NileFortnerBoogieBuddha954 SPOILER FREE REVIEWSplinter is an example of how all you need in the art form of cinema is a decent premise, dedicated actors in their roles, & creative direction. What the film doesn't have is a huge budget, CGI, & big name actors. Not having these, in my opinion benefited this great movie. Splinter is one of the best horror/hostage/science fiction/creature feature movies in a very long time. This film is a great way to return to the basic roots of horror, and science fiction. This movie reminded me very much of an '80s and '90s film Sam Raimi would get Bruce Campbell to sign up for. This whole idea, of some kind of creature taking over our bodies, and dominating, morphing, and killing life on Earth, is a breath of fresh air from the remakes and reboots we've been getting lately. These creatures, and the special practical effects, are so amazing. That just like the creatures themselves they made my bones crack, snap, and pop in unnatural positions. Horror fans like me, especially enjoy these types of effects, because we no longer see them, and if we do, it's not as well done as Splinter. The story is original, and the characters come off as realistic individuals. My only complaint is the movie has some scenes of shaky camera work, when the creature arrives. However, I can see why some people wouldn't mind this. It allows the viewer, to not fully see the creature, and it adds a little bit of suspense. Accordingly, the film is at its finest, when these characters need to make decisions, and the sudden shock of these creatures bursting at you on screen. Hence, even if you are not a fan of horror movies, I believe this movie is worth viewing. Also, if you're in the mood for some fun, shocking moments, and an old style creature feature look no further than Splinter. It's a good damn time fellas. This review is brought to you by Boogie Buddha, and remember don't just get down, but get Boogie. Thank you for reading, and have an amazing day as always. :)

georgiana-98758 Worst movie I have ever seen, poor story line, very bad acting, pathetic "horror scenes", low budget "special effects".The line of the story has no logic, they events defeated even the laws of physics and chemistry and science in general, there is no scientific explanation of anything, just chaotic bad acting of some people who I'm not sure they had a script.At some point you even forget what is the main idea of this "attempt of a movie" because the "horror scenes" are so hilarious but not in a good funny way, in a sad, predictable way. This movie is really a pathetic excuse for a horror and it is not scary at all. I am sorry I've lost 1 h 22 min of my life watching it but the only reason I saw it all was the hope of a surprise end....it didn't happen.

gavin6942 Trapped in an isolated gas station by a voracious Splinter parasite that transforms its still living victims into deadly hosts, a young couple and an escaped convict (Shea Whigham) must find a way to work together to survive this primal terror.This film features really cool effects, allegedly without the need for CGI. Toby Wilkins is incredible, and has lived up to the man whose shadow he had been under for a while (Sam Raimi).The plot is also good, and makes us think about internal and external threats. Externally is the creature, internally is the convict and conflict between people. But perhaps even more internal is the parasite, sort of creating a three-tiered layer of terror."Splinter" won six awards at the Screamfest Horror Film Festival: Best Editing, Best Score, Best Special Effects, Best Make-Up, Best Directing and Best Picture. "Splinter" was a nominee for Best Horror Film at the 35th Annual Saturn Awards, but it lost to "Hellboy II: The Golden Army", which is fair. It was also nominated in Spike TV's 2009 Scream Awards for Most Memorable Mutilation for the arm removal scene, but lost to "Saw V"'s Pendulum Trap, arguably a raw deal.

BA_Harrison Splinter boasts solid performances, reasonable production values, and some delightfully nasty ideas (including the removal of an infected arm by Stanley knife!). It could have been good, but it isn't..It doesn't matter in the slightest that the film never explains the precise nature of its threat—we don't necessarily need to know that in order to enjoy what is occurring—but for a film such as this to be truly effective, the viewer at least needs to be able to SEE what is going on; sadly, for much of the movie, it's nigh on impossible to follow what is happening to whom thanks to the dreadful wobbly-cam/rapid editing techniques employed by director Toby Wilkins.The picture is all over the shop whenever anything potentially exciting happens, robbing the action of any tension and rendering shocks ineffective. I suspect that the use of such erratic camera-work was used to disguise sub-par effects, but all it does is make the whole affair extremely frustrating to watch.Wilkins does at least get one thing right—he puts his lovely lead actress Jill Wagner in a tight vest for the duration—but even the ever-present eye-candy doesn't prevent this from feeling like a wasted opportunity.