Horst in Translation ([email protected]) "Vessel" is an American Englisg-language short film from 2012, so this one has its 5th anniversary this year. It is perhaps the most known work by director Clark Baker, but neither he nor any of the cast members are particularly well-known here. The stars are probably the Duffer Brothers because of their Emmy-nominated work on Stranger Things. But back to this one here: It runs for 14 minutes only and I think it starts pretty well with a strange situation on an airplane that may be close to an extraterrestrial life form. The claustrophobic location helps matters overall, but sadly the film quickly, i.e. when the danger gets visible, turns into a truly generic and forgettable mix of horror and Sci-Fi. And even if the genres are not exactly my favorite, especially the latter, I must say that it was also from a more neutral perspective anything special and got worse too quickly. I am not curious about a potential full feature film that is in talks to be made based on this pretty short movie. Watch something else instead.

washcloud To begin with, after reading the first ever review about "Vesel" I made the mistake of reading the one that followed it chronologically, as well (there's only two of them at present time). I'm calling it a mistake because while the first one was spot-on, the following is at best misleading, considering the quality value of the shortie in question. ...Which by the way is not "tentacles on a plane, at best" - it's rather "meaningless ripoff onboard". The length of it should be no excuse for claims such as "give it a break - had no room for development". 'Cause it had room alright for getting some outlandish creature in the fuselage of an everyday airliner in flight, without spending a measly half of a minute to give at LEAST some hint about its origin. In other words, the gruesome hijacker crosses pathways with the plane, in a fashion that a flock of geese would - that is, something which could be considered of an ordinary nature : no suspense, no elements of surprise, not some kind of an introductory summary (at least in the form of some, say, informative TEXT for goodness' sake, which would attempt to get the viewer in alignment with what is going to follow). What we instead get, is some creature that could be considered to be an offspring of the creature in the "Alien" franchise and "The Thing" feature movie, all wrapped-up in the aura of "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet" (...among other films, I might add). And that's EXACTLY why "The Vessel" does NOT work. Because once somebody HAS experienced all the previous, this one only works as a bad joke, when it is instinctively compared to them.There's always of course the case of using original ideas, to create something unique. Which unfortunately is not the one with "Vessel"... Had it been handled differently, it could have at least served like a collaging short of homage to various flicks of the past decades that made script and filming history with their originality. This one however simply feels to have the worth of some adolescent amateur having a keen interest in films and film-making that somehow tries to glue together various instances of the aforementioned blockbusters in an attempt to show off his skills and experiences (...in a "hey, I can do this too - here, have a look!" manner). The fact that the CGI effects indeed are somewhat decent, or the fact that its cinematography is one that gets much more than simply adequately digested by the viewer, does not compensate -not in the very least- for its poorly executed direction and certainly not for its utterly unworthy script.Neither was I expecting "too much" of it before viewing, nor am I ax-happy. But I seriously believe that the reviewer that made relevant comments, should better get HIS ax replaced because an instrument that much blunt nullifies its very nature. Being sympathetic to short filming attempts is one thing - being inexplicably forgiving to blatant flaws, is, however, another. Therefore giving it a "1=awful" vote, is all-in-all justified for me, because it's not that it's simply NOT entertaining as claimed, but it actually is disturbing, when being problematic in the degree mentioned before and a definite no-no to the loss of 13 minutes of the life of anyone above, say, 10-15 years of age, who might wish to take chances on watching it.

Joel Waite This was not 'Snakes On A Plane' it is 'Tentacles on a plane' at best. There were parts that were similar to other shows, but then again - it was just 13 minutes, not a lot of room for inventive development. For a 'short' the production was very similar to a full blown movie including some pretty decent CGI. The previous reviewer must have had an ax to grind, or simply was expecting way much from a simple quick script.I give a a 6.5 for it's entertainment value.I also give it another line because IMDb insists on it. I also give it another line because IMDb insists on it. I also give it another line because IMDb insists on it.

Doug Rainier How does something like this get made? Did anyone read the script before deciding to commit their money, time, and/or resources? Holy moly is the writing bad on this mash-up of sci-fi standards. The concept is beyond lame. The dialogue is so bad that it's hard to not laugh out loud at it. Character development? None.The beginning is a total rip-off of the Twilight Zone episode "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet", more specifically the 1983 film remake. That's where the similarities end. The Twilight Zone versions are original and classic. They were taught, tense, dramatic, hair-raising AND funny. This piece o' crap has none of those qualities. It is slow moving, has no tension, and is utterly predictable. "Vessel" very quickly becomes an alien "Snakes on a Plane".The directing is sub-par, but hey....whaddya want from a Kickstarter funded short, right? I suppose Clark should be commended for the effort. The writing, however, is so painfully bad that I can't understand why anyone would want to invest themselves or their money in making this a reality.The short was written by the Duffer Brothers. I don't know if that's their real last name, but it IS ironically fitting. The dictionary definitions for "duffer" are:1. a peddler of cheap flashy material (yep)2. something counterfeit or worthless (check)3. an incompetent, ineffectual, or clumsy person (bingo!)