Event Horizon

It's a very bizarre disgusting thing, which is brilliantly filmed and probably won't make you feel very well. There aren't many films like this. I applaud Paul Anderson for always pushing the envelope hard, regardless of audience reaction, and not giving a damn about disgusting the average viewer. I wonder what the original unedited version, which is 40 minutes longer, looked like. It must have been cool. (19/06/2002)

For about two-thirds of the film, I was convinced that Anderson had accomplished something absolutely unique. The atmosphere in Event Horizon completely took me by storm and caused me to have very unpleasant mental states. The magic of the unknown evil works perfectly – we find ourselves in the morbid bowels of a long-lost ship, we don't know what's going on around us, we just know that every next shot can bring fright and horrific brutality. Anderson plays, stretches thrilling moments, then increases psychological pressure with short cuts, spares no blood, but leaves evil in disturbing anonymity... until the ending. Then suddenly he waves a magic wand, and the film turns into a B-movie with an eyeless monster, and all the carefully built tension is for nothing. It’s too bad that Event Horizon won't settle for what is suspected, and instead serves up a fistfight with what is nasty but palpable. It was confirmed to me once again that Anderson is a talented director but lacking in sound judgment. I saw a film, most of which is the work of a smart strategist, and the point is the work of a B-movie routinist. A split personality? But the better part of the film will remain with me for a long time to come, along with good music by Michael Kamen, quality acting performances (just that jovial nigga again... for God's sake, why?) and watchable tricks. This may have been a memorable sci-fi horror, but as a result, it's a victory squandered in the final third. What a pity! (06/10/2004)

I have a bit of a weak spot for this film. It's great to see that Anderson is a very fine filmmaker, and the first act, for example, can easily be put among the of best sci-fi horror, even though, the lack of fear is not exactly appropriate. Fear radiates from the stuffy atmosphere, and even though the film gradually shifts to pure action, the unpleasant feeling in the pit of the stomach persists. Other major strengths are the special effects hand in hand with the gloomy setting of the huge (abandoned?) ship, the director's feeling for the right amount of violence and, of course, the actors. I've known for a long time that Lawrence Fishburne is awesome, but Sam Neill was so much better here and his villain, with Pavel Soukup's excellent dubbing, was truly unforgettable and terrifying. If they made more quality B-movies like this, I wouldn’t be mad. 80% (29/05/2012)

Great sci-fi horror and also a brutal spectacle for something form the late 90s. The atmosphere does let down by the end, but never to the point that would affect the overall impression. The premise (a spaceship returns after being lost in the cosmos, bringing something with it) is awesome and I don’t think it could have been developed better. Hands down, Paul Anderson’s best work, even if students of physics would not agree. (29/05/2008)

It starts as a smart and atmospherically charged film, but it gradually becomes poorly staged horror without a hint of sense or logic. Laurence Fishburne is flawless as the captain, and the other crew members are also decent. The futuristic-looking sets will please every fan of dark sci-fi, but the closer the film gets to the end, the more you shake your head. There is literally no twist, blood pours like crazy – and completely unnecessarily – and all the carefully built atmosphere of mystery vanishes. Skip half an hour, replace it with a meaningful ending and maybe a bit of unpolopathically explained philosophy and it would be a very decent addition to the scifi genre. Like this, it's just a controversial bloodbath. (07/05/2005)