Solo

This could have been an interesting little thriller but it's spoiled by a listless pace which spills over into the acting. Despite some good actors, they sleepwalk their way through the piece. The film undermines itself further with some poor editing and clumsy storytelling.

That's all you got here, folks.

Bushes, trees and a lake.

Totally predicable.

Just a oversized walkie-talkie to call for help?

Overthinking: if you own a camp...why would you do the "solo" thing?

That must be a crazy high insurance premium, right?

Lots of running and wandering in the woods...she's barefoot yet never steps on any sharp stones or branches - just some cut from a branch?

Ever try walking barefoot in a thick woods?

I can't even go on...it's about 90-minutes of blaaaahhh!

This movie is way better than the one I previously reviewed, it at least knows how to execute the jumpy scenes fairly and will, at some point give you a slight thrill.

The story plot may appear a bit common for people who loves the genre but most may agree that such stories doesn't easily get old specially if the direction is "at least" good.

The music and camera shots are okay. (not super great but okay)

The actors are also able to give justice to their characters and was able to give the convincing feel that they are actually involved in the scenes.

In short, the movie is good enough for me to not give it a super flopping score.

So if you can't think of something else better to do, I definitely recommend this movie to keep you busy.

Let's face it, there are many terrible movies 'out there'. I have noticed over the last few years that one thing the contemporary terrible movies have in common is really poor production, in particular camera work. Oh, yes, the acting is bad, the stories are frequently undeveloped, the thrill is...gone, or maybe more like it was never there for the films I am referring to HOWEVER Solo is in a different class. I think the filming is very, very good! Other than Ms. Clark the acting doesn't even make it to average-bad, the plot is a poorly developed cliché, the casting clearly found some of the worst actors active and the ending is a relief but the camera work is great. It could well be worth one's time to invest 15 to 20 minutes, skip around from scene to scene, and take in the work of Stephen Chung. I hope he hooks up with a better film next time.

First of all, what kind of organisation forces a 17 year girl to camp on a far-off 'abandoned' island for two days ALONE (title drop) just to get a job? I'd turn them down on the spot. Here's a major surprise: The walky-talky she's given to contact the mainland in case of emergency doesn't work, and there are a couple of creepy dudes on the isle with her.

Every decision she makes lands her further in trouble, there's lot of running around in the woods and not a single person has any trace of personality. Oops I forgot... The bad guy starts off all friendly like, before becoming a LARGE HAM (Just watch that scenery get chewed), and the heroine suffers from constant flashbacks involving someone close to her dying. This contributes, by my calculation, zero to the already non-existent plot.

I HATE films like this, I really do. The sad truth in, they're ten-a-penny these days. You see them on the shelves of the 99p store, ready to shock the unwary. Made on the cheap, without any love or care, it's practically worthless. Why didn't they just donate the budget to charity? Or give it to me? For here we have a product which no-one could possibly derive any satisfaction from, a complete FAIL from every angle, an atrocity which isn't even worth talking about. So... I'll stop. 1/10