Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Ploydsge just watch it!

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Leofwine_draca SPLINTERED is a near unwatchable shot-in-the-woods slice of British horror, not to be confused with the excellent American horror flick SPLINTER, in which Shea Wigham fought a horrible monster at a gas station. This one has almost no story, just a bunch of unlikeable characters travelling out into the Welsh woods where inevitably they meet their deaths in various unpleasant ways.It's the kind of story which is clichéd beyond belief, not that there's much in the way of story to begin with. The big reveal made me groan inwardly, thinking "not another one of THOSE stories". There's little to no bloodshed here, and little in the way of atmosphere or suspense either. The characters are very thinly drawn and none of them are in the least bit likable or interesting. It doesn't help that the cast members have been drawn from WATERLOO ROAD and the like. Looking back, I can't think of a single reason to bother watching this one.

jmbwithcats The movie had some good oldschool Jeckyl and Hyde / werewolfy atmosphere, and some good story elements, but the elements I liked the most were left unexplored and undeveloped which means the atmosphere fell flat about halfway through. The girls were very easy on the eyes, but ultimately there was little left keeping me watching by the hour marker, but with 30 minutes left I decided to give the rest a chance.One figures out the movie within the first moments you meet Gavin, so the reveal is pretty droll... the gore and music were very mediocre and no opportunities were taken advantage of, in fact I don't think they even had some syncing action in the film with the music... because everything was flat... The acting was okay, the script thin, but with potential, no decent music score of orchestration, no interesting dialog, and didn't really care much for the characters beyond the physical... so I'd have to say, poor showing:2/10

kosmasp You know it's one thing to make people believe one thing and then reveal to them that it might be something completely different. Or is it? But anyway, this movie tries to be clever in many respects par the dialogue and character development. It's all been said and done before and one twist or another do not change the fact, that it is poorly realized.Of course, this is low budget, so I'm not gonna talk about the effects (that seem decent enough for a movie like this), but it still could have done with a few rewrites. If you haven't watched Teenagers in peril movies, you might find something here for you, but there are so many other (good) movies out there, that you could be watching instead. I hope the filmmakers can come up with a better one, next time around.

Cbor1 I saw this film at the English premiere and felt compelled to write. This review contains spoilers.Synopsis: The film begins reasonably enough with a young girl ('Sophie') hiding from a monster that enters her room at night. I liked the way this scene was handled and felt there was a palpable sense of fear. However, I felt it went down hill from there. The film fast-forwards to the present day, where the girl has become a 'goth-lite' (to use a character's phrase) woman who enlists a group of her friends to go off in search of a mysterious animal that is terrorising livestock. The good: The locations looked suitably spooky, and I felt that unusually good use was made of the backdrop in the camping scene. Holly Weston ('Sophie') was able to convey most of the emotion of the part, particularly at the end, even if she looked a little too physically perfect (in my opinion). Stephen Martin Walters playing the saner brother, Gavin, was able to engage sympathy. The best part of the film is his final speech.The bad: Some of the dialogue is clunky, particularly between the teen group at the beginning. Some of the acting (particularly from the avenging priest) is extremely wooden. I'm a total coward, yet after the first five minutes, I didn't find this film even remotely scary - too many close-ups on people drooling just made it seem silly to me. I found the supporting teenagers to be too stereotypical for words, though 'Dean' did at least gain sympathy. and finally (here is the main spoiler)I found the film unbelievably crass. To recap: the film is about some kids who go off to find an animal that is attacking people/livestock. They find out that this animal is actually a human who has lived with dogs for years. This human is at times apparently superhuman, sometimes apparently not, for unexplained reasons. The final scene shows the lead character's 'real' motivation was that she had reinterpreted her own childhood sexual abuser (her father) as the demon-type monster in her dreams. I felt that this ending seemed tacked on to the film to give it gravitas, and that because the rest of the film is so light and frankly silly in places, it seemed completely inappropriate. At least films like Last House on the Left keeps a level tone to justify themselves. I watch some pretty hardcore horror, yet because of the sheer ineptness of execution, this is the one I consider to be in questionable taste. Films earn 'worth' through good execution - skillful storytelling and acting - not by having a serious issue stuck on the end up justify the stuff in the middle. I felt it actually made a mockery of the serious things it was trying (through flashbacks etc) to discuss.