Reviews

It's a mix of John Carpenter's The Thing, Event Horizon, and Aliens, with a smattering of Prometheus...

Prometheus, if only because the Search and Rescue team foolishly remove their helmets and protective gear when they know that a deadly, unidentified and powerful contagion or contaminant is present ("purged air" be damned). Being such an "elite" unit, this was simply a plot contrivance so that the whole team could be exposed and thus become infected.

The beginning of the film was hectic and frenzied, the middle rather dull and repetitive, and the ending (whichever interpretation you choose) was either feel-good silliness or just silly.

Many of the effects are passable, bad CGI was kept to a minimum, and the sets are reasonably well done on what must've been a very small budget (a lot of dark hallways and flexible plastic drainage pipes, blinking lights, dangling wires and steam, lots and lots of steam. One of the strangest parts of the set are the monochromatic computer screens from the mid 1980s, as well as a few other pieces of equipment which were obsolete by the end of the 20th Century). Many of the props (most notably their weaponry) are terrible, they're obviously just several pieces of plastic glued together.

All of the aforementioned issues can be easily overlooked when the story, characters, and acting are interesting and engaging. They were not. Not. At. All. The dialogue and acting are horrible; it's either stiff, wooden, and unnatural or ridiculously over-the-top, obnoxious scenery chewing. Those are your two choices. The story was hackneyed and filled with nonsensical technobabble and tremendously stupid decisions (all made just to serve the "plot"); it was very often a chore to sit through long stretches of the film.

Also, annoying shaky cam, jump cuts, and frenetic editing are still alive and well in the 23rd century.

And that just about does it.

I'm trying to think of other films that were either stolen from (or to be kind, that this film was an "homage" to)?

Pandorum is another one that comes to mind....

I love practical effects, I love John Carpenter's The Thing, I hated The Thing prequel (and not just because of the CGI), and I really wanted this film to be something to stick in the craw of Hollywood... but it was just... bad.

The acting was painfully bad, the plot was weak and redundant, the dialog was unnatural and forced, and the creature effects... I hate to say it, weren't really that great or original.

I'd watched ADI's YouTube videos, watched several interviews with Alex Gillis and Lance Henricksen (especially loved the ones with comicbookgirl19, plus she's hot); I've followed this film from its inception and was very excited to finally get to see it. And then I was so damn disappointed. The acting may be the weakest link in the film; it felt like everyone had never acted before and they were genuinely surprised to find themselves on a set, in front of cameras, reading from a script. Even Henricksen was rather weak (and he is the *beeping* man).

I just really, really wanted this film to harken back to Carpenter's The Thing, for the effects to be show stopping, and some were. The creature merged with the Russian woman toward the end of the film was the strongest of the lot. Very well done, quite realistic. But the bad acting (it's just so bad, y'all, with our protagonist, our heroine being the worst of the lot) just dragged the whole thing down. Weak script, weak actors.

The camera-work was passable. The set was well done. Costuming was okay, save for our three "researchers" who looked better attired for a hike in the mountains in fall than being on a crabbing boat in the Bering Sea. Music... honestly I can't remember anything about the film's score, so at least it wasn't intrusive. Just... damn. Damn, damn, damn I wanted to love this film....

I often wonder where these earnest, "rave reviews" by "raving reviewers" come from. They often appear right before or immediately after the release of a (typically low budget, usually horror) film, from accounts created (suspiciously) around the same time as the film's release. The posters review this one film, and this one film only, and then they promptly vanish into the æther forever....

Speaking of this film, it's mediocrity manifest (though not without some small measure of inspiration and merit behind it). No matter what the other "reviewers" claim, Slew Hampshire hardly breathes new life into the "People Stuck in the Woods, Horror Ensues, Commonsense Ignored" genre. It treads a well worn path; starting with a (not altogether successful) comedic tone and descends into horror. It attempts an oddly philosophic tack which I'll admit is rather interesting, but ultimately for naught. As horror films are wont to do, it tackles the darker aspects of man (rape, race, wanton violence and gruesome killings), but the film is scattered and unfocused, touching on a half-dozen genres (which I have no problem with so long as it serves the greater purposes and needs of the story while remaining entertaining; I needn't have my hand held through a film and I can certainly admire the ambition): Comedy, Road Trip, Hillbilly Horror, Gruesome Torture, Creature Feature, Exploitation.... The effects and gore were passable, though hardly does that a movie make. The cinematography was... experimental in an earnest, art-school-sort-of-way, but the filters, effects and framing were more a distraction than an aid. The acting, direction and story are at times awkward and hackneyed. The story? Well, you probably already know the story, though it does offer a few "twists".

It was written, directed, filmed, cast, and acted in by apparent hydra Flood Reed (who also went to the trouble to write a very enticing Summary of the film here on IMDb.com, as well a song on the soundtrack). Think: Joe Swanberg, but with some actual talent, vision and drive. Even in this rather disappointing film they are evident and I'll be keeping an eye on Reed as he hones his skills and develops his craft.