Lago Bodom

I don't know what to say about this one. It's an original approach which is great, but I felt that the execution didn't really work that well. I think the first plot twist should have been the only one and should have happened much later, like...in the last scene.

Even if the production values and the acting are positive things to mention, I don't think the film did something particularly well (except the existence of the first plot twist). The first act was a bit lame and not that exciting (ok, the build-up on these films is always very similar but this wasn't one of the most exciting), then the suspense and slasher elements of the 2nd act run for no more than 10/15 minutes (the best part of the film) and after that we have the 2nd plot twist that doesn't need to exist and it's not that interesting ending on a low note.

It can be a tricky thing to make a film around actual real-life killings. Daniel Farrands has found that out the hard way. While the film is really its own story entirely, the fact that is refers to the real-life killings at all has probably garnered it some unfair/fair (depending on your point of view) hatred. If you look at it just as a film purely made for entertainment purposes however, it isn't half bad.

I love me some European horror. They aren't afraid to go to the places that the American filmmakers are. This is a film that gets darker and darker as it goes along. It keeps one-upping itself.

There are some jump scares in this movie that have the most ridiculously loud noise accompanying them in relation to the sound mix. It's almost impossible to not get a fright, not so much because the scare is well crafted (it usually isn't) but just because the noise is so unexpectedly loud.

I didn't mind this film. If you go in just looking to be entertained then you'll likely have some fun with it. I can see it being considered insensitive too though and wouldn't argue with anyone trying to make that point. 7/10.

Boring, predictable, unlikable characters, and a film that didn't really know what it wanted to be. Is how I would sum this movie up. It reminded me of Wolf Creek a little. But besides that nothing really good to say about this film unfortunately. Not worth watching. They're better movies out there.

A film based on a true story that can be told in two sentences, and the plot isn't actually even that much based on it. Basically it's a Finnish "slasher" film that isn't scary in any way.

How can that be possible ? In a horror movie the viewer should identify to at least one "victim" character and hope for hes or her (usually her) survival in some way. This movie makes none of the cast feel innocent or likable and twists the plot in so many so unnecessary ways the characters lose all value and become indifferent for the viewer.

It feels like the script was just brainstormed together in a single sitting without any work and all focus put into the set, cinematography, sound and music which are all state of art. In some scenes the actors do fine job but very bad in few - losing completely the credibility of the ongoing -panic- situation, although international audiences might not get this. When the movie ends one just feels empty and cheated - it meant nothing and it left nothing to ponder on.

These are common faults in modern publicly-funded Finnish cinema where tech, music and cinematography are great but driven with lazy writing and recycled boring cast that appears in about every title. Weren't the soviet days already over ?

For those interested in slightly better Finnish slasher horror, Kuutamosonaatti (1988) is something to check out.

So I guess I just didn't "get" LAKE BODOM. Why was it a good idea to go to the isolated site where a group of campers were massacred in the 1960s? To "recreate it"? And if there was an active psycho back then, he'd be in his 70s now...or early 80s? This film just seemed to lurch from one "surprise" to another and instead of show don't tell, the characters sat in the car and explained at great length why they did what they did. I thought the acting was fine, but the character's motivations seemed wildly out of sync with what they were reacting to. And no fault of the filmmakers, but the subtitles (yes, it's subtitled) are pretty bad. What's also interesting is that while the critics love it at RT, with a current score of 100% from 6 critics, audiences only give it a 38%. I'm one of those who is fine with "movie logic" but if you're going to have your psycho appear at the end, he needs some kind of explanation or we're to believe that for no reason whatsoever he hangs out in the woods for 50+ years...just hanging out?