The Portal

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/

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' :-/

I can't believe that this movie had a budget of $3,500,000, $3.50 would be more believable, it doesn't even have the redeeming quality of being "so bad it is good"...

First the acting is completely forced and so obviously false that you really do get the feeling that you are watching a really low budget 70's - 80's Porno movie without the fleshy bits, the acting is not so much wooden as petrified...

Secondly I get the feeling that this was directed by a 8 year old kid in the way that it bumbles along...

Thirdly if the 8 year old directed it then their 5 year old sibling wrote the script...

The cinematography was also about the level of a really poorly made porno with some sort of wedding video editing effects whenever the female lead goes into one of her weird daydream flashback recollection type things...

This is a stinker of the highest order and could only be rescued from the wastebin of history by the intervention of the rifftrax guys who could at least add a comical commentary to this dire drivel...

From the moment the film opens to its ending credits, the soundtrack never stops. Possibly the director thought the endless cacophony of strings and wind instruments would lend some flair to this uninspired epileptic mess, but it only managed to give me a headache. It took me 3 sittings to make it through this drabfest, not necessarily because it was bad (it was) but because of the never-ending soundtrack.

As to the movie ? A nurse and her (hot) male colleague (the only reason this got a 1/10) investigate the bizarre head-exploding death of a former patient. As they meet the relatives of the victim, a couple of other heads explode and ghost children emerge from a black painting looking like a fuzzy B&W TV screen, probably because they are the key to this exploding-head mystery, but you'll never know, because by the time the movie reaches its pitiful climax, the music gets so obtrusive that you can't hear anything Michael Madsen says before he starts laughing hysterically and his head explodes. The poor nurse is now into hysterics and you will be too, unless you pop a Cuprofen.

*sigh* I picked up this movie on the cheap because all the Blockbuster stores are closing in my area and they were clearing out their inventory. Of the many selections I picked out this DVD was one of the few that looked like it was in good enough condition to actually play in my DVD player. After seeing this film I'm now convinced that the reason for it's good condition is that I'm probably the only person who actually watched it all the way through.

This movie is bad. What makes it bad? Let's start with the acting. It's not horrifically bad, but almost everyone's delivery is just sort of...off. People's reactions to many events aren't believable. I got the impression that most of the actors only read the script once...in the dark.

The bad acting could be a symptom, though, of the bad writing. The movie jumps from one scene to the next without really explaining enough of what's going on. It's like being told jokes from someone who is drunk, sleep-deprived and forgets the punchlines. It is really a bad sign when you get more information about a movie from the DVD cover then you do by actually watching it.

The movie's near-constant playing of suspenseful music gets distracting, but fortunately it plays so much that you might be able to sort of ignore it after a while. That's sort of the opposite effect you want your suspenseful music to have, isn't it?

This movie does have some fairly big names in it (Michael Madsen, Roddy Piper, Stacy Keach), but in a movie this bad it just sort of makes you wonder if they did this movie on a dare.

By the end of this movie I had gone from not knowing what was going on, to not caring what was going on and just wanting it to end. When it did, finally end I found myself sitting on my couch, drinking warm root beer and saying "...to what? Portal to what?" over and over again for about five minutes. Writing this review is basically therapy for yours truly.

In short...bad movie.