Splinter

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

This is a quick-moving well done little horror film. It has some similarities to John Carpenter's The Thing, but def isn't on that level. If you like Monster movies/Body horror this is one to check out.

The acting is solid. The FXs were really well done. The movie moves along at a great pace. This is a prime example of a film working because of a shorter runtime. I think any longer and this might have started to bog down some. Instead, it kicks into high gear early and doesn't slow down until the end.

I really didn't have any major issues with anything in the film. Some of it did feel familiar, and there were a few annoying character moments. Overall, that's all very minor and nothing that hurts the film in any sort of way.

If you haven't checked it out, it's worth a watch!

My Rating: 6/10

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.

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.

Plot wise, this is a pretty typical zombie/infection style story - but the type of infection is a really great twist. I'll keep it that vague just so that you can enjoy it as blind as possible. Acting is decent, and while it's definitely a low budget movie, most of the effects look pretty good (there's some shots that are pretty rough though).

The problem is with the "action" scenes. I can handle some shaky cam, but the shaky cam in this movie is some of the worst I've ever seen - you can't follow anything. In one scene, a character gets killed but I literally couldn't tell until the other characters were reacting to it after it happened. I have to assume that the shaky cam is done to hide the lower budget effects, but it's bad enough that I'd rather see low budget effects.

Overall I do think that the movie is worth a watch because it's a really fascinating spin on the zombie/infection type of story - just know that the shaky cam is VERY bad.