I Hate Dumb Movies (Review of Splinter)
I write a lot of movie reviews that are very critical of the movies I watch. That gives the wrong impression, I think. I try not to hold movies to overly high standards, and I usually just enjoy a movie for what it is. This is why I like cheesy action and horror movies, because they're just good fun. However, there are certain things that I can't stand in a movie, such as bad writing or stupid characters. I just watched Splinter (2008), and I'm sorry to say that it is a great example of both of these problems.
Since the "suspense" in this movie is made of ridiculously drawn out scenes that only end up feeling contrived, I wouldn't worry about spoilers. But consider yourself warned in any case.
The movie has an original horror/sci-fi concept that is actually pretty cool: a "splinter parasite" infects animals and takes over their flesh for locomotion, and it then seeks out more life forms in order to propagate itself. +1 for a cool concept, but that's where the original thinking ends. It's supposed to be "like a mold or fungus" although I don't see any similarity whatsoever, so -1 for bad science. Last time I checked, fungus doesn't seek out heat or reanimate dead bodies. But that aside, I still think the idea could have been used much more effectively. It doesn't go into any detail about the origin of the parasite or even give any clear shots of what it looks like. That's too bad, but doesn't affect the movie too much. It could've just landed on Earth in a meteorite á la The Blob, but whatever.
After the initial concept, however, the writing just seems incredibly lazy to me. The acting is good, but the writing is so tedious that it's frustrating to watch. Yelling at the TV because the characters are too dumb to figure out the obvious thing to do is not fun, it's maddening. For example, Shea Whigham's character decides to induce hypothermia in order to fool the parasite. He brings his body temperature down to 90°F and staggers outside toward the abandoned cop car. However, for being mildly hypothermic, he moves ridiculous slowly, takes forever to get to the car and, when he finally gets there, realizes that the keys are gone and battery is dead. If he wasn't dumb as a sack of bricks, he might have noticed that the headlights on the car--which were blazing brightly earlier in the movie--are now dead. He also might have though ahead of time to grab the keys from the dead cop outside the door, but I guess he's not too bright.
The largest hole in this poor excuse for a plot is the baffling oversight on the part of the characters to simple distract the creature with fire. In fact, that was their original plan: set a fire, then run for the car. But even after they figure out that the creature is attracted to heat, they never bother to try it. Instead, they try to distract it with sparklers while someone lowers their body temperature and stumbles over to the car. Why not just light a fire? The creature would probably just run right into it and die. But I guess the writers wanted to try something more dramatic, which meant thinking up some convoluted and nonsensical plan that just creates more false suspense.
Horror movies come in two types: the viewer either empathizes with the characters in the movie, or roots for the killer. Since the killer in this case is a killer space fungus, Splinter is obviously trying to be the first type and fails miserably. The problem is that the characters are so dumb that you don't care if they die. The acting itself wasn't bad by any means, but the writing ruined it. If this were a horror movie of the second type it wouldn't be so bad, but unfortunately I found it impossible to root for the space fungus.
One final point to make: I hate shaky cam. I don't know who thought it was a good idea to zoom in so far that you can't see what's going on and then wave the camera around like you're having a fit, but it's a horrible trend in movies lately and it has to stop. Not only is it nauseating, but it's just plain lazy. This movie was all about disgusting monsters killing people: show us the creature, don't shake the camera around so much that you can't even get a clear view of what it looks like. And please, shaking the camera won't made a scene more dramatic unless it's actually taking place during an earthquake.
So starting with a base score of 5/10, that's +1 for an original concept and +1 for decent acting, but -1 for bad science, -1 for excessively dumb characters, -1 for lazy, convoluted writing, and a final -1 for atrocious use of shaky cam. Final score: 3/10. At least it's only 78 minutes.
Since the "suspense" in this movie is made of ridiculously drawn out scenes that only end up feeling contrived, I wouldn't worry about spoilers. But consider yourself warned in any case.
The movie has an original horror/sci-fi concept that is actually pretty cool: a "splinter parasite" infects animals and takes over their flesh for locomotion, and it then seeks out more life forms in order to propagate itself. +1 for a cool concept, but that's where the original thinking ends. It's supposed to be "like a mold or fungus" although I don't see any similarity whatsoever, so -1 for bad science. Last time I checked, fungus doesn't seek out heat or reanimate dead bodies. But that aside, I still think the idea could have been used much more effectively. It doesn't go into any detail about the origin of the parasite or even give any clear shots of what it looks like. That's too bad, but doesn't affect the movie too much. It could've just landed on Earth in a meteorite á la The Blob, but whatever.
After the initial concept, however, the writing just seems incredibly lazy to me. The acting is good, but the writing is so tedious that it's frustrating to watch. Yelling at the TV because the characters are too dumb to figure out the obvious thing to do is not fun, it's maddening. For example, Shea Whigham's character decides to induce hypothermia in order to fool the parasite. He brings his body temperature down to 90°F and staggers outside toward the abandoned cop car. However, for being mildly hypothermic, he moves ridiculous slowly, takes forever to get to the car and, when he finally gets there, realizes that the keys are gone and battery is dead. If he wasn't dumb as a sack of bricks, he might have noticed that the headlights on the car--which were blazing brightly earlier in the movie--are now dead. He also might have though ahead of time to grab the keys from the dead cop outside the door, but I guess he's not too bright.
The largest hole in this poor excuse for a plot is the baffling oversight on the part of the characters to simple distract the creature with fire. In fact, that was their original plan: set a fire, then run for the car. But even after they figure out that the creature is attracted to heat, they never bother to try it. Instead, they try to distract it with sparklers while someone lowers their body temperature and stumbles over to the car. Why not just light a fire? The creature would probably just run right into it and die. But I guess the writers wanted to try something more dramatic, which meant thinking up some convoluted and nonsensical plan that just creates more false suspense.
Horror movies come in two types: the viewer either empathizes with the characters in the movie, or roots for the killer. Since the killer in this case is a killer space fungus, Splinter is obviously trying to be the first type and fails miserably. The problem is that the characters are so dumb that you don't care if they die. The acting itself wasn't bad by any means, but the writing ruined it. If this were a horror movie of the second type it wouldn't be so bad, but unfortunately I found it impossible to root for the space fungus.
One final point to make: I hate shaky cam. I don't know who thought it was a good idea to zoom in so far that you can't see what's going on and then wave the camera around like you're having a fit, but it's a horrible trend in movies lately and it has to stop. Not only is it nauseating, but it's just plain lazy. This movie was all about disgusting monsters killing people: show us the creature, don't shake the camera around so much that you can't even get a clear view of what it looks like. And please, shaking the camera won't made a scene more dramatic unless it's actually taking place during an earthquake.
So starting with a base score of 5/10, that's +1 for an original concept and +1 for decent acting, but -1 for bad science, -1 for excessively dumb characters, -1 for lazy, convoluted writing, and a final -1 for atrocious use of shaky cam. Final score: 3/10. At least it's only 78 minutes.