hyped garbage

A Masterpiece!

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

There are some twists and turns, and some unexpected story line thrills. The gore rates a 5 out of 10--realistic enough but not too creepy for anybody over 14 maybe. Stellar performances from all actors involved--character personalities are quickly defined. Girl in pain from a past mistake and naturally humble, confident friend (seen only in the beginning), jaded Summer camp director, mysterious camp counselor who defies the viewer to trust him, and a smooth-talking psychopath (aren't they always?) masquerading as a fisherman. The main glitch of the film is that the girl was supposed to be on the island only one day and night, but for some reason never explained she stays on the island two days and two nights. As Psychopath Horror films go, and there are many of them, this one turns the genre squarely on its head.

The name of this movie is SOLO. I expected, as the title so boldly suggests, to watch a film that focused on its lone female star being put in some sort of isolation scenario, at least for a good portion of the movie. She goes to work at a camp where one of her friends helps get her the gig. But before she can ultimately get the gig, she has to spend 2 nights alone at the camp's locally owned small island that seems to be only a mile from the main camp. So here comes the isolation, right? Not really. I won't give too much away, but let's just say that the supposed isolation seemed to be nothing more than an after thought.SOLO does have high production value. The filming, acting and location are all really good. However, the story is a bit weak. While I don't feel that it is as cliché as other reviews would lead you to believe, it does feel like you've seen it before in a few other movies. Had the killer been scary, instead of pretty lame, then maybe this could have been worthy of a higher rating. Not terrible. Not great. Somewhere in the middle is my opinion. Worth at least one viewing if you have some time to kill and nothing else peaks your attention.

Spoiler AlertThe music by composer Todor Kobakov is probably the best part of this movie and for budget fare, is quite good. The main actress (character is more apt because there is little acting here.) Nancy Clark is a teen possessed by demons of her dead sister. Oh my. Instead of therapy, let's go to a creepy camp as a counselor and willingly accept isolation on an island with a ghost? The movie is highly derivative but how can one not be in this genre? The acting is minimal and every actor accents the creepiness factor with little result. The camp director is more creepy than the exiled counselor/murderer. Richard Clarkin as "Fred" so overacts and mugs his scenes that it's almost comic. Maybe that's how he prepared for his wooden performance. He gets bonked on the head and dies where everyone else who gets bonked survives somehow. Oh Boy. The credits list a therapist (This person never appears in the movie.) and I have a feeling that the therapist was there for the actors coming to grips with minimal direction and guilt from mugging. Supposedly this Gillian (Clark) is forced, as some kind of camp hazing, to spend the night alone on an island. She's rarely alone on this island and the predictable players appear right on cue. She's damaged goods having been the cause of her sisters demise some years earlier in a pool drowning. But even with cutaway scenes, this part of the plot goes nowhere. Either does this movie. Productions values are high but I would find a better writer. Isaac Cravit creates some decent shots and there are some interesting camera angles but the writing, UGH! It's horrible and none of the elements presented in the exposition are worked out. Instead, we get new one as if we will be surprised. This is a major flaw and I mean major. When scenes are supposed to be suspenseful, you find your self thinking WTF? That could have been handled a lot better. I don't think a suspense movie is supposed to create the suspense for the next missed story or cinematic idea, We all know these movies are based on supposedly smart people doing stupid things and this movie is no exception. But here we have a stupid writer/director who got lost in his own brilliance or lack thereof. Also, his timing is off. some scenes end and but the shot continues. Others never find an overall rhythm . The editor, Adam Locke-Norton must have been pulling his hair out and arguing constantly to shorten some of the takes. Alas, he lost the arguments.

Let's face it, there are many terrible movies 'out there'. I have noticed over the last few years that one thing the contemporary terrible movies have in common is really poor production, in particular camera work. Oh, yes, the acting is bad, the stories are frequently undeveloped, the thrill is...gone, or maybe more like it was never there for the films I am referring to HOWEVER Solo is in a different class. I think the filming is very, very good! Other than Ms. Clark the acting doesn't even make it to average-bad, the plot is a poorly developed cliché, the casting clearly found some of the worst actors active and the ending is a relief but the camera work is great. It could well be worth one's time to invest 15 to 20 minutes, skip around from scene to scene, and take in the work of Stephen Chung. I hope he hooks up with a better film next time.