Okay, here goes, I thought Matt Stasi was decent enough in the lead role as the terminally naive young doctor/psychologist guy who really would have been much better off just minding his own damn business! His performance was very weak, but not so awful that I didn't feel for the poor guy a little in the eerie final scene-the only one in the entire film in which he truly emotes! He was a cute one, I like that ratty look! I thought the monster of this picture, the Harvester, was a very cool-looking beast. I liked the effect with the eyes. The design of it wasn't exactly awesome or anything, but to me it still came off as more effective and threatening than some cgi creation in any given SyFy original. The thing didn't get up to that much, but what it did was a pretty terrible fate to be constantly looming throughout. ::: The setting was really good, I always love it in horror movies when the last lonely refuge of the criminally insane is corrupted or twisted in some way. I liked the weird visuals of the place. A lot of the lighting was strangely distorted and gave an almost surreal tone. Although I've seen it done a lot better, I think the setting is the best thing about this film, and is the main element that makes it a worthwhile and enjoyable watch for me. But alas, although the location had lots of potential for great scary atmospherics, they never made all that much use of it. And that's the big problem here, nothing's ever that strong-it's all so tame and slow-paced and it never quite takes off and overcomes its limitations. And the story never goes anywhere except exactly where you'd expect it to. And everyone seems to be saying the same things over and over:this place is evil, bad stuff going' down up in here, get out while you can! And that sameness does get a little grating after not so long. And the only thing that I did find genuinely dumb and that bugged me was when Bruce Payne's effectively villainous character speaks some vague nonsense of how the deaths of the sacrificial victims have to be timed so that they die just as the Harvester stomps up to brand them and claim their souls-which makes no sense at all, seeing as it's clearly the infernal act of the soul-stealing itself that kills them in the first place! And the doctor at the prologue at the beginning and presumably "James" weren't even evil! I just thought that stuff was plain sloppy and should have been left right out. ::: Everything sure looked very slapped together and choppy. The movie was low budget and it showed. But I actually like the film's cheapness, I think it lets you focus better on the its strongest point-a rather effective and subtle foreboding atmosphere of dread. And it does deliver quite well on the suspense. And it never drags and becomes such a total bore as to bore you to tears. It's merely an alright, fine kind of movie, I used to like to chill out to it late at night years ago when they had it on the Horror Channel. Ultimately the flick just isn't good enough, and that's probably a shame because it has its good points. It was entertaining enough and had a good creepy setup, even if they fail to do it justice. It falls flat, mainly because the pieces, while technically fitting together, just don't fit very well. Far indeed from the best, but nor would I say that "Hellborn" belongs with the very worst. Later!
Review of Hellborn
