The Portal

The premise is good but the rendering is awful, it truly is the only descriptive for this movie and be sure that I am reviewing the correct movie, I waited 2 years to see this film expecting great things only to be severely disappointed. I have also seen Portal (2008) and if I had to judge, I would say that Portal (2008) was the better movie!

This movie starts badly, the middle is awful and the ending is totally dreadful, I do not recommend it at all, I did not pay a great deal for the DVD but I still feel conned simply because so much fuss was made over this movie and I waited so long to see it.

I think the director must have been aiming for an 'arty' style but he has failed abysmally, there is no such thing as a good 'arty' horror movie, it just does not work (for me at least), the film does not flow, it felt like a bad Hammer Horror from the 80s and gave me a headache.

I have never been happy with shows or movies where the characters all look alike and this movie has too many female characters who look alike and the male characters are almost as bad. The film opens with April in her ME persona but then we are shown a scene where a woman is chatting with a man to whom she appears to be engaged (Nicholas Brendan who barely features in the film at all) and he seems to be involved in some horrible accident, then we have a scene with Valerie, who is mourning a dead boyfriend/fiancé and she looks so like April that I became confused as to who was in the 2nd scene, this only got worse throughout the movie. It became apparent later in the film that it was actually April who was engaged to the Brendan character but by this time I really didn't care.

The scenes are chaotic and do not flow as they should, the story is all over the place and makes no sense. Who was the weird guy who painted the 'Portal' painting? Who were the men peering through the bars at him? I got the impression that one of them was Dr Azirra (when he was younger) but this was never confirmed. What is all this rubbish about the 'Inner Child' ? I know for certain that my inner child is not so pi**ed at me that she would kill me, I find it hard to believe that we all have to fear our inner child. Also, why the exploding heads? WTF is that? I got the impression that the exploding heads and other bloody issues (haemorrhagic issues) were simply for the gore factor.

Overall I found this movie a mega fail and am still spinning in confusion over what the director was trying to achieve.

Is it possible that he was just trying to confuse and disturb us as much as the 'black painting' confused and disturbed the characters? Maybe, but whatever the answer, I would suggest that you rent this film not buy it. It is certainly not a 'keeper' :-/

Really looking forward to this as I like Madsen. Took years to eventually see it. What a turd of a film. Acting was so bad even lettuces could act more realistic.

The 2 main women possibly are the worst actor/tress I have ever seen. None of it made any sense.

None of the characters looked even remotely real or interested in what was going on whateverthehell it was that was going on. And I was really looking forward to this as I like Madsen a lot.

Him and Stacy Keach must have had an urgent gas bill to pay. I can't believe any of the others were paid money as they were probably homeless people working for food and Roddy Piper who just wandered onto the set.

After 5 years waiting to see it..... Words fail me.

They have a movie. A full length, 90 minute movie. Then why are all the actors acting like they are auditioning for soap operas? I was able to watch 27 minutes. Boring. Seen on Tubi, the free streaming site, which unfortunately, has too many movies like this dog.

The opening credits and opening scene greet us with torrid CGI that immediately raises a skeptical eyebrow. Shortly after we get scenes of dubious, over the top dialogue, and a flashback, with inelegant transitions of editing and narrative at all times. Plus - one of the top names in the opening credits is none other than Michael Madsen. I hate to say it, but he's at a point in his career where his name portends an unfortunate quality of film.

As far as first impressions go, within mere minutes 'The portal' makes a distinctly bad one. That impression does not improve. In fact, it gets worse. Much, much worse.

I can't speak with certainty for everyone in the cast, but I know some of the actors on hand have very well demonstrated their capabilities in the past. Maybe it's Serge Rodnunsky's screenplay or direction that's to blame, or maybe the players assembled here have simply stopped caring. Whatever the source, everyone involved turns in a performance that's terribly forced, unconvincing, and at all times either overdone or undercooked, with no middle ground. Delivery, expression, movement - rotten. In 2021 I can't believe I'm saying this, but of anyone here, Madsen actually gives the greatest display of acting chops, and that alone says so much.

There are a few good ideas in the screenplay, amazingly enough, but the narrative is plainly, completely, and relentlessly weak, specious, flimsy, and highly questionable. There's little to no connection between each element within - I'm not entirely sure what the plot of 'The portal' is supposed to be, and any basic synopsis I've seen is unhelpful. It's unclear who some of these characters are, or how they came into the story. Flashbacks and various other inserted scenes serve no purpose whatsoever. If I described each passing moment in detail I'd be hard-pressed to call the resulting paragraphs a spoiler, because this is just that much of a godawful mess. The nearest I can reckon is that this is the lowest of all possible knock-offs of 'Ringu.'

Rattling off a list of everything in the feature that's poorly done is essentially a delineation of how a movie gets made: the writing and execution of scenes; editing, transitions between shots and scenes, sequencing; dialogue; characterizations, makeup, hair, costume design; lighting and special effects; music and sound effects, let alone their integration into the feature; camerawork; set decoration, art direction, production design. And we're still not finished, because we're treated ever to only the cheapest of would-be scares. Moreover, why are medical professionals in a hospital setting, or ostensibly providing home visits to patients who may or may not be ill, wearing no PPE whatsoever? Where did these characters get all that paper, seemingly overnight? Why is Roddy Piper here at all?

I hope with all due sincerity that Roger Ebert never saw this movie before he died, because as an ardent cinephile, I cannot imagine the deep hurt this would have caused him. If Hell existed then every surface would be plastered with screens playing 'The portal' over and over for all eternity.

Filth. Putrescence. Putridity. Rubbish. Rot.

Avoid.

Trust me, there's nothing in the portal you would ever want to see. Do you like horror films? Were you tempted by the mention of Michael Madsen in the cast list? That was how they got me to sit through this. Big mistake. The film looks like it was shot in the nineteen seventies with a budget that's been drummed up by a guy walking round collecting change in a slightly stained hat. Oh, and Michael Madsen is barely in it. He was better in Celebrity Big Brother.

The Portal has bad acting, awful computer generated special effects (were they rendered on a ZX Spectrum?), terrible dialogue, stupid camera angles and looks cheaper than something made for cable TV (bypassing even a straight-to-DVD release).

Some films are so bad they're good (Demons or Starcrash, for example). This one is just bad, bad, bad - seriously, save yourself an hour and a half and watch the shopping channel instead (the prices of those gold bracelets are a damn sight scarier than anything in the Portal).

http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/