Bad Movie - Splinter (2009) Discussion

[–] kje-8 16 years ago

******spoiler alert******
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
They didn't just stop for some random wackos... it was just the girl at first & she came stumbling out of the woods like she was hurt. They were debating whether to let her in & very quickly the guy came up & theatened them at gunpoint.
As far as the body cool down thing, it was a bit weak, but not terrible... if you are going to enjoy a horror movie then you obviously need to set aside some rationality (especially with a creature feature type movie like this).
I thought it was very entertaining.

"Sometimes dead is better..."

reply

[–] faithinfilms 16 years ago

kje-8

Even in the event that he just showed up quickly-foot to the gas!!!

That's the thing about horror-I do love these types of horror movies, but this one was jammed packed with stupid things-I'm tired of setting aside rationality for the sake of it being a creature feature and I LOVE these types of films. The creature is the irrational part of the movie I have got to connect with the humans on the rational level-every move they made is exactly what I would have not done. Still you're right I shouldn't complain because I picked up the movie and took it home. I suppose that's the reason why I don't watch these films unless they are on TV.

Like I said horror is my favorite genre! From the get go this film just didn't do it for me-the whole tent fiasco in the beginning-I was ready to turn it off then. Which I should have to avoid all this.

I guess what irritates me the most is how many good reviews this got-I got tricked!

John

reply

[–] mel2000 12 years ago

They didn't just stop for some random wackos... it was just the girl at first & she came stumbling out of the woods like she was hurt. They were debating whether to let her in & very quickly the guy came up & theatened them at gunpoint.

They fell for the oldest roadside ambush trick in the book. If a lone woman (especially a skanky one) begs for help along a road, you'd better believe her man of questionable intent is hiding just out of sight.

reply

[–] neoplasmax 16 years ago

Not sure how lowering his body temperature was so aweful in your opinion...

Below 96 degrees (body sits around 98), for his body weight (not being obese) his body wouldn't take long to start feeling effects of hypothermia... Which for lankier people only need temperature changes of around 80 degree (Fahrenheit) water which most people wouldn't think of as dangerous... Lower body temperatures such as this guy in the movie wouldn't cause immediate shock such as diving in a cold pool but he still would get the drunken stupor that he acted out quite well for someone that probably wasn't cold at all in doing the scene (except maybe in holding the ice bags)...

I'm not a huge horror movie fan but I DO love horror movies... The only reason why I'm not a huge fan is the fact 99% of the ones released these days DO SUCK!!! Most extremely boring or way too predictable or way to cheesy almost being a comedy... This one however, did not do any of those.. Film was a pleasant length just barely over an hour making it perfect in my opinion to not be too over drawn out with boredom, just enough to let you in on each character and why their purpose... Probably best movie I've seen in a couple years in the horror genre...

reply

[–] faithinfilms 16 years ago

Oh no I agree with how the lowering of body temp works! The moment you starting dropping below 98 it gets bad-I totally agree with you. It's the idea of using that as a way to get out in the story.

Can you clear up for me why they didn't wait it out? Other than the bad guy having his arm cut off by a box knife!!!

Maybe I need to watch it again cause everybody is all about this movie.

John

reply

[–] neoplasmax 16 years ago

Well, I didn't write it of course, but I am guessing that from being a long-time horror movie watcher since I started walking (just not a huge fan) is that waiting it out would play a boring movie... Secondly, I think it added more to the Seth character to improve his role as a less than average male from the beginning and showing his purpose as a nerdy type... And lastly, even to the very last second of the movie, there was no one around so waiting for someone else to just come around would have probably gotten them killed as well just like the first cop... Unless they came in a crazy volume of people, but the setting of the movie just didn't make is seem this was likely any time soon...

That's just what I got out of it...

Course, the ice idea might have been much much better had they waited it out till morning when the sun came out and got much more warmer... He then would have not had to chill his body quite as cold as he did before... Any place that has a night time temperature of 93 degrees probably has a mid-morning temperature easily of 98 degree which would then mask them far easier... Course, though, again, this would make for a bit more boring movie having to add some story for them to talk more or make a cut scene to the morning to speed it up... What I did like about the movie is that it didn't really cut time in any way that much... Everything stayed very linear as if all this DID happen within the hour and 15 minutes you watched the movie as if you were there...

The only time advance scene I can think of is right after they cut off the arm... It advanced to him feeling ok and they were sitting around drinking beer... Other than that little part, don't think there was any others...

reply

[–] pignot2003-1 16 years ago

The first Feast movie was surprisingly good.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] amazing_sincodek 16 years ago

you're really worried about these technicalities? WTF, man. the antagonist was biologically impossible; you have to suspend your disbelief entirely to enjoy this kind of movie. And you're worried about how the dude didn't go into shock after losing his arm?

reply

[–] Hushpuppy_20 16 years ago

XCHRIS4039 - You totally summed up what I wrote on another thread heere bfore I ready your post. They all sat around having a beer and laughing. WTF?

When the couple got kidnapped, there were at least 47 times one or both of them could have escaped. They even showed both of them obviously THINKING about it, but neither did anything. Then, by the end of the film, they are both like McGyver coming up with crazy ways to kill the monster. Why didn't they just escape? I know it would have "made a boring movie" but maybe better writing would have made this a better movie.

reply

[–] superwesker 16 years ago

When did they act McGyver "comin with crazy ways to kill the monster"? *beep* the guy just got the shotgun by the last very minutes, and then just realized they would have to burn it (because they couldn't get the car to work without keys - I assume that the robber guy would know how to make it start without keys, but hell - he was with one arm less).

People, think it over, it was actually one of the less illogical horror movies from the last years, and a creature type one. So, apart from the biological explanation to the abomination, and this "getting cold" thing, everything was very beliavable for a horror movie.

You all assume that they should have used the small possibilites they had to fight off the kidnapping couple, but people DON'T do this, most of the times. You can act very tough and "I would have fought them"esque in the IMDB, but you are not fooling anyone.

reply

[–] davejimenez 16 years ago

What happened to his arm after they cut it off, and why didn't it attack them like the other hands did? And if the creature was attracted to heat (those stupid fireworks), then why go through the whole body temperature lowering ordeal - why not start the fire, and while the creature was around back, run out to the car and leave? The first 2/3 of the movie was pretty OK, but the last 1/3 ruined it because of those inconsistencies. And the creature looked pretty good so why the herky-jerky camera and all the quick cuts? Let us see the damn thing, wouldya?

reply

[–] cyborg264 16 years ago

Alright everyone, here's the deal.

FOR THOSE WHO HATE IT:

Look, it's not the best, this is true. I agree that there are a few areas in the film that could use some polishing. No work of art is ever going to be perfect, so it has it's unique perfection. Some things, if perfected, would be ruined. We fail to connect such ideas with things that are newer, like this movie which is currently not a classic. Give it 20 years and your horror buff children will be defending it's imperfection, saying, "How dare they remake this movie! The movie just isn't the same without gayman as the lead! I don't like how the protagonists were so much stronger in the 2022 version. And they totally left out cooling the body down as the escape. OMG!!!" So just chill out. It's a little horror movie that's not trying to rewrite some text book theories on how to perform an autopsy.

FOR THOSE WHO LOVE IT:

The movie isn't perfect and it's flaws are there. I would definitely not say it's as well written as say............John Carpenter's The Thing. That movie does a much better job at helping you suspend your disbelief.

_____

So all in all this type of horror doesn't really come along often and when you're looking for a fun horror flick and can't decide between all the "C" grade horror movies like House of Blood or Mortuary, Splinter becomes quite refreshing.

Does this mean we have lowered our standards? I think yes but that's what we have to pick from once you've seen most(or all) of the first string.

reply

[–] cyborg264 16 years ago

This is specifically in reply to davejimenez:

"What happened to his arm after they cut it off, and why didn't it attack them like the other hands did?"

Was in the cooler. The cold caused it to slow or stop, just like flies slow down in cold.

"And if the creature was attracted to heat (those stupid fireworks), then why go through the whole body temperature lowering ordeal - why not start the fire, and while the creature was around back, run out to the car and leave?"

This is a good point and shows once again that the movie is not perfect. Maybe they weren't the brightest bunch even with his Phd. Maybe that makes it more realistic? Just something to ponder.

"The first 2/3 of the movie was pretty OK, but the last 1/3 ruined it because of those inconsistencies."

I do agree that the story weakened and leveled off after the arm breaking off and coming inside. Once that occurred it's as if the writing didn't know how to upstage what had already happened previously.

"And the creature looked pretty good so why the herky-jerky camera and all the quick cuts? Let us see the damn thing, wouldya?"

They did use CGI for the little close up pieces but you are right, when it came to the whole beast it did seem convincing. I think, since their budget was about $7.98, they were 1) insecure about it's realistic value and 2) might have been smart to keep the jerky camera because as you and I both currently feel, the monster seemed convincing. If they had shown us more this could have been yet ANOTHER aspect for viewers to claim as a weak point of the movie. Jerky and convincing or unjerky and not convincing. I'd say the first choice is smarter.

reply

[–] alucardvenom 9 years ago

"And if the creature was attracted to heat (those stupid fireworks), then why go through the whole body temperature lowering ordeal - why not start the fire, and while the creature was around back, run out to the car and leave?"

This is a good point and shows once again that the movie is not perfect. Maybe they weren't the brightest bunch even with his Phd. Maybe that makes it more realistic? Just something to ponder.

or maybe creature would just realize it's fire and not "meat". It was vulnerable to fire after all. Small firecrackers wouldn't do it any harm so it kept it distracted. Frozen guy wasn't moving that fast, so he needed more time to get from point A to point B.

And hell, are we really gonna discuss "realism" in creature feature? Really?

"The first 2/3 of the movie was pretty OK, but the last 1/3 ruined it because of those inconsistencies."

it was ok. It's fairly standard climax for creature feature. It wasn't too special (budget limits probably), but it was quite descent.

"And the creature looked pretty good so why the herky-jerky camera and all the quick cuts? Let us see the damn thing, wouldya?"

Yeah, I agree they should have shown it more and not in "jump jump camera". I always give huge respect to directors who aren't afraid to show the monster even if it's cheap looking. I paid to see monster in creature feature after all, it's that genres main attraction, so why not show the damn thing? But I suspect they had limited budget, director probably thought it's gonna look fake and decided to make shakes and quick cuts so you can't see it properly. Shame really, creature design at the end looked quite good. They just wasted lot of money on it's design if they never intended to properly show it on screen.

But you can bet that if creature was shown in it's full glory, and if it looked even slightly rubbish, there would be bunch of "those guys" who would complain something like this "OMG ZOMG THT LOOKZ SO FAKE! OMG BAD BAD BAD MOVIE! WORST MOVIE EVA! OMG LOL LOL LOL!!! WASTE OF TIME PUT ME TO SLEEP!!!! OMG LOL LOL LOL BAD BAD BAD!!!"

reply

[–] ezicat 9 years ago

Yes. Yes, and yes. The last few scenes simply did not add up. Ruined the whole movie for me.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] killdawabbittn 15 years ago

Agreed. Bad movie. 3/10. Just watchable. Not the least bit frightening. Predictable Hollywood ending you can see from a mile off. Nothing original about it whatsoever. A complete waste of my time. Thanks to everyone who recommended this movie.......NOT!

reply

[–] CaptainDeadbeat 14 years ago

I have to agree with everyone that feels somewhat duped by all the great reviews this thing has online, especially on various horror websites. At best it's just average and certain elements of the plot are just plain pathetic and laughable.
It's a sad indictment of contemporary horror that this is seen by so many as a standout movie.

reply

[–] Digsys-Diner 13 years ago

i aalways wondered why if the creature was attracted to heat, why not just let it walk (if that what it does) into the fire?

reply

[–] TitoVicandJoey 13 years ago

The movie was fine. Better than most recent high budget film's. So what that they didn't figure things out right away. It was the evolution of problem solving. That thing could screw them up pretty bad so i give them credit for being cautious and trying to find the best possible solutions without putting themselves in harms way, like most people really do. Wasn't like they could afford throw body after body at it till they figured tjr right solution. They were scarred and in a dangerous situation, cut em some slack.

Remember, use the magic twig wisely

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LordThingee 13 years ago

No, it was a badass movie. I fixed this for you. You're welcome.

I'd rather die as a free man than live as a slave to the government.

reply

[–] spotlightne 13 years ago

I agree. It really was an awful movie.

No tension whatsoever, and the acting sucked. I cannot believe there are people saying the acting was good.

They must be 10 years old, if they were scared by this trash.

reply

[–] alucardvenom 9 years ago

No tension whatsoever, and the acting sucked. I cannot believe there are people saying the acting was good.

You don't watch whole lot of horror movies, don't you?

I don't agree that it's a "bad movie" it just isn't a very good one. There are a lot of problems in this movie. The characters were very weak, the monster design was borderline comical, the rationale and logic was at times perplexing. I just don't get a 6 score...somewhere around 4 or 5 would be more accurate in my opinion. It's a mix between The Thing and The Mist but no where close to the originality nor dread of either.

No, it was fairly entertaining. Creature design was good for what story needed. Characters weren't super-deep, but this is a horror movie, not drama. They don't need to be too deep, they just need to be not cannon fodder and "your old friends" (the nerdy guy, the jock, cheerleader, big dumb guy, funny (aka annoying as sh*t) fat guy, you name it).

Rationale and logic... Well who cares? You cannot just apply real life logic to movies, especially horror movies who in most cases deal with irrational or impossible situations. You're pretty sure you KNOW how you would act if you were suddenly attacked by giant alien grasshopper (f it, that's what that thing reminded me off). I am pretty sure you will be 100% rational right? Wouldn't we all? ;)

My complains are usually how well horror movie does fulfill it's promise. It had everything creature needs to have. Yeah, some dialogue was kinda cheap, and they could have shown more of the monster, but I am quite grateful that this was made in 2008, and not 2015. If it was made in 2015, everything would be overexplained and there would be nothing left to imagine. If it was made around 2010 to 2015, you can bet there would be 15-20 minutes long scene of characters explaining what the creature was and why it's doing what it does, followed by another 15 minute scene of "character development" that would just kill the pace. Here, you just get what you need to know from both creature and characters. Fairly refreshing.

reply

[–] lonewolf74 13 years ago

Are you mental LordThigee you write some *beep* up post lol.

reply

[–] ShadowsGathered 13 years ago

I loved it... so much, in fact, that I bought it... and horror is also MY favorite genre.

... the hardest thing in this world is to live in it...

reply

[–] Retrovenger 12 years ago

I think you are judging it too seriously. Yes, in most cases, you should think about a movie, but with fiction you must nearly always give in to "suspension of disbelief" (Ed Woods). And also in the fictional world of most horror movies it seems like there are no such things as horror movies, no films that people have seen to take to heart. You and I might have floored it the moment the crackhead's gun-totting bf came to the window, but that's because we've seen this situation before and know not to trust what we see. I may not believe that a gas station fridge would supply a serious amount of cooling, but the plot needed a safe haven. But a really have to disagree with you that they are just victims. In a horror movie, 'victims' are stereotypical, upfront, with no development or change. All these characters change throughout the course of the film. They begin to trust each other, rely on each other, give more faith in each other. They become a team. Even Dennis, the crook, sacrifices himself for the others with his dying wish to give his nest egg the family he wronged. Okay a few things may be on the nose, but not so much that it was predictable.

So I disagree with you, it is far from a bad film. It defiantly stands out in parasitic plant creature movies.

reply

[–] Rena_Mahone 11 years ago

This movie is neither bad nor awful, but sure as hell is flawed.

Boycott movies that involve real animal violence! (and their directors too)

reply