The Portal

I get the impression 'The Portal' would like to be a bit like 'The Ring (1999)' - and I can't knock that aspiration. The Japanese original and American remake are master-classes of weird horror. 'The Portal', alas, isn't directed with anything like the skill or comparative restraint. Also, where I am a big fan of low-budget horror, the lack of finance seems to inhibit the ambitions of those behind the camera almost as much as the comparative lack of sophistication. There's an interesting Lovecraftian central idea in the titular Portal, and some terrific gore involving exploding heads. But Serge Rodnunsky's writing is frequently undermined by his directorial choices. He appears to desperately want to keep things from getting boring by constantly introducing new characters in various shades of jeopardy, but succeeds only in confusing and disorientating the audience. As a result, the film comes across as badly edited, disjointed and frequently incomprehensible.

There are good ideas here, and that's the frustration. Set-pieces which could have been visually arresting are destroyed by constant fast cuts and close-ups. I imagine this comes to down to inexperience, and the desire to make every second matter.

As for the actors - Michael Madsen (Azirra) growls and poses his way through his dialogue, Stacy Keach (Hafler) does what he can with his lines, and Jenna Zablocki (April) is convincingly terrified in a variety of ways.

Once you are aware of the limitations on offer, you can enjoy 'The Portal' for what it is. My score is 5 out of 10.

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/

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...

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.