Outlander

Sympathy plays an important role in character development in films. Without sympathy, why do we care about the protagonist? Sympathy can be used to make us cry when a character dies, it can be used to make us cheer when they emerge victorious, and it can be used to pull the rug out from under us when a character turns out to be evil. If sympathy can make or break a film, consider Outlander broken.

Outlander is one of those films that, after reading the plot, you think that it's going to be the most bad ass film of all time. Outlander is the story of Kainen, a space marine who crash lands on planet Earth during the time of the Vikings. He is pursued by a giant space creature called a Morwen, and he must band together with a kingdom of Vikings to destroy the creature. Did I mention that the role of Kainen is played by Jim Caviezel, a.k.a. Jesus Christ? After reading a plot description like this, I walked into the theatre fully erect. I left it, not with priapism, but with erectile dysfunction.

There were so many things I wanted to complain about during this movie that I realized I needed a notepad to keep track of them. I'll start with what I mentioned in the opening paragraph. The biggest problem with this film is it's lack of sympathy development. Kainen is obviously the protagonist in the film. He crash lands on the planet and is taken hostage by a local group of Vikings. The Vikings think he may be part of a rival village, and they interrogate him with their fists. So, being a standard audience member, I should now feel sympathy for Kainen's plight and dislike the Vikings who just beat the shit out of him. Immediately following this scene, the film decides that now would be the time for the Morwen (the evil space creature) to attack the village. We're shown scenes of the brake Vikings falling in battle... but wait... why do we care? Weren't these the people that we were just shown beating the shit out of our hero, Kainen? Aren't they the bad guys?

With a skilled director, this sort of back and forth sympathy play could be used as a tool to make more dynamic characters and play with the audience's emotions, but fear not: These characters are as one sided as ever. The problem is that the director (the film, the producer, who do I blame here?) just seems to forget which side the characters are on. At the beginning of the film, we're introduced to some of the Viking characters that will play a larger role in the tale. Rothgar, the leader of the tribe, his (not) surprisingly well groomed and attractive daughter, Freya, and the hot-headed commander Wulfric. (Guess which one of those three gets taken hostage by the Morwen?) Wulfric is set to ascend to the throne on the death of Rothgar, and it is shown early in the film that he has strong feelings for Freya. One would suspect, as Kainen and Freya grow closer, that a love triangle would develop. Surprisingly, Wulfric seems to completely forget that he has feelings for Freya after the first ten minutes of the film, and Kainen and he become best buddies. And finally, the star of the show, the Morwen. The Morwen is a CGI monster with the upper body of a Hell Knight from Doom 3 and the rear of Godzilla from the horrible Matthew Broderick film. To be honest, it does look wicked, and the graphics are well done for such a low budget movie. It's unfortunate that the sounds it makes are "generic demonic monster sound taken from Doom 3" (so much so that iD software should probably contact their lawyers). Oh, there's also a Viking in this film named Boromir. Someone should contact the Tolkein family about that.

There's a lot of forgetfulness in this film, and I often wondered whether there was some underling dementia that had been written into the script. After the first attack on the village by the Morwen, the Viking men band together with Kainen to go hunt the creature. They find a cave that houses a giant bear, and they all work together to slay the animal. Cheer, drinks, and celebration ensue, because the Vikings all think that they've slain the creature that attacked their village. Kainen is well-aware that the creature that was killed was not the Morwen, yet he neglects to mention this small, but important, detail to anyone during the party. Maybe he just wanted to enjoy the free booze, or maybe he was still pissed that the Vikings had just beaten the crap out of him the day before. There are numerous plot holes in this film that revolve around characters and entities forgetting obvious facts, most of which would spoil the movie, but just be warned. There are some "are you kidding me?!" moments towards the bitter end.

But, back to sympathy. I mentioned earlier that sympathy was a large reason for why this film fails. The main conflict driving this film is that Kainen is being pursued by this horrific creature, and he needs to defend himself and the Vikings from destruction. Great, so we're supposed to care about his survival, right? Well, about that... Kainen decides to take a moment in the middle of the film to give us more insight into the backstory. We learn what his actual duties were, and why he was crash landing with a Morwen stowed aboard his ship. I'm not going to spoil anything, but let me just say that it doesn't paint him in a positive light. In fact, he sounds like a real douchebag after telling us the story. Again, in the hands of a skilled director, this could have been used to develop a dynamic and conflicted character. This never happens. Kainen is a one-dimensional hero that we're supposed to cheer for because he's fighting a monster.

The positive in this film is that Ron Perlman plays a dual hammer wielding bad ass Viking named Gunnar.

Ideological Formalism and the Sci-Fi Original

I've recently begun reading more on formalist theory and filmmaking. It's become obvious that ideological formalism, the idea that the classical Hollywood editing style is the way it is to appeal the most to to the audience and to earn the most profit, holds much truth. This is also evident in the Sci-Fi Original. For those unaware, the Sci-Fi Originals are a collection of quickly produced low budget monster or horror films produced or purchased excusively for the Sci-Fi network. These films typically have names like "Boa vs. Python" or "Frankenfish" and hearken back to the days of true B-movies.

Ideological Formalism is different from Auteur Theory of formalism in one key area: motivation. Ideological Formalism is the idea that it is not the director's own personal motivations and experiences that drive the film (such as in Auteur Theory) but the socio-economic and human pressures around him. In this sense, Sci-Fi originals embody Ideological Formalism in it's purest sense.

These films are mass produced, coming out at an astonishing rate of once each week, for a Saturday night premiere on the Sci-Fi network. They require small budgets of only one million to two million. The pressures put on them to keep the costs down greatly influence the filmmaking process. By releasing direct to DVD or a cable network, the filmmakers avoid the extensive costs of film processing. The films often have a basic set, such as a city, a jungle, or a desert. They often star almost all unknown actors, or at the most an actor with few major film credits such as Robert Beltran. Rarely, famous "B-movie" actors are cast in films. Stephen Baldwin, being an example, has starred in numerous straight to video or television films shown on the Sci-Fi channel.

The "monster" is the major draw for the film. The filmmakers need to come up with something original, yet amusing enough to retain the camp that is present in all of these films. Each film strives to be more over the top than the previous one, in order to grab the ratings on Saturday night. This is why sequels, spinoffs, or cliches will frequently occur. For example, "Boa vs. Python" was released in 2004. Since then, the snake meme has perpetuated in the Sci-Fi original film library. Following "Boa vs. Python" has been "Snakehead Terror" (2004), "The Snake King" (2005), "Fire Serpent" (2007), "Mega Snake" (2007), "Vipers" (2008), "and "Copperhead" (2008). This is one of many of the frequent memes present in Sci-Fi Original films. The filmmakers are heavily influenced by the success and ratings of the films. They will keep producing different snake films until it stops being profitable.

Ideological Formalism isn't a bad thing. To put it quite simply, it shows that we're influenced by external factors much of the time. It's clear that these filmmakers are producing these films for the ratings, and audiences respond well to that. Audiences aren't always looking for pure art in film, otherwise Michael Bay would be out of a job (...zing). Until the ratings shift in the other direction, Sci-Fi Original filmmakers will keep bringing us giant mythological creatures attacking a rag-tag band of adventures each week, and we'll keep enjoying watching them.

Full Frame Documentary Film Festival Prelims

I volunteered to work at the Full Frame Documentary Film Festival this year. I originally wanted to be a photographer, but the spots were limited and filled quickly. Instead, I will be working the "Civic," which basically means nothing important to any of you. The important fact is that I know have free reign to see as many films as I possibly can during the festival.

The organizer informed us that our volunteer pass allows us "about ten films." She said this as an estimation because, as she put it, "that's about as much as you will have time to see." She added that if someone was superhuman, they could make time to see more than ten, and in fact see as many as they want.

I'm planning on taking off work from my regular job during the Thursday and Friday of the festival to see as many films as I possibly can. I will of course be writing reviews of these films for my blog, so look forward to frequent updates from April 2nd through 5th.

Post-Oscar Wrap Up: How well did I do?

First off, I want to commend the designers of the show. It was incredibly well done. Now that that's out of the way, let's see how bad I did:

Best Adapted Screenplay:
I chose Slumdog Millionaire. The winner? Slumdog Millionaire.

Best Original Screenplay:
I chose In Bruges. The winner? Milk.

Best Director:
I chose Danny Boyle with Slumdog Millionaire. The winner? Danny Boyle with Slumdog Millionaire.

Best Supporting Actress:
I chose Marisa Tomei. The winner? Penelope Cruz.

Best Supporting Actor:
I chose Heath Ledger. The winner? Heath Ledger.

Best Actress:
I chose Kate Winslet. The winner? Kate Winslet.

Best Actor:
I chose Mickey Rourke. The winner? Sean Penn.

Best Picture:
I chose Slumdog Millionaire . The winner? Slumdog Millionaire.

That's 5 out of 8 correct, or 63%. In reviewing the picks that I got wrong, they definitely were close match-ups. I would love to see the voting results from the Academy. I imagine that the Best Actor category was very close.

I'm also surprised to see that The Curious Case of Benjamin Button somehow managed to avoid winning any major awards. It was nominated for thirteen, and it took home only 3: Art Direction, Makeup, and Visual Effects. I should mention that it won most of these while competing against The Dark Knight, so the fanboys are in an uproar this morning.

2009 Oscar Best Contenders Summary

With the Academy Awards just an hour away, here is the summary of my chosen nominations. I'm listing this for either posterity or embarrassment, depending on how correct my choices are.

Best Adapted Screenplay: Slumdog Millionaire
Best Original Screenplay: In Bruges
Best Director: Slumdog Millionaire
Best Supporting Actress: Marisa Tomei
Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger
Best Actress: Kate Winslet
Best Actor: Mickey Rourke
Best Picture: Slumdog Millionaire

2009 Oscar Best Contenders Part 8: Best Picture

And here we are, the Oscar for Best Picture. Arguably the most prestigious award any film can ever hope to receive. We have five strong films here, and this is going to be good. Let's look at the nominees:

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - When Forrest Gump came out 13 years ago, it swept the Oscars, arriving with a record setting 13 nominations and leaving with 6 Oscars: Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, Best Visual Effects, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Picture. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button has been compared to Forrest Gump, both in it's storyline, it's epic scope, and it's devotion to telling a story about American life. This film has 13 nominations going into tonight, the exact same as Forrest Gump. How many will it take home?

Frost/Nixon - Admittedly the underdog in this race. Ron Howard's adaptation of the play of the same name is led largely by the performances of the two leading actors, which makes it a long-shot for taking home the win.

Milk - Put a brilliant actor and a brilliant director together and what to do get? This film, which chronicles the life and death of Harvey Milk, California's first openly gay elected official. This film has been getting heaps of praise for it's portrayal and of Sean Penn's award-winning performance. This film wasn't nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Picture, with Revolutionary Road taking it's place.

The Reader - Nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Picture as well, this period piece, wouldn't have been up here without Kate Winslet.

Slumdog Millionaire - Is this film really the underdog that people are claiming it to be? Slumdog Millioniare may have been a small film, especially compared to the gargantuan budget of Benjamin Button, but this movie has already taken home numerous awards including a Golden Globe for Best Picture. With critics fawning all over this film, it looks to be Slumdog's year.

Conclusion: I choose Slumdog Millionaire, Regis. And, yes, that's my final answer.

2009 Oscar Best Contenders Part 7: Best Actor

What sort of hodge-podge has this years Oscars brought us? A selection of epic proportions.

Richard Jenkins, The Visitor - A man who has worked in the field for thirty-five years, finally getting recognition by numerous groups all for this one film. Is this the only chance in his life at Oscar gold?

Frank Langella, Frost/Nixon - Another established actor. A career spanning forty-five years. Numerous accolades. His first Oscar nomination. Has he finally done enough to win?

Sean Penn, Milk - The Oscar veteran. His fifth nomination in the past 14 years, and possibly his second win. Will he had another trophy to his case?

Brad Pitt, TCCOBB - The pretty boy. The Hollywood sex symbol. His second Oscar nomination. Can he overcome his image to finally claim gold?

Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler - Out of nowhere, it's Mickey Rourke. The ultimate underdog in this contest. Huge amounts of buzz; claims of "resurrection." When did this B-movie star turn into a genuine actor of Academy material?

Conclusion: It's going to be Davis vs. Goliath. Rourke flexed acting muscles he didn't even know he had, and he finally proved he's capable enough to be a respected actor. Penn is the veteran, and always gives a spellbinding performance in all of his films. Here's hoping: Rourke takes home the gold.

2009 Oscar Best Contenders Part 6: Best Actress

Kate Winslet has been receiving mountains of praise this year for her roles in both The Reader and Revolutionary Road. This year will mark her sixth Oscar nomination. Can she finally take home the golden trophy? Let's look at the nominees:

Anne Hatheway, Rachel Getting Married - A strong performance, and Hathaway has already been scooping up nominations left and right. This film has been near the top of many a reviewer's top ten lists.

Angelina Jolie, Changeling - Why was this nominated?

Melissa Leo, Frozen River - After being in the business for over twenty years, this fine actress is finally getting the well-deserved recognition.

Meryl Streep, Doubt - Streep gives her usual mesmerizing performance. She's one of the most prolific winning actresses in Academy history. I've written much about Doubt in the past few days, so I'm sure you're well aware of how I feel about this performance.

Kate Winslet, The Reader - Winslet delivered two powerful performances this year, and she has been receiving mountains of praise for both. The Acadamy had to pick one, and they were right to choose The Reader. Her performance was the focal point of this film.

Conclusion: Both Hathaway and Winslet are good picks for this Oscar, and frankly it's anyone's guess on who will win. If I had to choose, though, I would say that the Academy will finally honor Winslet with an Oscar.

2009 Oscar Best Contenders Part 5: Best Supporting Actor

This category is going to be one of the most watched for one reason: Heath Ledger. Fans have been clamoring for him to get a posthumous award for his mesmerizing portrayal of The Joker in The Dark Knight that led to his eventual overdose on pain medication. Let's review the nominees:

Josh Brolin, Milk - It's often difficult for actors to keep up with Sean Penn when they star alongside him in a film. Penn has a way of taking over a film, and it makes it hard to keep up, even for the most skilled actors (See: Mystic River). Brolin attempted this in Milk, but his character just wasn't stretching the limits beyond the roles that Brolin has been doing recently. As a result, Milk was all about Penn.

Michael Shannon, Revolutionary Road - With all the other nominees in this category, Shannon is going to fall into the background. A nomination will be good enough to boost the career of this actor, who is quickly making his way from bit part to star performer.

Robert Downey Jr., Tropic Thunder - Largely considered the comedy option for this award (pun intended), Downey Jr.'s role as Kirk Lazarus, the actor with a tortured soul who went to great lengths for his role in an action film, was one of the most complex and difficult roles of the year. Downey Jr.'s self-identifying statement in the film, "I know who I am, I'm a dude playing a dude pretending to be another dude!" echoed the lengths that Downey Jr. went to portray Lazarus. In an age where most comedies star actors playing themselves (or their comedic "character") in every film, Downey Jr. went the extra mile. His serious portrayal parodying actors who get far too invested in their role was almost the only source of constant laughs in Tropic Thunder. In what is one of the great ironies of our time, he was nominated alongside an actor who went to such great lengths to portray a character that it actually killed him. Downey Jr. deserves the nomination for this controversial role.

Philip Seymour Hoffman, Doubt - I was surprised that Hoffman wasn't nominated for Best Actor for his role as Father Flynn. This could have been due to the fact that the Academy had many choices for Best Actor, and Hoffman was simply knocked down to the supporting category. It also could be that Streep's portrayal of Sister Beauvier was the main focus of the film and thus relegated Hoffman's character to a supporting status. Regardless, Hoffman delivered his usual fierce performance as Father Flynn, a pastor accused of molesting a child. Dialogue is what carried Doubt, and the back and forth banter, the stares, the subtleties that were shared between Streep and Hoffman were nothing but brilliant. Hoffman is a strong contender for the win in this category.

Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight - What else can be said that hasn't been said before? Ledger's performance was simply magnficent. Until The Dark Knight, no one really knew the depths to which the infamous Batman villian could be portrayed on screen. The actors who had played the role before him did play him maniacally, but it was always with a hint of comedy with a wink and a nod to the audience. Ledger took it far beyond what anyone could have imagined. The Joker and his psychosis fully realized and explored.

Conclusion: Ledger would have been a lock for this category even before his untimely death. The fact that he died only furthers the fact that this will be given posthumously. Look for Michelle Williams to accept the award.

2009 Oscar Best Contenders Part 4: Best Supporting Actress

I feel that many people are often confused by what constitutes a supporting actress as opposed to a leading actress. Why do I say this? Well, for one, Kate Winslet won a Golden Globe this year for her performance in The Reader. The award? "Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture." It may have something to do with the fact that she was also nominated in the Leading Actress category for Revolutionary Road, but I find it confusing that she could be nominated in the Leading Actress category at the Academy Awards for the same role in The Reader that netted her a Supporting Actress award at the Golden Globes. I'll talk more about that, however, when I get to the Best Actress section. Onto the nominees:

Amy Adams, Doubt - Adams gave a strong performance in this film, which was difficult to do alongside the combined scene-stealing power of both Philip Seymour Hoffman and Meryl Streep. The two played off each other brilliantly, and Sister James (Adams) was the mediating center between the firey passion of Father Flynn and the icey heart of Sister Beauvier. She's a strong contender for the win in this category.

Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona - Cruz has already snagged a few awards from other festivals for her supporting performance in this film. This is her second Oscar nomination, the first being for 2007's Volver. There are two other nominees in this category more deserving. She gets the nomination, but she won't get the Oscar.

Viola Davis, Doubt - With what little screen time Viola Davis had in Doubt, she definitely made her mark as the concerned mother of the child taken under Father Flynn's wing. Despite this effoer, however, she was overshadowed for most of the film by the enthralling dialogue between Hoffman, Streep, and Adams. It's unfortunate, but she won't win this category.

Taraji P. Henson, TCCOBB - Henson's supportive performance as the nurturing mother of Benjamin Button earned her a nomination this year, and I actually wonder why. TCCOBB was such a giant film, and Henson's character often fell into the background among the epic story, the makeup, the costumes, and the love story in the film. She was a small rock tossed into the ocean of this film, making tiny ripples amongst the giant waves. Don't get me wrong, she did a fine acting job, but the film was just too big for her to deserve a nomination.

Marisa Tomei, The Wrestler - This will mark Marissa Tomei's third nomination for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in her career. She won in 1993, playing the Mona Lisa Vito, the streetwise fiance of Vincent Gambini in My Cousin Vinny. Can she repeat her success over 15 years later?

Conclusion: Look for Tomei to claim her second Supporting Actress Oscar at this years awards. Unless they hate strippers.

2009 Oscar Best Contenders Part 3: Best Director

Best Director is always one of those difficult categories. When a powerful film is nominated for both Best Picture and Best Director (as is the case with every single nominee in both categories this year), one has to question what makes the film. Is it the film as a whole? If all the parts of the film, the actors, the cinematography, the music, the art direction, and the director all work together to create the masterpiece, does that make a film a Best Picture? If the film would not be what it is without the masterful work of the director, does that mean that the film should win for Best Director? But aren't all films this way? Isn't the director such an integral part of the film anyway that without him it could not succeed on it's own? If this is true, then perhaps the Best Director award is given to those directors who go beyond simply guiding the film to it's inevitable conclusion. Perhaps it goes to those directors who express those qualities of the Auteur or leave some mark of themselves some way upon the film. Let's examine the nominees:

Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire - This is the expected film to win in this category. Slumdog would have been completely different without Boyle at the helm. (I considered saying "nothing without," but who knows what it would have been like with someone else?) Boyle guided the story to it's conclusion masterfully, and considering he's racked up a half dozen awards already for Best Director, it's looking like there's a good chance he may add one more.

Stephen Daldry, The Reader - A very well done film from the director with the fewest notches under his belt of anyone else in this category. Daldry has only directed a handful of feature films, and this nominee is for a film largely led by the leading actress performance. A longshot candidate for the Oscar gold.

David Fincher, TCCOBB - The second most likely film to win this category. Not much to say about this film, as it is a strong contender for many of it's nominated categories. There's a chance, but I highly doubt it.

Ron Howard, Frost/Nixon - Another film largely carried by the performances of the actors within it. An unlikely winner in this category.

Gus Van Sant, Milk - A great director, an established history, and a great film. Another time and another place, maybe, but this is Boyle's year.

Conclusion: When two strong films are nominated for both Best Director and Best Picture category, the Academy tends to give one award to each film. In this case, look for Boyle to walk away with the Oscar gold for Best Director. Slumdog Millionaire depended too much on his guidance.

2009 Oscar Best Contenders Part 2: Original Screenplay

This is a interesting category. Like the adapted screenplay category, here we have two strong contenders, a wild card, and two weak contenders. Let's review:

Frozen River - This film is up for two awards this year: Best Actress and Best Original Screenplay. Unfortunately, it's up against two very strong nominees in both categories. Despite the awards this film has won already, look for it to be a longshot in this race.

Happy-Go-Lucky - The wild card in this race. This film is performance led, largely focusing around Sally Hawkins' role as Poppy, but the script was original enough to warrant a nomination. The film has already won 16 awards (only one of them being for the screenplay). The Academy sometimes picks quirky saccharine independent films as of late (see the original paragraph in Part 1 of my Contenders choices). This film could surprise everyone with a win.

In Bruges - One of the two strong contenders in this race. This is this film's sole category. The film has already won numerous other awards for best original screenplay. Since McDonaugh didn't get a nod for Director, look for In Bruges to be a likely winner.

Milk - Another strong contender. Milk is up for eight Oscars, including best picture, best director, and best actor. Unfortunately, every one of those categories has it pitted against a stronger candidate. This is Milk's most likely category for a win, but it has to go up against In Bruges.

Wall-E - It's rare that animated films get nominated for this category. The script is good, but Wall-E is a lock to win in the Best Animated Feature Film of the Year category instead.

Conclusion: Look for In Bruges to take this category.

2009 Oscar Best Contenders Part 1: Adapted Screenplay

The Academy Awards have recently been an event of dismay among many film critics, myself included. With such wins that occurred last year, especially when compared among the other films in the field, especially the fact that such a film would even be considered (and was) for a best picture nomination, it can cause critics to lose faith in the Academy.

That being said, these awards are the most important in the nation, so I will review the major categories and pick the most likely winner. These are not my favorite picks, rather, but the picks that I feel the Academy will choose.


Best Writing, Adapted Screenplay: A group of very strong films here. The Adapted Screenplay category tends to avoid the hype-machine and produce a legitimate winner... most of the time. Let's go over the nominees:

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - This one is iffy. The film has received much critical acclaim, but it's mainly been for other aspects of the film, mainly the makeup (look for a definite win in that category). The Academy tends to shy away from giving wins to big budget releases in this category, especially when they're nominated for so many others.

Doubt - A mid-level contender, but a long-shot to win the award. This film was lead primarily due to the strong performances of the leading cast (Hoffman, Streep), but this could be a wild card.

Frost/Nixon - Another weak contender for the award. There hasn't been much hype around this film, and it relies strongly on the two leading actor performances.

The Reader - A strong candidate. Hare has written mostly for television, but the Academy can give the award to those small longshot films and surprise you. This one could take it.

Slumdog Millionaire - Bet on Beaufoy's adapted screenplay taking the Oscar in this category. Slumdog is up for many awards, but this one is one if it's strongest categories.

Conclusion: It's going to be a toss-up battle between The Reader and Slumdog Millionaire, but I think that the Oscar goes to Slumdog Millionaire.

Splinter

The Body Horror genre has long been a niche with one dominating force: David Cronenberg. He firmly established himself as the figurehead of body horror with such films as Rabid, The Fly, and Videodrome. The reason that Cronenberg's films work so masterfully in this genre is due to the focus on the paristitic infection, the invading alien element, as the main antagonist in the film. The fear that is brought about when someone is transformed against their will into something inhuman, when someone is violated (and definitely with sexual metaphors in many of Cronenberg's films) and their body is taken over. Cronenberg's success in this genre has, in a large way, laid the framework for how a successful body horror film must be written.

Splinter is a film about a group of four people that end up being trapped in a gas station in the middle of nowhere. The attacking force originally appears to be a reanimated corpse of a gas station attendant, covered from head to toe in strange splinters. The splinters reveal their true nature early on in the film, as a parisitic force that takes control of its infected host.

The “splinter” effects in the film, or when a character in the film is taken over by the parasite, are done remarkably well for the budget. The antagonists, the infected "splinter" bodies, move with a series of jerky, primal movements, captured with quick handheld shots. We don't see much of the monster, but we see enough that it works well as an agent of fear. This is a notable but common tactic that has worked well in other successful horror films, most notably Alien (I should mention that Alien is one of the few non-Cronenberg films that is championed in the Body Horror genre). When we don't see the monster in it's entirety, our imagination tends to fill in the rest of the horrific details. The shots in the film are done in an extremely shallow depth of field, and this adds to the claustrophobic feel as the characters are trapped in a 20ft square room for most of the film.

This film fails on two fronts. When a script limits itself to a handful of characters for the majority of the film, the film is shouldered upon these few characters. They have to be strong in order to bear this burden. This comes in the form of strong acting, strong dialogue, and strong character development. If this doesn’t happen, it definitely gets noticed. In Splinter, we meet a cast of stereotypes and hypocrisies. The initial ineptness of the city-folk couple is expected, but they seem to grow a surprisingly large pair by the end of the film. And the convict who hides a heart of gold? Strangely enough, the couple he kidnapped must have realized that fact before the audience, because they seemed quite willing to save his life immediately after having a gun pointed at their face.

Like the fates of most horror films, this one rises and falls on the success of the monster. As I mentioned earlier, the fear in Body Horror films is on the infection; the invasion of the body by a mysterious and deadly force. This film barely touches the surface of what could have been explored on this subject. One character finds themselves “splintered,” and this fact seems to stay quiet for most of the film. The director chooses, instead, to have the fear be directed outwardly towards an antagonist keeping the group trapped inside the gas station. The problem, in this case, is that the director isn’t presenting the horror for what it is: a parasitic infection. If you keep the infection at bay for the entire film, and you don’t present it as an invading force within the protagonists, then you’re ignoring the fear that a body horror film can bring to the audience. Had the director explored this more, Splinter could have been much more successful. This isn’t a bad film, but an enjoyable scary flick that reminds you of what it could have been.