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.

[–] ghiz876 10 years ago

I agree, there's a good possibility this is the worst film I've ever watched. You did a good job listing its major flaws, all of which I agree with. Here are a few others:

1. Nobody among the gang of youths is more intimidated about going to jail for murder than about making Brett angry. A couple have second thoughts after Ricky's death but aren't shaken by the deaths of Steve or the burnt kid. Every single one of them agrees to relentlessly hunt for these people through the forest for more than 24 hours and at no point backs out of it, even when separated from the group.

2. The gang of youths are searching through the forest for more than 24 hours without ever getting tired, hungry, thirsty or just wanting to go home.

3. Not a single adult in the house at the end has a problem with allowing a murder and thus getting themselves jail time.

4. Not a single adult suspects the woman is a victim despite her state.

5. The woman's extremely, extremely slow suspicions of the boy leading her into a trap.

6. The woman jumping into a pile of *beep* thus infecting the gaping hole in her foot further.

7. That random-ass spike the woman just happened to run over. No contrived traps like that for the antagonists.

8. Hiding Steve right next to the shack that the youths WERE JUST IN.

It astounds me that people can defend this movie. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I genuinely don't understand it. This is worse than The Room. Stupidity and bizarre, one-in-a-million coincidences fuel every aspect of the conflict.

It's a shame because it's actually an interesting concept for a movie. Gangs like the antagonists in the film are all over the place, and although they come across as laughable and pathetic, they are capable of the most wretched things humanly imaginable. They could well be a source of horror for any normal person, which makes it kind of ingenious to go and make them horror movie antagonists. If only it had been done well... or at least not as ridiculously as this. It was stupid from the get-go, yes, the fact that Steve was so prideful that he didn't just give up fighting them, but it wasn't that bad... but by god did it snowball and destroy any hope of this movie having even a little merit in its execution.

[–] sadfilmophile 10 years ago

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.

Actually that bit was realistic. So far they've only ever tortured pets and other children so they wouldnt have whatever it takes to simply stab a man and woman. Plus they seem to like the torturing more than the idea of killing for the sake of killing. The killing is more a case of hiding the evidence of their torture.

However I agree with all of your other points.

Moreover I'll even add this: Jenny knows that this is the house of the bike owning kid, so why oh why would she enter THAT particular house to ask for help. She knew because Steve stopped the car there earlier on and there was that really random scene that didnt add much to the film other than to add a contradiction to Steve's character. I'd much prefer to have seen him as a guy who always does the right thing because it's the right thing to do (which is why I thought he was going to talk to the parents). Snooping thru a stranger's house would not be something that type of a personality would do.

[–] fcastig0220 10 years ago

Well said, Rupert.

[–] kurtbrian14 10 years ago

Rupert needs to take his meds. It was no where near that bad. Yes, the main characters made bad choices. I've met people who also make stupid decisions. But to get hysterical over this film is childish.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 10 years ago

You think posting on a message board is evidence of hysteria? Wow. That combined with the fact that you would even think of defending this embarrassing movie only makes it painfully obvious to the rest of us that your skills of perception are profoundly impaired, and you have no concept of reality. Good luck in life. You're going to need it.

[–] kurtbrian14 10 years ago

Any IMDb film that's given a near 7 by the public has done a pretty good job of impressing a lot of people, despite your hysterics over it. Good luck in getting anyone to take you seriously regarding anything.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 10 years ago

Hysterics? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

And you're gauging public perception as the benchmark for artistic achievement? Puh-leaze. The Avengers movies are routinely around 8.0 and make bank at the box office. But that doesn't change the fact that they're always formulaic, predictable, boring pieces of sh*t that will conclude with a 45-minute action sequence where the good guy wins. (yawn)

I'm sorry if I have the audacity to point out that your taste in movies is embarrassingly bad.

What are you doing on this message board? Shouldn't you be watching "Fast and Furious 7?"

[–] maenad-3 9 years ago

Rupert Pupkin, your assessment of this "pezzo di merda" is superb. I also replied to another post with a list of the totally incongruous coincidences very similar to yours. I still cannot believe how any sane person would come back to the same camp site where the threats, loud music, bullying and tire slashing occurred. Nor can I believe that Steve, knowing where the hoodlooms live, did not report the incident and the address to the police. How about the stupidity of leaving the bag with the car keys and wallet unattended after the previous day's incident with the goons? And why aren't the thugs of the trash family not worried about a missing persons report which might lead to them as suspects? In the end, it really is a waste of time watching the protagonists go from the frying pan into the fire, into the fire, into the fire ad nauseam.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 9 years ago

Thanks for the support. I too find it inexplicable that so many upright humans find this movie entertaining.

[–] maenad-3 9 years ago

You are totally right in your assessment. I watched this film mainly because it is British--what a letdown. Also, this qualifies as a film of the very gloomy genre where the protagonists are doomed to be done in by total monsters. I am thinking of "The Vanishing" (Dutch/French version), "The Wicker Man" and others which are far better rendered.

[–] bhobnine 9 years ago

Forget all the eye rolling moments.
Its a sadistic flick. For no good reason.
Written for fans of snuff films and torture porn.
The production values were pretty good.
Thats the only reason I gave it a one.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pffft, my suspension of disbelief has higher standards than that.

[–] sephkane 9 years ago

Bravo, Rupert. Very detailed analysis of this garbage film. And to those that don't like how Rupert totally destroyed this garbage film, those that don't like that he made such an exhaustive rant about it: imagine how we feel after sitting through an hour and a half of this steaming pile. A good long rant is completely what we need to get over this after wasting our time watching it. And it's what crap like this deserves.

----
Youre as obvious as Quentin Tarantinos foot fetish.

[–] cpoet 9 years ago

Agree, absolutely.

Thanks to Rupert Pupkin, I only wasted a few minutes on this--while I was reading the boards--before flipping to something else.

I'll also note that Rupert's subject line made me laugh, as did his pithy observation that "Outdoors is a big place."

[–] lukejbarnett2002 9 years ago

this movie is shamefully and stupidly and ridiculously overrated. my gosh 6.9, 6.9??? this movie wasn't that good. it feels like one of those low budget, b movies you watch on fearnet. oh, wait, I watched it on fearnet. it has a substandard feeling and quality throughout the whole movie. this is a prime example of how imdb gives way too high of ratings to movies.

[–] MaxRenn2 9 years ago

The movie definitely had some logic/behavior flaws and some really silly coincidences done just for dramatic purposes. However, you're forgetting that sometimes you just have to go with it. The problems in it aren't movie destroying.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 9 years ago

"...you're forgetting that sometimes you just have to go with it."

I have to do no such thing.

"The problems in it aren't movie destroying."

Says you.

[–] blake-234 9 years ago

"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."

Yeah that's basically a perfect response to your moronic rant about this film. My god you sound like a idiotic douchebag. You're entire post is just whining about character choices, all of which were understandable.

You know, there are actually other aspects to a film than just character motives and actions.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 9 years ago

Wow. I really struck a nerve. Score one for me!

It's painfully obvious that as you were reading my original post, you came up with the ideal response in your head (i.e. "Der...you don't know what you would do in that situation so shut up...der"). Then when you realized I had preemptively disarmed your "perfect" response (see above), you blew a gasket.

You obviously thought this movie was great, and after reading my post, you realized that you may in fact be a complete moron for liking it (which is a fair assumption). Your fragile psyche and infinitesimally-small self-esteem just couldn't handle this reality, so you made a chicken sh*t ad hominem attack at me. Shame on you.

And watch better movies.

PS - When writing, "a" and "an" are not the same thing.
"Your" and "you're" are not the same thing.

If you're going to attack people online for being morons, it's probably a good thing to not look like one yourself. It sort of hurts your credibility you know?

[–] blake-234 9 years ago

What are you? A self proclaimed psychiatrist? I'm not the one who wrote an essay on why he hated a film, listing the same reason (Character behavior) over and over with different examples. And you're still not addressing the fact that you can't provide any other reason for not liking this film other than character choices that you thought were stupid. Never mind the amazing acting that helped launch the careers of a few of the actors, or the music, pacing, cinematography etc.

'Possibly the worst movie ever'. Oh yeah, that's not an overstatement.
I thought this movie was great before reading your rant, and I still do.

PS - Sorry I made a couple spelling errors. This is a movie forum not an English class. I don't scrutinize my writing before submitting it.

[–] blake-234 9 years ago

It's painfully obvious that as you were reading my original post, you came up with the ideal response in your head (i.e. "Der...you don't know what you would do in that situation so shut up...der"). Then when you realized I had preemptively disarmed your "perfect" response (see above), you blew a gasket.

And yeah thanks for the play by play there you self-righteous tool, but no, really, you gave a great response to your own *beep* argument.

I won't be responding to any of your messages, I hadn't posted on here before, but I felt strongly obliged to call you out.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 9 years ago

LOL Blake - You are a special kind of stupid. I wrote a 2,000-word essay on all of the reasons why this movie was a steaming pile of dung, and you have the chutzpah to ask, "Der, so why don't you like this movie?" I don't know how to explain it to you any simpler.

You claim that my only complaint about this movie is "character choices" (your term not mine). Somehow you missed my points on the embarrassingly-awful writing and the childlike directing. So yeah, if you make a movie with an epically-bad script and a ridiculously-stupid story combined with awful directing, you usually end up with a bad movie. Case in point.

If the lighting director's work rocked your world, then more power to you. That wasn't enough to override everything else about this stupid movie. It's obvious that I have much higher standards than you when it comes to movies.

"PS - Sorry I made a couple spelling errors. This is a movie forum not an English class. I don't scrutinize my writing before submitting it."

No need for an explanation dude. It's obvious that you don't scrutinize any of the nonsense you write before regurgitating it on this message board.

[–] blake-234 9 years ago

Jesus Christ, I just have to clarify before I stop.

I wrote a 2,000-word essay on all of the reasons why this movie was a steaming pile of dung

I think you're a special kind of stupid, buddy. You basically listed ONE reason with a bunch of examples for that one reason. Oh wait, you did question why people were 'so angry'. Maybe because when people are antagonized they react with hostility.

'All of the reasons' you listed were 95% 'character choices'. You're right it is my term, I don't know how else to simply put it, maybe 'decisions' is better for you. About two sentences mentioned the writing and directing, saying it was 'bad' or 'stupid'. That was so unspecific and superficial I didn't see the point in bringing it up.

The reason the characters make the choices they did was because of each specific characters traits. Fassbender's was defiant and proud, that's why he kept reacting to those kids and went back to the lake the second day to show they wouldn't ruin his weekend where he would propose.

Any 'mistakes' made by the hoodlums were probably due the fact they were led by psychopathic monster who intimidated the other kids, making them one by one succumb to peer pressure. And the reason they weren't always efficient in their method of killing was because none of them (apart from the ringleader and maybe the black kid) seemed like they actually wanted to be hunting them down. The reason the waitress was angry was because she thought Fassbender was implying that her kids were being unruly etc. etc.

There's a perfectly understandable answer and reasoning to basically all of your problems with this film (95% of which are character choices). You seem to put yourself in the characters shoes and that's why you see the decisions made to be 'stupid'. If you take into account the characteristics that the writer/director effectively detailed, all of the actions will make more sense to you.

PS - Try think of words other than 'awful', 'stupid' or 'boring' to describe production or story elements. It's kind of a vague cop out.

[–] termigreen 9 years ago

A pretty glaring fallacy if I ever saw one. You think that perceiving the characters based on their outlines by the film creators justifies their flaws and negates the problems they create to the film's quality. Not only is that invalid by principle, it's as hypocritical as it can get. Sorry, but totally unbelievable characters and the scenarios they pave don't become believable and excusable because they're "designed" that way. Personally, the abysmal character choices, as you put, dominate the film and really do ruin the film as a whole, since most of the movie's plot is founded upon said choices. The other issues in other aspects of the film, such as coincidences and small world syndrome galore, are the cherry on the top.