User reviews

Trust me, there's nothing in the portal you would ever want to see. Do you like horror films? Were you tempted by the mention of Michael Madsen in the cast list? That was how they got me to sit through this. Big mistake. The film looks like it was shot in the nineteen seventies with a budget that's been drummed up by a guy walking round collecting change in a slightly stained hat. Oh, and Michael Madsen is barely in it. He was better in Celebrity Big Brother.

The Portal has bad acting, awful computer generated special effects (were they rendered on a ZX Spectrum?), terrible dialogue, stupid camera angles and looks cheaper than something made for cable TV (bypassing even a straight-to-DVD release).

Some films are so bad they're good (Demons or Starcrash, for example). This one is just bad, bad, bad - seriously, save yourself an hour and a half and watch the shopping channel instead (the prices of those gold bracelets are a damn sight scarier than anything in the Portal).

http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/

They have a movie. A full length, 90 minute movie. Then why are all the actors acting like they are auditioning for soap operas? I was able to watch 27 minutes. Boring. Seen on Tubi, the free streaming site, which unfortunately, has too many movies like this dog.

I can't believe that this movie had a budget of $3,500,000, $3.50 would be more believable, it doesn't even have the redeeming quality of being "so bad it is good"...

First the acting is completely forced and so obviously false that you really do get the feeling that you are watching a really low budget 70's - 80's Porno movie without the fleshy bits, the acting is not so much wooden as petrified...

Secondly I get the feeling that this was directed by a 8 year old kid in the way that it bumbles along...

Thirdly if the 8 year old directed it then their 5 year old sibling wrote the script...

The cinematography was also about the level of a really poorly made porno with some sort of wedding video editing effects whenever the female lead goes into one of her weird daydream flashback recollection type things...

This is a stinker of the highest order and could only be rescued from the wastebin of history by the intervention of the rifftrax guys who could at least add a comical commentary to this dire drivel...

*sigh* I picked up this movie on the cheap because all the Blockbuster stores are closing in my area and they were clearing out their inventory. Of the many selections I picked out this DVD was one of the few that looked like it was in good enough condition to actually play in my DVD player. After seeing this film I'm now convinced that the reason for it's good condition is that I'm probably the only person who actually watched it all the way through.

This movie is bad. What makes it bad? Let's start with the acting. It's not horrifically bad, but almost everyone's delivery is just sort of...off. People's reactions to many events aren't believable. I got the impression that most of the actors only read the script once...in the dark.

The bad acting could be a symptom, though, of the bad writing. The movie jumps from one scene to the next without really explaining enough of what's going on. It's like being told jokes from someone who is drunk, sleep-deprived and forgets the punchlines. It is really a bad sign when you get more information about a movie from the DVD cover then you do by actually watching it.

The movie's near-constant playing of suspenseful music gets distracting, but fortunately it plays so much that you might be able to sort of ignore it after a while. That's sort of the opposite effect you want your suspenseful music to have, isn't it?

This movie does have some fairly big names in it (Michael Madsen, Roddy Piper, Stacy Keach), but in a movie this bad it just sort of makes you wonder if they did this movie on a dare.

By the end of this movie I had gone from not knowing what was going on, to not caring what was going on and just wanting it to end. When it did, finally end I found myself sitting on my couch, drinking warm root beer and saying "...to what? Portal to what?" over and over again for about five minutes. Writing this review is basically therapy for yours truly.

In short...bad movie.

From the moment the film opens to its ending credits, the soundtrack never stops. Possibly the director thought the endless cacophony of strings and wind instruments would lend some flair to this uninspired epileptic mess, but it only managed to give me a headache. It took me 3 sittings to make it through this drabfest, not necessarily because it was bad (it was) but because of the never-ending soundtrack.

As to the movie ? A nurse and her (hot) male colleague (the only reason this got a 1/10) investigate the bizarre head-exploding death of a former patient. As they meet the relatives of the victim, a couple of other heads explode and ghost children emerge from a black painting looking like a fuzzy B&W TV screen, probably because they are the key to this exploding-head mystery, but you'll never know, because by the time the movie reaches its pitiful climax, the music gets so obtrusive that you can't hear anything Michael Madsen says before he starts laughing hysterically and his head explodes. The poor nurse is now into hysterics and you will be too, unless you pop a Cuprofen.

The premise is good but the rendering is awful, it truly is the only descriptive for this movie and be sure that I am reviewing the correct movie, I waited 2 years to see this film expecting great things only to be severely disappointed. I have also seen Portal (2008) and if I had to judge, I would say that Portal (2008) was the better movie!

This movie starts badly, the middle is awful and the ending is totally dreadful, I do not recommend it at all, I did not pay a great deal for the DVD but I still feel conned simply because so much fuss was made over this movie and I waited so long to see it.

I think the director must have been aiming for an 'arty' style but he has failed abysmally, there is no such thing as a good 'arty' horror movie, it just does not work (for me at least), the film does not flow, it felt like a bad Hammer Horror from the 80s and gave me a headache.

I have never been happy with shows or movies where the characters all look alike and this movie has too many female characters who look alike and the male characters are almost as bad. The film opens with April in her ME persona but then we are shown a scene where a woman is chatting with a man to whom she appears to be engaged (Nicholas Brendan who barely features in the film at all) and he seems to be involved in some horrible accident, then we have a scene with Valerie, who is mourning a dead boyfriend/fiancé and she looks so like April that I became confused as to who was in the 2nd scene, this only got worse throughout the movie. It became apparent later in the film that it was actually April who was engaged to the Brendan character but by this time I really didn't care.

The scenes are chaotic and do not flow as they should, the story is all over the place and makes no sense. Who was the weird guy who painted the 'Portal' painting? Who were the men peering through the bars at him? I got the impression that one of them was Dr Azirra (when he was younger) but this was never confirmed. What is all this rubbish about the 'Inner Child' ? I know for certain that my inner child is not so pi**ed at me that she would kill me, I find it hard to believe that we all have to fear our inner child. Also, why the exploding heads? WTF is that? I got the impression that the exploding heads and other bloody issues (haemorrhagic issues) were simply for the gore factor.

Overall I found this movie a mega fail and am still spinning in confusion over what the director was trying to achieve.

Is it possible that he was just trying to confuse and disturb us as much as the 'black painting' confused and disturbed the characters? Maybe, but whatever the answer, I would suggest that you rent this film not buy it. It is certainly not a 'keeper' :-/

Really looking forward to this as I like Madsen. Took years to eventually see it. What a turd of a film. Acting was so bad even lettuces could act more realistic.

The 2 main women possibly are the worst actor/tress I have ever seen. None of it made any sense.

None of the characters looked even remotely real or interested in what was going on whateverthehell it was that was going on. And I was really looking forward to this as I like Madsen a lot.

Him and Stacy Keach must have had an urgent gas bill to pay. I can't believe any of the others were paid money as they were probably homeless people working for food and Roddy Piper who just wandered onto the set.

After 5 years waiting to see it..... Words fail me.

I get the impression 'The Portal' would like to be a bit like 'The Ring (1999)' - and I can't knock that aspiration. The Japanese original and American remake are master-classes of weird horror. 'The Portal', alas, isn't directed with anything like the skill or comparative restraint. Also, where I am a big fan of low-budget horror, the lack of finance seems to inhibit the ambitions of those behind the camera almost as much as the comparative lack of sophistication. There's an interesting Lovecraftian central idea in the titular Portal, and some terrific gore involving exploding heads. But Serge Rodnunsky's writing is frequently undermined by his directorial choices. He appears to desperately want to keep things from getting boring by constantly introducing new characters in various shades of jeopardy, but succeeds only in confusing and disorientating the audience. As a result, the film comes across as badly edited, disjointed and frequently incomprehensible.

There are good ideas here, and that's the frustration. Set-pieces which could have been visually arresting are destroyed by constant fast cuts and close-ups. I imagine this comes to down to inexperience, and the desire to make every second matter.

As for the actors - Michael Madsen (Azirra) growls and poses his way through his dialogue, Stacy Keach (Hafler) does what he can with his lines, and Jenna Zablocki (April) is convincingly terrified in a variety of ways.

Once you are aware of the limitations on offer, you can enjoy 'The Portal' for what it is. My score is 5 out of 10.

The opening credits and opening scene greet us with torrid CGI that immediately raises a skeptical eyebrow. Shortly after we get scenes of dubious, over the top dialogue, and a flashback, with inelegant transitions of editing and narrative at all times. Plus - one of the top names in the opening credits is none other than Michael Madsen. I hate to say it, but he's at a point in his career where his name portends an unfortunate quality of film.

As far as first impressions go, within mere minutes 'The portal' makes a distinctly bad one. That impression does not improve. In fact, it gets worse. Much, much worse.

I can't speak with certainty for everyone in the cast, but I know some of the actors on hand have very well demonstrated their capabilities in the past. Maybe it's Serge Rodnunsky's screenplay or direction that's to blame, or maybe the players assembled here have simply stopped caring. Whatever the source, everyone involved turns in a performance that's terribly forced, unconvincing, and at all times either overdone or undercooked, with no middle ground. Delivery, expression, movement - rotten. In 2021 I can't believe I'm saying this, but of anyone here, Madsen actually gives the greatest display of acting chops, and that alone says so much.

There are a few good ideas in the screenplay, amazingly enough, but the narrative is plainly, completely, and relentlessly weak, specious, flimsy, and highly questionable. There's little to no connection between each element within - I'm not entirely sure what the plot of 'The portal' is supposed to be, and any basic synopsis I've seen is unhelpful. It's unclear who some of these characters are, or how they came into the story. Flashbacks and various other inserted scenes serve no purpose whatsoever. If I described each passing moment in detail I'd be hard-pressed to call the resulting paragraphs a spoiler, because this is just that much of a godawful mess. The nearest I can reckon is that this is the lowest of all possible knock-offs of 'Ringu.'

Rattling off a list of everything in the feature that's poorly done is essentially a delineation of how a movie gets made: the writing and execution of scenes; editing, transitions between shots and scenes, sequencing; dialogue; characterizations, makeup, hair, costume design; lighting and special effects; music and sound effects, let alone their integration into the feature; camerawork; set decoration, art direction, production design. And we're still not finished, because we're treated ever to only the cheapest of would-be scares. Moreover, why are medical professionals in a hospital setting, or ostensibly providing home visits to patients who may or may not be ill, wearing no PPE whatsoever? Where did these characters get all that paper, seemingly overnight? Why is Roddy Piper here at all?

I hope with all due sincerity that Roger Ebert never saw this movie before he died, because as an ardent cinephile, I cannot imagine the deep hurt this would have caused him. If Hell existed then every surface would be plastered with screens playing 'The portal' over and over for all eternity.

Filth. Putrescence. Putridity. Rubbish. Rot.

Avoid.

This movie is worth spending an hour and a half to watch. Don't let the title and the horror category hinder. It almost hindered me, but I watched to catch Michael Muhney in the film. However, I didn't see him in the movie, I'm still glad I viewed it. The storyline was quite unique. In a nutshell without giving away any of the plot, it spells mystery, anonymity, vagueness, ambiguity and secrecy, but it pulls you right in from the beginning surrounded by fog and that uncertainty aspect. The acting is good and believable, especially the three lead actors; and the sets are believable. However, I didn't like the unclear details about the leader mission. I enjoyed so much, I plan to rent it and watch it on my big screen TV.