IMDb > Sutures (2009) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
Sutures More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 7 reviews in total 

13 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Their flashbacks have flashbacks

Author: TheHrunting from United States
10 June 2011

"Sutures" is setup with layered flashbacks to tell its constantly revolving tale along the lines of a thriller, though this takes a gruesome turn and gives its salutes to recent horror such as "Saw," "Turistas" and "Hostel" if still not being exactly alike.

After being found wounded, a traumatized woman is admitted to a hospital where she proceeds to tell a detective her story about her friends of late twenties--three guys and three gals--who went on a retreat to a remote lodge. Does some hillbilly attack them? Do their cell phones inconveniently die? Not quite, the dwelling is a small castle--you read right--and the only backwoods fellow turns out to be much friendlier than "Texas Chainsaw" and "Hills Have Eyes" guys. Instead, the out-of-reach area is used to the advantage of a mysterious, dressed-in-black man who's simultaneously comely but dangerous; think "Dust Devil" meets "Vampire Hunter D." They're rounded up and then the tortuous fun begins at a clandestine location that harvests organs on the black market.

There's little quips and humor used to break the ice, and then, of course, there's explicit blood and gore inflicted after getting an introduction to the characters. It's cringe worthy and there are logical explanations for it--e.g.: anesthesia leads to traces in the body--though it's hard to say if the filmmakers effectively set up fellow feeling or even believable scares, as it moves so fast that there isn't enough time to scratch the surface of their personalities or even show that a scenario or place of operation could exist like this. Kidnapped while in your own backyard or getting caught in a tourist trap in an unfamiliar third world country seems more threatening. The remote location is more tongue-in-cheek to backwoods flicks and the scenario is more chance than premeditated. Not the stuff nightmares are made of as it doesn't put the audience in their shoes.

There are not only flashbacks of the woman in the hospital telling her story, but also flashbacks within flashbacks to show even more backstory. It gets confusing as to the what's what and who's who, as it jumps back and forth and injects ambiguous dialogue to throw the viewer off in the meantime. Not to mention a key character appearing drastically different than when they were younger/older, and not explaining how certain siblings were conceived stunted surprises. For what it's worth, the film was steadily paced and did manage to cut away any hanging fat. Conflicting: yes. Boring: certainly not.

I've served my sentence with a lot of low-budget and shoe string cinema in horror, so I got a chance to see the worst of the worst in passing to hopefully see the best. This, however, falls somewhere in between as it was filmed professionally with some hand-held and even crane techniques. The cinematography was well thought through and even helped set a little bit of mood. There's no poor overdubs that were recorded in a non-reverbed room, or can't-see-you lighting lapses. The acting was pretty consistent and believable, especially with a really charismatic, over-the-top villain played by Andrew Prine who acts like a stage performer with an audience. This started out more promising, though the mechanics of the story caused it to jump ahead of itself and brought down the significance and impact of the rest of the picture. (Also submitted on

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Passable, but not without a lot of flaws

Author: GL84 from Los Angeles, Ca
30 January 2014

After barely surviving an account with a group of black market organ snatchers, a woman recounts the experience of her friends' encounter with the maniacs and how they took them from their vacation for the business and how she managed to escape before being targeted by their lunatic head surgeon.

This is an absolutely boring and really irritating Torture Film style effort, based solely upon the group being attacked in the remote area and then the rest of the time taken with the different torture tactics practiced on the victims. It's all the same stuff done over and over that hasn't changed all that much, from slicing people open while still alive to the removal of limbs, disfigurement and such that, along with the posturing and endless yakking by those in charge about the futility of escape, it all just drones on and on in an endless sea of irritating scenes that don't get any better. On top of that, the fact that this cuts away from the action to the hospital interview so many times it really kills the flow and pace of the film, which is already short to begin with, so all that's really left here is the bloodletting and gore to really get any positive elements from.

Rated R: Graphic Language, Graphic Violence and Brief Nudity.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Don't believe the hype!

Author: charlytully from Rosebush
27 August 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Sure, there are a handful of horror movies out there worse than SUTURES. Between them, Uwe Boll and Ulli Lommel have phoned in dozens of misshapen monstrosities in the name of fright, after all. But, as Gertrude Stein once said, a turd is a turd is a turd, no matter what else you may care to label it as. Apparently the producers of SUTURES thought they were making a campy version of DALLAS, in which multiple generations of "doctors" built up a financial dynasty based on the black market for stolen body parts. In actuality, they ended up with a poorly-acted flick totally lacking in continuity. Though it comes off more like an effort at HOSTEL-style torture porn, the confusing plethora of "doctors" (no less than 16 are credited at the end of this feature, not to mention 4 nurses and 2 orderlies) indicates that filming was so confused even the extras were quitting mid-scene (no doubt muttering "I'm not getting involved in crap like this!" as they stormed off the set). Nick Holmes, as one of the six road trippers at the core of this story, apparently walked out on his death scene, as he just "disappears" without a trace early on. The twist at the end of this flick makes absolutely no sense, if you consider it for two seconds or longer. The basic premise of the movie is scripted out of the final two-thirds, as the stolen body parts are left to decay in a WRONG TURN-type hillbilly pantry while the dozen-plus doctors compete to see which can elicit the most pain from "victims" before that group of actors can enjoy the only reward SUTURES offers: release from the clutches of a totally incompetent crew.

Was the above review useful to you?

sadly have seen the cut version but even then it's full of troubles

Author: trashgang from Midian
5 December 2013

Although that the idea of this flick was rather good I had a few problems watching it. First of all it clocks in at 83 minutes but mine, being bought at a horror convention clocked in at 76 minutes. Or something is wrong here on the database or my copy did cut out the gore?

But not alone that enigma is a problem it's the way the story is being told that makes it almost not watchable. It starts off rather good and we do follow the escaping girl but once the flashbacks come in this flick turns into a mess. It's hard to follow what's happening because we have flashbacks in flashbacks and by doing so you are losing the interest in the characters.

For what I have seen, heavily cut it looked like it contained a bit of gore here and there but it do has another problem. While watching it my children in the room asked me if I had to turn up the volume that loud and I must say I had too because the audio track is a horror itself. You need to raise the volume to understand what the conversation was all about. In fact, the acting was not convincing too.

So for me, some parts must have been interesting to watch but still it's a mediocre flick.

Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 2/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5

Was the above review useful to you?

Back and forth

Author: movieman_kev from United States
22 April 2012

Sienna, stuck in a hospital bed regales her interviewer with her tale of how she ended up there. Months earlier, her and her friends are vacationing in a charming isolated castle not realizing that a enigmatic man is following them in the hopes of harvesting their organs to sell on the black market. There more to it, but that's the general gist.

The acting is sub-par but in this genre on this budget that's easier to overlook. Something i can't though is the story which is haphazardly sutured together. Granted this seems to be more of a deliberate decision than general sloppiness, but this doesn't make the movie any easier to digest. Couple this with a nonthreatening Gothic type bad guy and a nonsensical 'twist' ending and you're left with a movie that's simply not the sum of its parts.

My Grade: D+

Eye Candy: Kate French (?) gets topless

Was the above review useful to you?

doesn't make much sense

Author: Andreia Orphy ( from Iowa, Louisiana
4 March 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I watched this one late night because I am a fan of non-mainstream horror movies. But this movie was continually confusing. From the dynamics between these so-called "friends" to the way the police inspector and the villain were portrayed constantly made me pause the movie to try to figure out what I was supposed to be understanding at the moment. There was not enough time given to the villain for the audience to actually begin to view him as a villain. And there is a twist ending that does not fit with the progression of the movie. If you have nothing else to do and time to waste then I'd say, go ahead and try it out. Maybe magically someone out there can explain to all the rest of us.

Was the above review useful to you?

There's two hours I won't get back ***spoilers

Author: fruitbat_x from United States
28 January 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

*******spoilers, lots of 'em************ I always want to root for indie films, but this is just bad, I mean insultingly bad. Not the kind of bad that's so bad it's good, but the kind of bad that makes you wonder how the crew, especially the writers and director, are still working. The script is horrible. The story doesn't make sense, probably because it was likely never revised or shown to anyone who understands how to write for the screen.

The premise is interesting. The story, however, is all over the place and badly imbalanced, especially the whole subplot with Alexander Tatum. Tatum is a mopey guy with daddy issues who is not at all scary. He dresses like an extra in The Crow, and spends most of the movie lurking and feeling sorry for himself. He then disappears for half the film, and at the end, we're told (literally, by several characters) that Tatum is Scary Guy Numero Uno. No mention by anyone about the psycho doctor who runs the organ-harvesting operation, just Tatum. Nevermind that Tatum has been mostly absent for much of the middle of the film, and that the doctor takes center stage for a long time. The way the other characters talk about Tatum, it's clear we're supposed to think he's the stuff of legends. It would be easier to believe he's the stuff of legends if the story actually centered around him or didn't abandon him completely for half the film. But just having other characters tell us he is? And mostly within the last five minutes, as if this is an afterthought? Not convincing.

The acting is okay during the few moments when it's actually being consistent, but most of the time, it's atrocious. And it's not just confined to one character-- it's like the actors were left to their own devices with no direction, and none of them had any idea what the tone of the movie was. But it's hard to blame the actors entirely when it's the director's job to well, direct them. Though there are a few performances that stand out as really really painful to watch, I won't name names. If you sit through this movie, you'll know exactly who I'm talking about. Ultimately, it's the director who failed to at least let the actors know what her vision for the film was. But with a script so muddled, she probably didn't know either.

And back to the writing again... A major fail in the script is the constant exposition. When the characters constantly have to explain major plot points to each other but the audience doesn't see it for themselves, a screenplay generally stinks. This is telling us what you should be showing us on screen, and that's basic filmmaking 101. Anyway, this script needed a major overhaul before it ever was allowed to go in front of the camera. Sutures starts out like a thriller, but quickly descends into a bad combination of a daytime soap and a badly-done and obvious ripoff of Hostel. The twists at the end, and the end itself, are all so tacked-on and badly thought out, they defy explanation. Just because a film is destined from the beginning to go straight to DVD, does it *have* to be bad? As I'm writing this, I wonder why I sat through the whole thing, but I guess it was just one of those movies where by the time you accept how rotten it is, you have already watched enough that you want there to be some kind of a payoff. That payoff never comes in this film, and I should have known better and turned it off before wasting all that time I'll never get back. I give it three stars and I'm being generous. The locations were pretty good and there are a scant few actors who actually gave it their best. But overall? Eeeegh...

Was the above review useful to you?

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history