On leaving the theatre having watched this, I was nearly sick and hyper-ventilating. But not due to any of the supposed gore or sickness in the film, but because it was quite possibly the worst movie Ive ever seen.
It nearly single-handedly destroyed all of the love I have for the cinematic form.
What an absolute pile of sh*te.
Admittedly, had I stumbled across it an hour in, whilst channel-hopping on cable, I may have enjoyed the last hour. However, as a film, a story, a well crafted or directed piece of celluloid it was appalling.
I am a bit of a horror afficianado, and like to think I know my Argento from my Eli Roth. That was a very poor pun on Arse from elbow just in case it didnt work very well...which is a good metaphor for the film.
It just didnt work.
Nothing hooked me.
The story was painfully paper-thin, not to mention the motives behind any of the events contained in it. We all know horror is not the most believable of plot forms, but with any story of any genre there has to be something, no matter how tenuous, that grabs you as a viewer and makes you want to a) care about the characters and b) be hooked on what happens next.
The premise engineered by 'horror saviour' Eli Roth was wrong in every aspect. Of the three main characters, the wrong one was chosen as the 'hero'. Well, he could have been the right one had the character development been right.
The reasons for them travelling the length of Europe to find a sordid hostel was risible. Especially considering how they found out about it, and the fact they were in Amsterdam at the time - the capital of filth and depravity!
They may have been trying to find a remote town with an equally hard to find hostel which was not on any maps...but the viewer is left with more signposts than, er, at a signpost makers shop.
Oh, and then there was the 'baddie' - introduced with such a lightweight backstory that if Id have sneezed hed have been blown off screen. Which incidentally would have made no difference to the 'development' of the story. The same held true for many of the characters and events in the film - their sole purpose seemed to be to act as a guide from one scene to the next, often in an excruciatingly obvious and pointless way.
The first main character was bumped off without it actually being seen, or any tension being created to lead you to believe something might happen. The first 'gory' bit wasnt even shown on screen, with merely a seconds shot of the aftermath, and an escape attempt that fizzled out quicker than Michael Barrymores comeback attempt.
There was one sole scene in the film which appeared to exist as an attempt to inject some humanity into the 'hero' and hint at hidden depths and strengths - presumably so that we would identify and bond with him later on.
I realise that as a horror film, it is meant to be popcorn-lite, and not concerned with deep character study and overly intricate subtexts. But this even failed, in my opinion, to meet the pre-requisites of any film. Poor direction. Poor story. Poor use of characters. Muddled plots and sub-plots. Badly edited and filmed horror sequences. Scenes were rushed with no tension build-up. Characters were introduced for no discernable reason or addition to the story, other than to set up the next scene.
The direction, editing and camera work were the worst things about this film. It COULD have been good had the scenes been filmed in a way that created a feeling of tension or 'put you in the middle of the film' - but the affinity towards the characters and their situation was never created, thus isolating you from being scared, excited or on edge.
On the plus side, yes, there were a few scenes that were nice and gory, and fulfilled my sadistic desires. I wont divulge too much, but the feet, the eye, the car, the fingers... were all reasonably good.
The problem was though, by that time, the direction and story had bored me so much, I just didnt care.
Thankfully I had such a good weekend I managed to recover from it...
Lets hope Silent Hill lives up to expectations...