Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Paynbob It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Justina The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

brianrosenthal82 I'm going to keep this brief...ish. This film isn't for everyone, you've got to have a strong stomach going in and know what you're in for, which is an hour and 22 minutes of relentless action, chills, suspense, and gruesome body horror. The plot is simple, but effective... a roadside carjacking turns into "Assault on Precinct 13" meets "The Thing", as the three main characters take refuge from a terrifying creature they encounter by chance inside of a seemingly abandoned gas station. The rest I won't spoil for you.The filmmaking on display here is top-notch (by both Hollywood and indie-film standards). The cinematography is gritty and expertly executed, utilizing a hand-held, high contrast look with a lot of long lenses that lend to an almost documentarian, voyeuresque aesthetic. That, coupled with sincere, grounded performances from the entire cast works to evoke a very real, sober, and urgent tone for the film. You can really tell everyone was on the same page here, behind the camera and in front. The character work/performances served up are truly commendable, with a standout performance by Shea Whigham. This isn't one of those clichéd horror flicks with dumb characters doing dumb things... to the film's credit, it's a helluva lot smarter than that, and so are its characters. The creature/gore/practical FX are also very well done, by any standards. The filmmakers are smart enough to show you just enough of the "creature" to freak you out, letting your mind fill in the gaps of what you think you just saw. But while they hold back a bit (wisely) with showing the creature itself, you can count on everything else happening in full, bone-crunching detail. As mentioned before... not for the squeamish.All said, I highly recommend this film to almost any horror fan, especially those of you that love 80s/90s creature features and practical FX. If there are any complaints its simply that this film will not be accessible to anyone outside the genre, but that's hardly a complaint. "Splinter" is essentially the first truly worthy successor to John Carpenter's "The Thing", and almost definitely the best balls-to-the-wall "Scary thing out there, and we're in here" flick of the last 10 years, if not more. Check it out, you won't regret it.

Phil K I am a fan of horror movies; cheesy horror movies, scary horror movies, big budget horror movies, and the latter. However, the unfortunate part about following horror movies is that it can be a difficult genre to articulate masterfully.The movie Splinter makes the most out of what it is given, and it puts into place horrific devices that make the horror genre really shine. The film offers wit so far as having space for individual character development and unique character choices. However, the pacing of the movie is not cogent and the movie steered too far away from what makes a movie scary.Still though, it offers sci-fi aspects to it and is well acted throughout - I give Splinter a 6 out of 10.

tieman64 A by-the-numbers horror movie, "Splinter" finds a couple battling both an escaped convict and a violent, infectious creature. Most of the film's action takes place in a small gas-station, where blood spills, limbs tear and mouths contort in pain. This gas-station is given some thematic weight; the film's monster is a product of an oil corporation's attempts at experimental extraction.Clichéd, poorly written and unimaginatively directed by Toby Wilkin's, "Splinter" never elevates itself above similar, low budget horror movies. Paulo Costanzo and Shea Whigham star.4/10 – See "Carriers" and "Vanishing on 7th Street".

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.