Event Horizon

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. (08/05/2005)

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! (07/10/2004)

The fact that this is without a doubt the strongest contribution to the discussion since Paul W.S. Anderson's automatische doesn't mean it's a very well made spectacle, but the premise is exactly what I look for and need in a science fiction film. The constant strobes, retarded jump-scares, and sweat-soaked zooms are thankfully outweighed by a gutted Jason Isaac, decompressed crew members, and cute visions of hell. The fact that 40 minutes of mostly gore scenes were cut and lost from the original 130-minute long cut is the biggest crime with this film. Otherwise, Andrei Anastasov would have been happy. (07/09/2015)

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. (20/06/2002)

The density of the claustrophobic atmosphere and the psychedelic dread of the first two-thirds of this film are among the best you’ll find in the sci-fi horror genre, which of course is ruled by Alien. The scenes with Sam Neill wandering through the narrow green tunnels are brilliant, as are a lot of the other visual tricks, including the opening circular “vertigo shot” (I saw it on the big screen and got seriously dizzy). Unfortunately, the film later becomes an action exhibition of screenwriting trash, like something from Paul W.S. Anderson. But I so fondly recall the first two-thirds that I'm sticking with by my four-star rating. (26/04/2005)