One of the irrefutable truths about Horrors is that they thankfully come in all shapes and sizes.
In other words, some studios have poured untold millions into the genre, and these projects have either sunk or swum (swam?) on their own merits. Likewise, smaller outfits and/or even independent filmmakers have ponied up smaller budgets and slimmer casts; and they’ve still managed to complete a number of projects that have still ‘met the bar’ and racked up some solid box office returns. Because anyone with a smartphone these days can tinker in the realm of storyteller, there has grown a stronger tendency to see something newly released really being little more than a cheap clone of something that’s come before: the writers, directors, producers, and actors will come together and wind up presenting little more than ‘a riff’ on one of their favorites, giving the audiences not quite what they wanted but perhaps just enough to still transcend the noise. It ain’t easy finding break-out success – what with so many options available to consumers presently – but that never stops an opportunist (or a group of them) from trying.
What this generally means for viewers is that they’re not quite getting works from authentic auteurs but instead they’re forced to endure an increasing number of knock-offs … and, no, I don’t use that word as if it’s a bad thing. In fact, film history is replete with inspired retreads that can be good, vicarious experiences; and that’s about the sum total of my two cents on Hell Hole (2024). While it may not be all that original or offer a even a measure dose of that ‘new car smell,’ it still rather humbly sets out to establish its own universe with enough bells, whistles, and widgets to achieve a modest level of fright. Heck, given that some of what I believe might have been its original muses are a few decades old, it may even convince watchers that it’s in prime shape all on its lonesome. Though I’ve seen it before, others may not have … and that fact alone might earn it a better box office return than it perhaps deserves.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
In other words, some studios have poured untold millions into the genre, and these projects have either sunk or swum (swam?) on their own merits. Likewise, smaller outfits and/or even independent filmmakers have ponied up smaller budgets and slimmer casts; and they’ve still managed to complete a number of projects that have still ‘met the bar’ and racked up some solid box office returns. Because anyone with a smartphone these days can tinker in the realm of storyteller, there has grown a stronger tendency to see something newly released really being little more than a cheap clone of something that’s come before: the writers, directors, producers, and actors will come together and wind up presenting little more than ‘a riff’ on one of their favorites, giving the audiences not quite what they wanted but perhaps just enough to still transcend the noise. It ain’t easy finding break-out success – what with so many options available to consumers presently – but that never stops an opportunist (or a group of them) from trying.
What this generally means for viewers is that they’re not quite getting works from authentic auteurs but instead they’re forced to endure an increasing number of knock-offs … and, no, I don’t use that word as if it’s a bad thing. In fact, film history is replete with inspired retreads that can be good, vicarious experiences; and that’s about the sum total of my two cents on Hell Hole (2024). While it may not be all that original or offer a even a measure dose of that ‘new car smell,’ it still rather humbly sets out to establish its own universe with enough bells, whistles, and widgets to achieve a modest level of fright. Heck, given that some of what I believe might have been its original muses are a few decades old, it may even convince watchers that it’s in prime shape all on its lonesome. Though I’ve seen it before, others may not have … and that fact alone might earn it a better box office return than it perhaps deserves.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Hell Hole hails from the filmmaking family behind Hellbender and centers on an American-led fracking crew that uncovers a living French soldier frozen in time from a Napoleonic campaign, whose body hosts a parasitic monster.”
I’ve mentioned before that – amongst the fans and fanatics of John Carpenter’s work – I’m in the minority when it comes to choosing his greatest screen effort. A good many – probably the vast majority – cite the writer/director’s 1982 remake of 1951’s The Thing From Outer Space – simply called The Thing – as his highwater mark. While I’ll concede it’s a great film, I’ve often said that I struggled with its pacing, finding the reveals a bit too slow in response to the level of tension the story otherwise ratchets up. My expectations just weren’t met as cleanly or as often as I felt the film promised, and that’s largely why I rank it a bit further down the list. (If you’re really interested, then I insist his crowning achievement was 1981’s Escape From New York, but that’s an argument for another time and another place.)
As hard as Hell Hole tries to chart out different territory, I can assure you that directors John Adams and Toby Poser (both of whom are also credited with scriptwork along with Lulu Adams) really don’t go far enough to distinguish their effort from appearing as anything other than a lukewarm copycat. Oh, no, it doesn’t invest the same kind of splash, splatter, and gore along with Carpenter’s cutting edge utilization of practical special effects with the body-hopping parasitic alien entity; and yet – on a vastly smaller budget – Hole steps into that same alleyway depicting the struggle of its cast of characters walled off from society at large on a fracking installation in the middle of nowhere and cut off by a washed out road. The crew may not be scientists – they’re mostly blue-collar Serbians with the exception of the company leads and a few specialists – but they’re about to turn on one another as the newly-unearthed critter keeps jumping from one host carrier to the next.
“Hell Hole hails from the filmmaking family behind Hellbender and centers on an American-led fracking crew that uncovers a living French soldier frozen in time from a Napoleonic campaign, whose body hosts a parasitic monster.”
I’ve mentioned before that – amongst the fans and fanatics of John Carpenter’s work – I’m in the minority when it comes to choosing his greatest screen effort. A good many – probably the vast majority – cite the writer/director’s 1982 remake of 1951’s The Thing From Outer Space – simply called The Thing – as his highwater mark. While I’ll concede it’s a great film, I’ve often said that I struggled with its pacing, finding the reveals a bit too slow in response to the level of tension the story otherwise ratchets up. My expectations just weren’t met as cleanly or as often as I felt the film promised, and that’s largely why I rank it a bit further down the list. (If you’re really interested, then I insist his crowning achievement was 1981’s Escape From New York, but that’s an argument for another time and another place.)
As hard as Hell Hole tries to chart out different territory, I can assure you that directors John Adams and Toby Poser (both of whom are also credited with scriptwork along with Lulu Adams) really don’t go far enough to distinguish their effort from appearing as anything other than a lukewarm copycat. Oh, no, it doesn’t invest the same kind of splash, splatter, and gore along with Carpenter’s cutting edge utilization of practical special effects with the body-hopping parasitic alien entity; and yet – on a vastly smaller budget – Hole steps into that same alleyway depicting the struggle of its cast of characters walled off from society at large on a fracking installation in the middle of nowhere and cut off by a washed out road. The crew may not be scientists – they’re mostly blue-collar Serbians with the exception of the company leads and a few specialists – but they’re about to turn on one another as the newly-unearthed critter keeps jumping from one host carrier to the next.
The downside to so obvious an inspiration is the Hole – on its own efforts – can’t quite capitalize on either the growing hysteria or make similar use of the resulting paranoia of the group’s isolation. In The Thing, the key players were quite literally sequestered away from mankind in the cruel Arctic location; by comparison, Hole shelters these workers in the black hole of the Serbian mountainside where a somewhat decrepit or condemned factory is about all they can see. Still, they’re all free to move about – scenes take place inside the old structure as well as in some reasonably wide-open spaces – and this works counter to the aesthetic of the central theme. The directors clearly try to keep the bulk of the action contained in smaller places, and yet even they can’t help but toss in far too money aerial drone shots of the blighted factory probably because they thought it was good cinematography.
The other big problem that kills any real forward momentum an otherwise good script develops is that neither Adams nor Posey stage their affair for the cameras with any degree of elegance. Every scene and sequence has a kinda/sorta mechanical feel – characters are often shot individually, and it’s all assembled in editing – so there’s very little dramatic impact between the men and women when they’re arguing with one another (which happens in ample supply as the story wears on). Think what you will, but drama often works better when it’s captured with more than a single character in the frame: this way, there’s a visual representation of the conflict played out on two faces instead of a single one. Clashes are more dynamic – we love seeing the interplay of differing opinions – and that just never happen here. The beauty of photographically putting a good deal of thought into pre-production (i.e. storyboarding, even the chatty bits) usually results in more vivid photography; I can’t help but think that Hole was, largely, put together in-process, and it just never kicks into high gear when it should.
In fact, there’s a whole sequence that’s structured around narrative exposition. The site scientists go to great pains to explain what it is they believe they’ve uncovered about the central creature – a parasite with some similarities between known Earth species – and it’s an incredible slog as it one speech after another shared between four people. When the big reveal of your film requires, say, five-to-seven minutes of various speeches, then it needs to be rendered with some visual flourish somehow … but when that never happens even the least informed viewer realizes he’s in for smooth sailing instead of the much-needed bumpy ride. It’s a huge creative miss that’ll likely put more folks to sleep than it’ll alarm.
The other big problem that kills any real forward momentum an otherwise good script develops is that neither Adams nor Posey stage their affair for the cameras with any degree of elegance. Every scene and sequence has a kinda/sorta mechanical feel – characters are often shot individually, and it’s all assembled in editing – so there’s very little dramatic impact between the men and women when they’re arguing with one another (which happens in ample supply as the story wears on). Think what you will, but drama often works better when it’s captured with more than a single character in the frame: this way, there’s a visual representation of the conflict played out on two faces instead of a single one. Clashes are more dynamic – we love seeing the interplay of differing opinions – and that just never happen here. The beauty of photographically putting a good deal of thought into pre-production (i.e. storyboarding, even the chatty bits) usually results in more vivid photography; I can’t help but think that Hole was, largely, put together in-process, and it just never kicks into high gear when it should.
In fact, there’s a whole sequence that’s structured around narrative exposition. The site scientists go to great pains to explain what it is they believe they’ve uncovered about the central creature – a parasite with some similarities between known Earth species – and it’s an incredible slog as it one speech after another shared between four people. When the big reveal of your film requires, say, five-to-seven minutes of various speeches, then it needs to be rendered with some visual flourish somehow … but when that never happens even the least informed viewer realizes he’s in for smooth sailing instead of the much-needed bumpy ride. It’s a huge creative miss that’ll likely put more folks to sleep than it’ll alarm.
For what it’s worth? Toby Poser – as the script’s biggest player, Emily – does a pretty spiffy job carrying the action. She’s the somewhat hardened crew lead surrounded by a bunch of burly men and yet never flinches away from her responsibility when leadership is required. She’s a welcome distraction to the grim loner that Kurt Russell played in Carpenter’s afore-mentioned The Thing; and I wish a bit more attention could’ve been given to make her the truly commanding force this wild bunch needed in the big finish. As it is, I’m not entirely certain she survives (I suspect she does, but it's unclear), and the film ends without any significant resolution.
Hell Hole (2024) was produced by Not The Funeral Home. According to the supplied press materials, the flick will be available exclusively on Shudder effective August 23rd. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I’ll admit that I still found the provided sights-and-sounds to be pretty exceptional from start-to-finish; there’s some occasional special effects trickery that’s a bit underwhelming, but as often happens with Horrors of this variety it all still comes off as ‘measured charm’ anyway, so don’t make too much of that. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? As I viewed this one via streaming, there were no extras under consideration.
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
I suspect that younger viewers – those largely unaware of, say, the films of John Carpenter, Wes Craven, and/or Stuart Gordon – might find more to enjoy in Hell Hole (2024). While I found a great degree of it derivative, the script occasionally offers up some snappy dialogue, but the somewhat predictable Horror procedural gets anchored in place all too often by some stupefyingly boring direction, staging, and thematic pacing. That and some curiously out-of-place rock music edits try to infuse the piece with some hip, music video sensibilities that seem way off … like the directors and producers were going more for comic effect instead of dramatic tension. The end result is just too uneven for my tastes, but it’s an affair not entirely wasted on this film junkie, either.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Shudder provided me with complimentary streaming access to Hell Hole (2024) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
Hell Hole (2024) was produced by Not The Funeral Home. According to the supplied press materials, the flick will be available exclusively on Shudder effective August 23rd. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I’ll admit that I still found the provided sights-and-sounds to be pretty exceptional from start-to-finish; there’s some occasional special effects trickery that’s a bit underwhelming, but as often happens with Horrors of this variety it all still comes off as ‘measured charm’ anyway, so don’t make too much of that. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? As I viewed this one via streaming, there were no extras under consideration.
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
I suspect that younger viewers – those largely unaware of, say, the films of John Carpenter, Wes Craven, and/or Stuart Gordon – might find more to enjoy in Hell Hole (2024). While I found a great degree of it derivative, the script occasionally offers up some snappy dialogue, but the somewhat predictable Horror procedural gets anchored in place all too often by some stupefyingly boring direction, staging, and thematic pacing. That and some curiously out-of-place rock music edits try to infuse the piece with some hip, music video sensibilities that seem way off … like the directors and producers were going more for comic effect instead of dramatic tension. The end result is just too uneven for my tastes, but it’s an affair not entirely wasted on this film junkie, either.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Shudder provided me with complimentary streaming access to Hell Hole (2024) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
RSS Feed