice. I didn't care too much just because I couldn't stand Steve or Jenny due to their unprecedented levels of stupidity. But I still wanted something that resembled a satisfying ending. Of course this movie failed to deliver at the final turn (similar to every other turn in the movie). It tried to do something edgy by offering us a downer of an ending...as if this has never been done before.

I've never seen a movie that failed on so many levels. I've seen movies that were boring, frustrating, stupid, ridiculous, gratuitous, poorly directed, poorly written, and unsatisfying in every way. But this movie truly has it all.

0/10

P.S. And please please please don't defend this movie by saying something like, "Hey, you don't know how you would react in that situation unless you were in it yourself," or "It's easy to think rationally when you're sitting in your living room watching it on TV, but it's different when you're in the situation." Puh-leeze. This is the worst cop out and one that's used far too often to defend terribly-written movies. Although I don't know how I would react if I were chased by a gang of blood-thirsty teenagers, I know I wouldn't have stayed at that beach a second night; I wouldn't have walked into Bret's house and snooped around; etc. And explaining stupid behavior does not explain the coincidences, the apparent smallness of the forest, etc.

And finally, please no one say, "Hey this film must not have been that bad if it got this strong of a reaction from you." Stepping in a pile of dog sh*t elicits a strong reaction from me as well. There's certainly nothing artistic about that.

[–] griffon652 10 years ago

Excellent post. Especially points 2, 5 and 7. Those actions were beyond stupid. They could have easily been saved even if Jenny just casually walked to town for help instead of deciding to sleep in her little hiding spot. Hell, she could have even accomplished this in the morning after she woke up instead of following the blood trail like a moron. I can't think of anyone acting like this no matter how much "stress" they were under. It completely made me stop caring about the characters.

A few more stupid moves:

A. When the group of kids act like total hoodlums, puncture your tires, steals your car, starts fighting with you, pulls a knife on you, sic's a Rottweiler on you AND outnumbers you 6 to 1; who in their right mind would drop the knife that you grabbed from these obviously very malicious kids intent on hurting you??

B. Jenny had two opportunities to ask you use a phone to call the police and yet all she could say was "I need help." It literally would have taken her 35 seconds on the phone with the police to get help. I know that both parties wouldn't probably help her but its the fact that she didn't ask. What normal human being wouldn't ask to dial the police as soon as they spotted someone who may have a cell phone???

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 10 years ago

Thanks for the response...and for adding other examples of the movie's stupidity.

Here's another stupid coincidence. After having breakfast in town, Steve and Jenny just happen to drive by Bret's house. It seems odd that while driving from a restaurant to their campground, they happened to drive on a residential street. Why would they be driving on a residential street? Are they checking real estate holdings? Gawking at the local white trash? Looking for a Wal-Mart? And wasn't it amazing that Steve was able to identify the bikes in the front yard? I mean, at what point did he get a good view of the bikes? When the kids rode their bikes by the Jeep, they were whizzing by and were virtually streaks of light. But somehow Steve was able to identify the make and model of the bikes with absolute certainty and then identify them from a moving car. Not bad.

And on the way back to the campground, why didn't Steve and Jenny stop by the police station or at least call the police to report the incident? If someone slashed my tires and I knew who it was, I would notify the police immediately. Steve was apparently mad enough to chase down the kids with his car but not so mad that he would bother picking up the phone to report the incident to local authorities. And what was his plan when he was chasing the kids in his car? Was he really going to run down some kids on bikes because they popped his tire?

The more you peal back the layers, the more this turd of a movie just falls apart.

[–] wheredaweedat 10 years ago

completely agree, very stupid movie. way too many coincidences towards the end it was ridiculous

[–] Tom01992 10 years ago

Wow what a petty, pedantic fool you are. I bet you are a joy to watch movies with kid.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 10 years ago

Wow. You completely disarmed all of my points. You are obviously very intelligent.

I'm sorry to learn that you enjoyed this steaming pile of dung. May I recommend another movie aimed at your level of intelligence: Beverly Hills Chihuahua 3.

[–] jupnose25 10 years ago

There was a whole lot of stupidity on display no doubt. The thing is though, these are all classic horror tropes and similar criticisms could be made about all films of the same or of a similar genre. It doesn't break any rules, it doesn't subvert any conventions, it sticks to a proven formula, is exceptionally well made and as a result is very disturbing. As far as redneck horror goes, it ranks pretty near the top.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 10 years ago

I completely disagree. The best horror movies (of any subgenre) don't rely on any of these cheap plot devices. And although some good horror movies succumb to the occasional horror movie cliche, this movie essentially had them all, including a car that wouldn't start, the ultimate horror movie cliche. Maybe you can explain how a movie with the world's worst script can be well made.

[–] machine_016 10 years ago

My only problem with your criticisms is that you've been far too generous with your time in listing with them. The plot contrivances are quite remarkable.
It seems the film maker was determined to make a certain type of movie and plausibility be damned.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] machine_016 10 years ago

I thought you did a pretty good job yourself!
The thunderingly questionable decisions from protagonists whom we are supposed to believe have a modicum of intelligence, the uncanny knack characters have of stumbling across each other over a large forested area (as the plot demands), the seemingly magnetic attraction the protagonists have toward their antagonists - be it their home or work.

I'm agreeing with you Rupert Pupkin...

I don't understand movies like this. They are shot reasonably well, acted reasonably well and have a premise that invites promise, and yet no one seems to review the written page and say, "you know, this could be much better. These problems can be easily remedied with just a little more thought to how something horrific might actually unfold" The more feasable, the more horrifying, imo.

[–] jupnose25 10 years ago

Because it didn't have the "world's worst script", this is pure hyperbole and not deserving of a response.

It's been a long time since I watched the film, I can't remember it in detail but I do remember the whole thing being beautiful to look at, well acted and disturbing. I also do remember groaning at the things you mention such as the car but like I said, these are staples of the genre.

You can complain about these contrivances but they're the only things which allow the story to progress. There has to be a car that won't start, there has to be a phone with no reception or with a flat battery, the victims have to behave like morons, they have to run out into the road infront of the first passing car (the antagonists), drop the gun/knife, fail to deliver a crippling/killer blow when the opportunity arises etc..

The whole premise is just so well known and so well loved. Take a few naive/stupid people, place them somewhere isolated and have them attacked by someone/something. Everyone knows what to expect so to complain about a car not starting in this film is like complaining about the infeasibility of spacecraft propulsion in a Sci-fi film.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 10 years ago

"You can complain about these contrivances but they're the only things which allow the story to progress. There has to be a car that won't start, there has to be a phone with no reception or with a flat battery, the victims have to behave like morons, they have to run out into the road infront of the first passing car (the antagonists), drop the gun/knife, fail to deliver a crippling/killer blow when the opportunity arises etc."

I really feel sorry for you. If you truly believe this, then you have you never seen a good horror film.

"The whole premise is just so well known and so well loved. Take a few naive/stupid people, place them somewhere isolated and have them attacked by someone/something. Everyone knows what to expect so to complain about a car not starting in this film is like complaining about the infeasibility of spacecraft propulsion in a Sci-fi film."

Ridiculous argument. Not deserving of a response.

[–] jupnose25 10 years ago

That's some good debating right there.

I really feel sorry for you. If you truly believe this, then you have you never seen a good horror film.

(Predictably) what do you define as a "good" horror film then? I really want to know as it seems I've missed them, ALL!!!

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 10 years ago

I'm not really interested in keeping this debate going. I listed a dozen reasons why this movie is beyond terrible. You have so far not been able to refute any of them. You've simply accused me of being hyperbolic.

What can I tell you? If you're willing to overlook terrible terrible writing because a movie has a nice premise, then you're far more forgiving than me. There are countless horror movies that don't rely on these cheap plot devices and plot holes. If you consider this movie (which you agree is extremely flawed) a great horror movie, I can only assume you have no context by which to measure great horror movies.

I've presented my evidence as to why I believe this movie is sheer garbage. If you think otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.

[–] jupnose25 10 years ago

There is no refuting any of the things you picked up on. I merely asked you to name me a few films within the genre that don't rely on similar narrative "flaws" to allow for story progression.

You seem to be of the opinion that I think this is a great horror movie, I think it's alright but my take on this film is irrelevant. Every genre relies on its conventions, this film is no worse than any other of its type. Your list of criticisms could be transferred to any other film in this sub genre and be equally as applicable (and as pointless).

Take a few naive/stupid people, drop them somewhere isolated and have them attacked by someone/something. They have to be incompetent, they have to fall over, drop the weapon, have a flat phone battery or no reception, have a car that wont start, run out into the forest in the dead of night etc.. Finding fault with these things is redundant, it's like going to an eighties night and then raging when the DJ plays Duran Duran.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 10 years ago

jupnose,

If you believe that EVERY horror movie relies on characters engaging in a series of idiotic decisions in order to move the plot forward, it simply means that you haven't seen many horror movies. There are a ton of great horror movies, though I admit most of them are quite bad.

You want me to name some horror movies that don't rely on people being stupid? Off the top of my head...The Thing (1982), Poltergeist (1982), Misery (1990), Dawn of the Dead (1978), Aliens (1986), An American Werewolf in London (1981), Dead Alive (1992), Creepshow (1982), Christine (1983), The Fly (1986)...and there are many more. These are just a few of my favorites.

[–] jupnose25 10 years ago

Hey, we love a lot of similar films! I have seen all of those multiple times and... many more.

Of course all of those rely on similar tropes or contrivances to one degree or another. Even my synopsis of a typical horror plot fits about half of your examples yet I was explicitly talking about the "redneck" horror genre!

You missed out the more applicable films, those being of course The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and its various remakes/reboots, The Hills Have Eyes and its associated remakes/reboots, Wrong Turn, House of Wax, House of 1000 Corpses and its sequel, Wolf Creek and its sequel etc.. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre in particular defined the genre and its associated trappings, I am not sure what your personal feelings on that film is, I think it's exceptional, but if you were to break it down into a series of anecdotes, each would be as ridiculous as any of the ones you mention in your original post.

We have to asses these films with some degree of rationality, if a particular genre is dependent upon certain conventions then naturally we are going to find them in films of that genre. If you have a particular problem with those conventions then it's just not your type of film. Personally, I hate sentimentality so I make every effort to avoid melodramas.

As for horror, The Thing is just about my favorite but I can't say I ever found it scary, it never subverts expectation, it's a standard monster movie, just exceptionally well made. Very few films spring to mind as being truly original or shocking, Don't Look Now was pretty affecting the first time I saw it, I still think Audition is brilliant and the first time I watched Ring in 99 or 00, I was scared, shocked, amazed, everything, but you know.. that was before little girls with long black hair making creepy sounds were a genre staple, by the 20th American remake of Ring, Grudge, Dark Water etc.. the impact was kind of lost. Scream upon release was a truly excellent film, it breathed life back into slashers by referencing a lot of the stayed conventions and Cabin in the Woods did that recently too to good effect.

So, regarding this film, I think your criticisms are disproportionate, in fact I think they're guided by an emotional reaction you had to the narrative, which was the point. It was very well made, very well acted and highly critically acclaimed, particularly for a horror film. Good luck to you, have a merry Christmas and I hope you find something worth watching this holiday.

[–] HorrorFanatic24 9 years ago

Lol burn.

[–] noellejosephine 10 years ago

4) How about the scene where Jenny steps on that railroad spike and she dives down that hill to avoid being found? Diving down the hill was a good call because she got out of sight. So what does she do next? She climbs right back up the hill and collapses in an open clearing, only to be found by a kid.

This was one of the most unrealistic scenes. I know this sort of thing happens a lot in movies (someone gets hurt, and they just deal with it. But either I'm a wuss who would end up dead really quickly or I just don't know what sort of "strength" I'd have in that situation.

A little while ago I stood on a small piece of metal that was concealed in a bag. Every time I tried to move my foot, the weight of what's in the bag would pull on it, and I couldn't stand the pain so I ended up frozen. I ended up screaming for help, my door was locked from the inside, my family were like "open the door!" and I was like "I can't!" so they had to open it from the outside. My mum went to pull it out of my foot and I was like "no no no!" because I couldn't stand the thought of it being pulled out or even touched.

And we're supposed to believe that she'd just bite on a stick and pull out something that huge? I mean maybe if you knew your partner needed help or he'd die, you'd be able to do it. But chances are I'd be rolling around feeling helpless lol

Even hiding under that cabin thingy in the water or climing into a bin, when the alternative was being killed, still don't know if I could make myself do it.

[–] Augustus_Octavian 8 years ago

Then you die because you are weak.

[not saying that I am necessarily strong]

[–] bernard-maximilian 10 years ago

Wow! Great rant there! I agree 100%!!!

[–] johnbayer79 10 years ago

I can put up with alot of the stupid decisions and just chock it up to having dumb protagonists in horror movies BUT the knife this is TOO DUMB

[–] fabian5003 10 years ago

Agree with you on every point, I'm glad someone else hated this movie as much as I did. Can't believe the high rating it has on IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes.

"It's a beautiful Sunday"

[–] tobisama 10 years ago

I saw the film yesterday and was a surprise when I saw how well received the film was.

I agree with a lot of the examples of the op. I did not enjoy it so much.

After reading a lot of posts now I understood why many people like it and why many people hated it.

I also found ridiculous that all the kids blindly followed their crazy and psycho leader.

And last but not least, a police investigation to the case would find a lot of clues incriminating the boys.

I would like to see a movie about the investigation, after all, there were dead kids, and a couple (without criminal background) from the city missing, sooner or later the authorities would be informed.

They would found a man and a kid burned, the wrecked car, another boy beaten to death, tortured animals, pocket knifes of the boys, the pole when the man was keep captive and a long etc.