Review: SPLINTER

Posted by Peter Hall - February 17th 2009 @ 11:10 pm

Directed by Toby Wilkins, 2008
Written by Kai Barry, Ian Shorr


SPLINTER is the most frustrating horror film of 2008.  Kair Barry and Ian Shorr’s script has interesting material, but it is Toby Wilkins direction of said sequences that makes SPLINTER borderline intolerable.

I love independent horror.  I love the resourcefulness of filmmakers who ebb the constraints of budget or talent with well intentioned imagination.  Toby Wilkins is not of this ilk.  The visual effects specialist turned director is either from a planet without tripods or has a crippling phobia of any structure that can hold a camera in place for more than three blinks of an eye.  Things start off well enough, but once the story of a parasite that transforms its host into a heat sinking lump of flesh gains momentum any traditional appreciation for cinematography goes out the window.

SPLINTER devolves into a production that looks like a home brew YouTube film.  High fluorescent lighting with steady shots wider than mid level rarer than unobtainium.  And that’s just for dialog.  When action goes down, of which their is admittedly a satisfactory amount of, SPLINTER devolves in to a 16 year old’s YouTube video on its fourth red bull filmed by an epileptic camera man with Tourette syndrome in the midst of a full on seizure having looked through the eye piece and seen the motion blurs of nonsense intended to cover up the shortcomings of visual effects post and practical.  It is mind numbing in the worst way, mind numbing because it doesn’t have to be this way.

SPLINTER wouldn’t be so numbing without the promise hidden in the motion blur.  The frustration is induced by an earnest desire to see the script done right.  Sure Barry and Shorr’s treatment wears its THE THING wet dream aspirations on its blurry sleeve, but that’s acceptable because pseduo-bipedal amalgamations of once humans are never a bad thing.  Well, except when filmed during what looks like an earthquake on the surface of a planet being devoured by a black hole at 9000 frames per second.

I’m also confused as to why this war on the senses was necessary at all.  In the few hallowed moments in which the creature is kept center frame for more than two consecutive seconds it always looks like solid work.  Either those are beautiful freaks of nature or Wilkins was going for a frenetic visual pace intended to mirror the panic of the script.  The only problem is that it doesn’t panic the viewer. At all.  It annoys the fuck out of them.  Leave the shaky cam reserved for the first person.

The horror highs of once alive body parts assaulting those still alive might have been more tolerable were the downtime more involving.  There is zero chemistry between the romantic couple at the heart of it, played by Paulo Costanzo and Jill WagnerShea Whigham is the only actor of the central trio to rise above the material and he’s not even the one the audience is rooting for.  Not until the script pulls a sappy rabbit out of its hat, turning the me-first badass into a lame duck with a twist that should only be called a twist because of how unnecessary a change it is.

Normally I’d not harsh on an indie’s mellow because its ambition was outside of its reach, but SPLINTER’s ambition should have been within reach of any director with a cohesive vision no matter how logistically challenged the production was (note: I have no clue as to the production history here).  It certainly should not have been such a challenge to convey an effects heavy number to someone who has built a career on creating visual effects.  All things being equal, the remaining logic is that the picture’s unwieldy viscosity was intentional.  That being the case, I can’t help but sadden at the lack of substance remaining on screen.  It’s not a matter of hiding it from the viewer, manifesting a torturous balance between supply and demand a la CLOVERFIELD.  The demand is there.  Demand was there at the first glimpse of a man’s bones spontaneously breaking themselves, an effect that was done to wondrous awe in 100 FEET with no seizure cam necessary.  It was supply what took a dirt nap.

Tags:


rss 11 comments
  1. R.J. Sayer
    February 18th, 2009 | 9:51 am | #1

    dude, after tearing my hair out over your acquiescent response to the Bay-ified F13, i am incredibly relieved to discover you feel the same way i do about this particular turd.

    don’t believe the hype, people.

    SPLINTER is the new DESCENT.

  2. February 19th, 2009 | 9:10 pm | #2

    I really dug this one. I wrote a review of it on my blog and only gave it 3 out of 5 stars, but in retrospect, I should’ve rated it higher. This is one I’ll drop everything and watch whenever it comes on (probably the Sci-fi Channel where it premiered). Now if only we could get a solid, R-rated sequel to “The Thing.”

  3. R.J. Sayer
    February 20th, 2009 | 1:55 am | #3

    yay. “Small Town Critic”… you are simply another brick in the wall of duped sucker fuckwits.

    congrats.

  4. February 20th, 2009 | 8:17 am | #4

    Woah, I wouldn’t go that far. I can see why people like SPLINTER, but it’s too flawed for me to give it a pass.

    It’s not THE DESCENT.

  5. February 20th, 2009 | 8:59 am | #5

    THE DESCENT is the bomb!

  6. R.J. Sayer
    February 20th, 2009 | 10:21 am | #6

    i’d rather watch THE DESCENT again than SPLINTER.

    at least you could see the fucking monsters in that one.

  7. February 20th, 2009 | 11:05 am | #7

    What if you had to choose between those two and PHANTOMS?

  8. February 20th, 2009 | 3:22 pm | #8

    PHANTOMS wins any election in which it is included. You know this.

  9. February 20th, 2009 | 5:23 pm | #9

    Also – wouldn’t 9000 frames per second be exceptionally smooth? Nine frames per second…now that would be jumpy.

    Exhibit A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3YH5C_yH7Y

  10. March 29th, 2009 | 6:00 am | #10

    I haven’t seen this movie, but another movie that revels in frustrating camera work is Philip Adrian Booth’s Death Tunnel (2005).

    I think Booth was aspiring to MTV-like visuals. Or maybe Tony Scott’s quick cuts in The Hunger (1983). On both counts, he fails.

    Instead, you have to sit through (if you can) a movie that just can’t keep still or let itself flow coherently.

    You can watch a preview of the film here. Strangely, the poster has dubbed it “One of the best horror films made”.

    Perhaps he was being sarcastic…

  11. February 16th, 2012 | 8:44 pm | #11

    Hey There. I found your blog site using msn. This is an extremely well written article. I’ll make sure to bookmark it and come back to read more of your useful information. Thanks for the post. I’ll certainly comeback. 500 rublei

comment on this article


Recent Comments