Mole (2001) User Reviews

Bland, poor acting, erradic behavior, plot holes

[gabppl · 3/10 · 6 June 2011]

First, I decided to look this film up after someone said "the tunnel" took a lot from this film... I now believe whoever said that either had this movie confused with something like chud or just wanted people to watch this movie (spam).

Susan's (sam tsao) behavior seemed good and natural in the beginning, but once they were attacked and chased, her acting seemed to drop a few levels and her behavior was way off what you'd expect someone to be. Nick's (John-Luke Montias)acting and behavior was decent to good. Tom's (james cox) was fine.

For a movie that's suppose to be more realistic, the characters should act more realistic. example, scared, geeky guy with a gun, whom is injured and talking about how they're all going to die, hears a noise, sees something in the dark, and chases after it, leaving behind the only other person there. Also, susan is stocked by the monster, beats up the monster with a pipe, sees it is a man and wants to record it, but she uses her hands to brush his air aside? and keeps walking back and forth from the same angle while rearranging him slightly? And what happned to "there's more than one of them," while she was recording? this is one of those moments where the entire world stops so the main character can do something in peace.

Also, susan's apologies and actions after being chased seem so fake and inconsistent. At this point, I actually became disappointed because I knew the level of the entire film dropped.

as for the plot, why do we hear growling and weird reverberation sounds when the monster is a man? obviously a man who has been to the surface. they might have used echoing wolf growls and godzilla scream since it obviously proves to have nothing to do with the monster. Shouldn't nick have noticed if the monster was around them (while being chased) if he wasn't going crazy? who killed the crazy homeless guy? why did the monster take away tom and not go back for the others, they were close enough to hear.

That whole walkie talkie conversation was so bad, it was obviously meant to cause tension but it was so badly done. the signals apparently cut out 5-15 seconds at a time but then come in crystal clear (for a walkie talkie).

I'd skip this movie, the tunnel was so much better.

btw, the "footage" message in the beginning is a disclaimer, not a prologue. I made the mistake of only glancing at it and thought it was another blair witch set up. I also suspect some other reviewers who mention this film was made in actual tunnels are more possibly shill reviewers trying to point out the authentic atmosphere.

Shill reviews? This movie is NOT a 10.

[WisdomsHammer · 3/10 · 7 June 2018]

If you're into low budget, independent, amateur productions and want to see something that sort of tries to be the Blair Witch in dark tunnels instead of the forest, you *might* like this.

The acting is okay, the score is okay, the sound is terrible, the lighting is almost non-existent and the cam is often shaky and blurry.

I kept watching hoping the pace would pick up and that the payoff would be worth it. I was disappointed. I kept asking myself, "Why am I watching this?" with no good reason. I walked away from it a couple times and came back to the same scene still playing. This might actually be a decent short film with some competent editing.

The "twist" ending left me disappointed as well. My reaction was, "That's it? That's the big twist ending?" Groan.

If you like B-movies, as I do, I wouldn't call this one. There is nothing in here that makes even bad B-movies enjoyable.

I think the talent in this production shows and they could potentially do something really good. This just wasn't it.

Horrible

[gothic_a666 · 1/10 · 26 January 2006]

"Mole": dull, jittery, overall numbing and clearly inept. I was somewhat surprised to see that this movie has met with such overwhelmingly positive reviews at IMDb.

First of all, I would like to state that I have absolutely nothing against independent movies or low budget realizations of such a cinematographic genre that relies on originality and engaging shooting methods to better convey a certain atmosphere of either realism or artistic bizarreness, and, at its best, a convincing hybrid mixture of both. Alas, that is exactly where "Mole" fails.

The technical shortcomings would be more than enough to undercut whatever impact it might otherwise have had, had the camera not been handled with all the competence of a five-year old. By choosing to shoot the great majority of the movie in a purposeful darkened environment the terrible camera handling comes across as an intrusion to the viewing experience, since all one sees are blurred images, followed by tantrum and randomly annoying scenes of unfocused walls, that are a prelude to scenes crammed with solid darkness and nothing else. It could be argued that this was the whole point of this production, to create and ambiance of claustrophobic intensity by refusing to deliver much, leaving it to the viewer to decide for himself what the message is.

If so, that did not work. Instead, what is presented is only a terribly amateur movie, trying to reenact the Blair Witch Porject in another setting. If one bothers to compare the two, it becomes painfully obvious that "Mole" was only trying to explore a certain formula that had proved to be effective, in the desperate hope that its unpretentious gritty atmosphere would be taken as "genuine" instead of purely disheveled, which is what it is.

Plot-wise I have no complains, it may be far-fetched that a reporter would get all hyped over the remote prospect of finding homeless people living in some abandoned tunnel complex, but in this kind of movie one should never be too strict about such conventions as "plausability". Regardless of that, characters wander aimlessly along badly shot tunnels, scream, are chased, and all along there is no feeling of tension and, surely, no brooding impression of lingering threat.

As for the amazing twist...I'd say it was somewhat predictable, does not actually add up to what came prior to its disclosure and might even add more. I am quite sure I detected some goofs on this gem as well, but I am not inclined to share them, as I don't even think it is worth it.

On a final note, the editing is bellow standard in a way that is remarkably incompetent and the acting is only mediocre.

Just because a movie happens to hail from an independent effort does not immediately confer it the title of greatness or brilliancy. "Mole" is a clear example of that.

Nothing good about this film

[oohlalacaramel · 1/10 · 2 January 2012]

I'm sorry, but this movie is complete garbage. I was told to watch this film after I had watched "The Tunnel." The only thing connecting the two films was the tunnels underneath the subways. The acting isn't natural, too much about it is forced by the actors. The character of Susan made me want to pull my hair out; she had absolutely no concern for anyone but herself, which made her completely unlikable. The character of Tom was extremely whiny and had zero common sense. There were a couple scenes where I actually face-palmed, because the characters were THAT dumb.

There were no scares in this movie. I went into it with an open mind, but I now wish I hadn't wasted my time watching it. The claustrophobic nature of the film worked well, because the characters were running wild in the dark unknown. Other than this, there is no saving grace about the movie. I am a horror fanatic, but this one will not be memorable. Please pass on this movie if you're looking for a good scare, because the acting and the script will make you end up regretting it.

A wonderfully atmospheric and engaging film

[maninwhite · 7/10 · 6 July 2005]

I had the privilege of seeing this movie at the NODANCE FIlm Festival a couple of years ago, and I really didn't have any high expectations for the film at the time. However, after seeing the film, I felt as though my eyes had been reopened to the possibilities of a genre that has fallen through the cracks in the last decade. Many people have already summarized the content of the film, but a brief synopsis is in order. "Mole" is the tale of a secretive and, nearly forgotten, underground society of homeless people. An advantageous reporter takes to the tunnels under New York to try and find a story on the myth, and winds up finding a sub-culture that is as intolerant of outsiders as the the society it has left behind. The film itself has an apparent lack of budget, but this only adds to it's naturalistic charm. Much like "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or "The Blair Witch Project" before it, the film only benefits from the guerrilla style production. The grain on the film makes you feel like you are actually watching a documentary instead of a fictional account. The tunnels are seemingly endless and constricting, due to the adept camera work which lends a claustrophobic feeling to the film. A very real sense of doom spreads upon you as you watch this film, which is both equally disturbing and refreshing given today's standard of horror and suspense films. If you're in the mood to squirm, I highly recommend this movie.

This film is a great little surprise!

[with1land2ts · 10/10 · 21 February 2003]

For a small independent thriller this movie really delivers. The filmmakers actually shot most of it underneath New York City and it looks great. I can't even imagine how a studio would try to tackle this story. They would probably have to reconstruct the entire tunnel system underneath the city in some warehouse but this picture is the `real deal' as far as authentic locations and I think that is what struck me as so cool when watching.

The basic premise involves a reporter named Susan Pei (played by Sam Tsao). She's trying to earn more on screen time and better assignments, and the discovery of several bodies in an abandoned subway tunnel seems to be the springboard she's looking for. She gets a cameraman named Nick (John-Luke Montias) and a guy who claims to be an expert guide, Tom (James Cox), and she heads into the abandoned tunnels to find a story. She finds a story but soon fiction mixes in with reality as they discover more than they bargained for and find themselves struggling to survive against an unknown tunnel dweller.

This movie gradually evolves into a potent, creepy concept, and even though I can't imagine how they did some of the shooting of this film on subway tracks, the filmmakers actually managed to create something fairly stylish and moody by really pushing the extremes of light and shadow. It's a must see for any underground enthusiast and a nice twist at the end makes it a picture worth watching There is more than `scares' coming out of `Mole' but a moral theme I think works at its darkest level. This movie is a great example of independent filmmaking and despite its limitations as a low budget movie it surfaces as quite a movie because of its imaginative style and content.

A fun, exiting flick.

[ohmynerves · 10/10 · 5 March 2003]

Considering this film was shot underneath New York City in real abandoned subway tunnels, it's an eye opener from the get go. It kept my interest throughout the story and I really liked the opening sequence which sucks you right in. It's here you get a great sense of the NYC underground as never seen before. The story is about Susan Pei a news reporter trying to impress her boss by exploring the underground for a news story about the homeless. She convinces a cameraman at the station, Nick, and Tom a guy who claims to know the tunnels to go down there and get the story. However, as they enter the vast underground things start to go wrong, leaving the characters in the dark with dying flashlights. As they struggle to find a way out before their flashlights die out the greater problem emerges that they are being followed by someone or worse something that lives in the tunnels.

This movie creeps up on you if you watch it at night. The scenes get darker and darker until the characters are practically on top of each other trying to find a way out and avoid the hidden entity. It becomes so claustrophobic at times I found myself having the same anxieties the characters were experiencing. The filmmakers of `Mole' should really be commended for their ability to create such a compelling story on such a low budget. It defines the filmmaker's commitment to independent movie making. I was really surprised how this little film managed to keep sucking me in deeper and deeper as the story progressed. I would have loved to see what they could have done with a real big budget but I guess I might not have been the same type of film. Maybe it was its independent, rugged, style that charmed me but I really enjoyed it for what it was. And I recommend watching this film to the end because the moralistic twist is something we haven't seen in a long time in market saturated with monster movies that amount to nothing redeeming.

Relentlessly creepy; good gooey atmosphere

[mark-506 · 8/10 · 19 February 2004]

I won't summarize "Mole" here, as the other reviewers have already done a pretty good job. I will just share my impressions: though "Blair Witch" comparisons may be inevitable, they only skim the surface. "Mole" is far more tense, with a fully fleshed-out storyline and well-developed characters whose ambiguity grows exponentially as the story's screws tighten on them. And you just can't get over the rawness of the look, so central to the film's effectiveness. It's obvious that Mauro, Savini and their cast & crew really ARE down in the subterranean tunnels of New York, and it's terrifying enough just imagining them all there, in pitch dark, with rats and God knows what else crawling all over them, just to get this film made. This you-are-there creepiness fills every frame and enriches each performance, especially Sam Tsao's. She comes across at first as a bit stiff, but eventually sinks her teeth into a role that is as dark and disturbing as the setting and as "Mole" is itself. An honesty in the storytelling and no B.S. attitude to the dialogue and camerawork also help make this film well worth tracking down.