Espinhos

In all honesty, I actually thought it would be rubbish. However, to my surprise it was quite good. Okay it is not perfect, some of the effects are mediocre, the sound is murky and the editing in scenes could have been tighter, there are times when it is rather shaky. That said, Splinter could have been so much worse than how it turned out. The story is loose, well paced and benefits from a good and well-thought-out idea, the monster is appropriately effective and the direction, script, performances and characters(the antagonist especially is very interesting and original, which was really refreshing in itself) are all good. All in all, I thought it would be really bad, but it was actually much better than expected. 7/10 Bethany Cox

The premise has been done many times before, but this film does it right. Apparently "Splinter" is an independent film, but it doesn't deserve to be lumped in the same category as the hundreds of "low budget" horror movies out there that are hardly more than a few friends with a camcorder and some ketchup packets. The production value here looks as good as many Hollywood movies, and the "monster" is done particularly well. The three main actors are great, and the characters are likable.

This movie isn't going to change the genre or make anyone's Top 10 list, but it's definitely one of the more entertaining horror films I've seen in the last couple of years. It's a fun way to spend 80 minutes. My 8 out of 10 rating is a bit over-inflated simply because there have been so many terrible horror movies put out recently that it was refreshing to genuinely enjoy one from start to finish. A more realistic rating would be 6 or 6.5. Totally worth the price of admission, and I look forward to seeing more from this director in the future.

So, it's apparently a good idea to have so many cuts and so much camera waving that we don't get to see a kill? This editing "style" is so spastic that it might as well be an episode of Monday Night RAW. If I can't see what's happening, what is the point of a visual format? Two stars because the concept IS interesting. The execution just isn't very good. Also, the people playing the camping couple are bad actors, especially the nerd boyfriend.

So this movie is a kind of an independent horror film. It's working with a lower budget.

But first off the acting is not just adequate, it's great.

The characters are believable and well cast.

Splinter makes great use of it's low budget. With good acting, some gnarly gore and good creature design. It's the best it can be on a low budget. And it is good.

Is it amazing? No. But it doesn't have any glaring flaws. A nice movie for a friday night.

It's a great indie sci-fi/creature feature movie. With a solid script and no glaring flaws.

I thought about giving it a 6/10 because it's not earth-shattering but I think it deserves a 7/10 for how solid and well executed it is.

In the end it is a smart little creature feature that makes the most of it's budget.

I saw this movie around the time that it first came out and I remember thinking that it was fairly good, but nothing I'd watch again. In the interim, I keep seeing this movie popping up on my favorite horror sites as an underrated movie, so I figured I'd give it another whirl.

First, the necessary prerequisite is that you have to like low budget movies. If you are going into this expecting the effects level of your summer blockbuster, or top notch acting, you're going to be disappointed. I don't mind indie films, at all, and don't want to judge them on their limitations. Basically, did the movie entertain me? The other ingredient that seems necessary to mention in a review of this movie is the similarities to THE THING. How you judge that may depend on where you, personally, draw the line between "homage" and "blatant ripoff". I never felt it crossed that line into stealing an idea, but certainly lifted some ideas from that horror classic, especially in the way that the organism seems to take control of human bodies and essentially replicate them, as well as its ability for each part to exist separately from the whole.

The central plot revolves around 4 people trapped at a gas station by some sort of invading organism that is almost unstoppable. They are barricaded inside a small building with limited defenses against the invading threat, so we get a little bit of Night of The Living Dead, as well.

My second viewing seemed to pretty much re-instill what I thought the first time around. This is an entertaining movie that will keep you riveted for the short run time of its' story, but nothing here sticks with me as being a modern classic, or even one of the best indie horrors of the past few years. Shea Wigham is really good, as usual, in the cliché role of a criminal with a good heart. I thought that Jill Wagner does a serviceable job as a strong female lead. Her boyfriend is pretty much annoying and I found myself at times hoping he would die next.

The effects are very limited and most of the violence is shot in quick camera angles, which is a good way of hiding their limitations, but also sometimes leaves the viewer wondering what the heck just happened. This was especially true of the first female death in the movie, as you never got any sense of the violence that might lead to her demise. There are some good shots that do serve to show what the director probably really had hidden in his imagination but wasn't able to translate to screen.

The creature itself presents some interesting impetus to the movie. As mentioned, it's fairly unstoppable which lends to the feeling of helplessness in our main characters. A few of the infected hosts pull off a really good Silent Hill look with twitchy movements and not-quite-in-the-right-place body parts. Ultimately, to transcend the Thing comparisions, they needed to develop more the plot points they introduced early in the film, such as the oil testing site, or this idea of an old forest nearby. That depth might have helped the movie to elevate from popcorn passer to truly memorably movie.