The Portal

*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.

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.

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/

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.

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.