bmwhtly

I really wanted to like this film. I say that to show how much a flop this film was, I wanted to like it, I tried to like it. But I couldn't. I'd been waiting for some time for Nathan Fillion to get a really good leading role, finally he had one (or so I thought). Also a film with both horror and comedy is an appealing combination. The UK film industry has had great success with this (Dog Soldiers and Shaun of the Dead). You can see the makers of Slither trying to do something similar. Trying, and failing. There are reasons for this. It's not because of bad acting, the acting is very good (Particularly Fillion and Gregg Henry who managed to breathe some life into their characters), nor is it the fault of the effects (minimal CGI and good practical effects). The blame rests squarely with the writer. The main difference between Slither and the more successful Horror-Comedies is character development. Both Shaun and Dog Soldiers take the time to show the characters before the horror begins. Slither tries to do this too, unfortunately there is a problem. There are no characters, they are carbon-copy stereotypes. So the first 45 minutes of the film are spent showing how two dimensional the characters are (Despite the actors best efforts). So by the time you get to the horror film you're bored, frustrated and angry with the writer. Once the horror kicks off, you find yourself watching a vaguely enjoyable bad horror film. But making the audience wait through 45 minutes of pointless storyline robs the film of almost all enjoyment. There are some interesting horror film concepts here, but nothing that makes the rest of the film worth watching.

In Conclusion, this film had the potential to be good, if not very good. Had the writers taken more time to write Real Characters. A real shame that they wasted the talents of Fillion, Henry and of course Rooker on a horror-comedy that was neither funny, nor scary. Only Frustrating.

My local cinema has 'unlimited' cards. For a set fee per month, you can see as many films as you like. Thats why I saw this film, It was free. And so I don't feel cheated. It's not, by any means, the worst film I've ever seen. Not by quite some way. However, it is not a good film.

As the title indicates, I have issues with this Hollywood trend of hiring good looking people, passing over talented people. Charlize Theron, at least, isn't a Ham actress; there are hardly any clumsily performed scenes. She avoids this by not trying to act.

What little plot there is, is predicated on a post-apocalyptic society. Obviously this lends itself towards social comment. This is, at best blunt. And at worst, see-through. There are no really viable comments made. Having said that, the story-line is moderately complex. There is a reason for this: The film takes on twists, Special Effects, Violence, Futuristic Gadgets and Eye Candy to disguise, make that attempt to disguise, the vacuity at its core.

I wouldn't see it again, even for free. Its not repulsive, its just not particularly enjoyable.