Pink Eye (2008) Reviews

• What did I just watch?

  mercer-john2010-02-16

  OK I am not one to hate on independent Horror especially since some surpass Main Stream big budget horrors, but I have to take the time to say that this Movie is dire. I was mislead into thinking that this would be an interesting story from the opening scene but I was more than wrong, in fact the film doesn't really have a coherent storyline at all. It jumps from one scene to the next containing irrelevant characters who really serve no purpose to the thin story line the film does have. The characters that do feature have no clear Character traits and little if no back story meaning that you can't relate or care what happens to them. As for the main baddie Edgar, he seems to be a Mix of several other horror baddies and does his best to mimic Tony Todds Excellent performance in Candyman (Vocally I mean) which for me was very distracting. In my humble opinion this doesn't really feel like one solid cohesive movie but like a bunch of Trailers for several Horrors edited to appear as one film. I would never tell anyone to stay away from a movie because we all have different emotional responses to what we watch, but be warned this will leave you confused and wondering 'what did I just watch?'

• I still don't know why it's called Pink Eye...

  DrBlood20062007-12-29

  I was sent a screener of "Pink Eye" last week and really looked forward to seeing Melissa Bacelar in all her glory. I wasn't disappointed either. Not only does she have a wonderfully toned (and tanned) body to look at but she is quite a charismatic presence on screen too. Unfortunately, the little girls in the film steal every scene they are in and actually do a much more credible job than the seasoned pros here. It's obvious that, in spite of the ultra low budget, "Pink Eye" actually contains some decent actors but the overly slow pace does tend to spoil their performances from time to time. Melissa's legs also tend to be a major distraction. I'm not entirely sure what her relationship is exactly to the children (or to the hero for that matter) but her skimpy shorts are probably inappropriate attire for babysitting. I just found myself gazing at her legs more than paying attention to the dialogue but then that's probably always going to the case when it comes to Melissa Bacelar. The story itself is somewhat confusing. Things really aren't explained too well and there are a few red herrings along the way which really do more to hinder the plot rather than help it. The whole thing reminded me of the huge annoying pause you get on quiz shows like "Millionaire" where you end up shouting, "Just get on with it!" In particular, the scene with the Russian woman telling the story of how Brandon had "Pink Eye" when he was younger just felt like padding. The special effects, on the other hand, are quite well done. Most effects appear to be the practical kind although there are also a couple of dodgy camera effects which are overused. Whereas I thought that the various eyeball gouging and belly cutting effects were good, I really didn't like the scenes which looked like a double exposure. I absolutely hated the use of music throughout the film though. Not only did most of it outstay its welcome by overlapping from one scene to the next but it was often inappropriate. No background music at all would perhaps have been a better option although strangely enough there were a couple of scenes near the end where it actually worked. The real star of this show though was Joshua James who plays the Poe quoting lunatic "Edgar". Big plot holes mean that I'm not sure why he was so special as a patient but he certainly has a very eerie voice somewhat reminiscent of James Earl Jones mixed with Vincent Price if that makes any sense. He certainly managed to convey an air of menace. I was disappointed by the scene in which Melissa removes Edgar's mask mainly because I wanted to see the total extent of his deformities. Alas, either the budget didn't run to it or someone thought it would be best left to the imagination but in a film so previously full of gore it was odd. Overall it was quite entertaining but very flawed. There were some nice boobs once or twice (sadly not Melissa's) and enough blood to satisfy most independent horror film fans. It's not really any worse than "Beyond Re-animator", which it reminds me a lot of, but it's equally not at all scary either. I'll give it 3 out 10. I wish I could give it more but it needs some more editing in places before it would be totally pleasing. I also wish that Melissa hadn't disappeared for three-quarters of the film as, from the order of the credits, I really thought she was going to carry the whole thing.

• Did this movie make any sense??

  dschmeding2008-10-16

  I should have known from the title screen onward that this was a bad movie. Come on... this cheap public domain horror font is used on amateur Halloween cards but not in the opening title of a horror movie. The best in this movie is the beginning of a girl in an asylum that goes nuts and rips out her eyes. You won't see any equally gory scenes for the rest of the movie. Basically it starts out with an asylum and some strange experiments and misuse of the inmates, one of them a tall guy with a deformed face (you never see it anyway) who soon escapes and goes on a ridiculous revenge ride. The first part with the asylum and the experiments is the central idea of the movie which gets picked up at the end again. In between you got a real lame take on the Halloween/Friday the 13th theme with a masked tall killer stalking victims and then killing some. No suspense here, the killer gets an uninteresting back story (which is the only link to the movies title) and talks some poetic gibberish and stalks a woman that you never quite understand why he is around her. It just is a really lame movie with some ideas thrown in a pot that just don't fit. The psycho killer character must be one of the most ridiculous in movie history and the acting is most of the time pretty bad. The only good scene in this movie is in the beginning, so basically you can save a lot of wasted time if you stop before the opening title appears.

• Short film, obviously low-budget, wouldn't watch it again

  accauditor2008-11-27

  If you enjoy horror movies, this movie wasn't scary at all, so pass on it if scary moments are the main reason you like horror films. There also wasn't much gore so again, if that's why you like horror movies, pass on this one. The film was short, and 2 characters entered briefly, one to talk about a main character's pink eye as a kid, and the other to talk about his painting (which as it turned out resembled the killer). The killer was annoying. He wasn't scary, and every line of his was quoting poetry and speaking with an accent to make him sound snooty. It didn't really make him seem more deranged and interesting. It was just annoying. The first few minutes really had me thinking the movie was going to be worth watching, but I couldn't believe I actually finished the movie because it really just had very little to offer as far as keeping me interested. It was clearly low-budget and a good effort, but it's not a movie I would strongly recommend in any way.

• no suspense

  trashgang2011-04-28

  There are a few names in this flick that attracted me, I already had contact with Alan Rowe Kelly and I knew Raine Brown via Joe Zaso. So I thought this was going to be good. It starts of pretty well and in fact even a bit gory with the self removal of eyes. But then the opening credits come in and after that it's downhill. The killer's face is never shown even not when his mask is removed but also his one liners didn't work. It reminded me of Freddy or Pinhead but here as I said it just didn't work. There are a few bloody shots involved but mostly the effects are so cheaply done or some killings are off screen. Some girls do show their juggs but it was all to late. Nothing really happens and for me their wasn't any suspense. It's sad knowing that so many famous names in the genre were involved in it.