Uninhabited (2010) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
49 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
trickystar31 July 2010
I watched 'Uninhabited' as part of a MIFF double-horror special at Nova, Melbourne. This was second on the bill after 'The Clinic', which itself was a slightly-below average movie.

The film is entirely set on a gorgeous entirely secluded remote island on the Great Barrier Reef. A couple are on a ten-day romantic escape to this island, and early on in their getaway mysterious and unexplained happenings commence.

I actually enjoyed the first portion of the movie, the building of mystery was handled reasonably well and I held some genuine curiosity towards what was happening on the island (being set on an island I was half expecting some kind of black smoke monster to appear at some stage!).

However this intrigue dissipated pretty quickly. The acting, particular of the male lead was noticeable pretty poor and the film struggled to create any meaningful suspense or horror. The only part of the film which managed to create any kinds of feeling of suspense was the remoteness of the setting, but this is fairly stock standard for the horror genre. The plot was very clichéd and very predictable.

Overall an uninspiring film which unfortunately didn't build on mystery created early on in the film.
36 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Ghost Story that does not Scare
claudio_carvalho14 July 2011
When Harry (Henry James) and his girlfriend Beth (Geraldine Hakewill) travel by boat with the sailor Jackson (Bob Baines) to one of the six hundred islands in the Northeast coast of Australia, they expect to camp along ten days alone in a desert paradisiacal place. However, they sooner find footprints on the sand and missing things in their camping and they believe that it is a child's prank that might be camping on the other side of the island. After an incident with two weird foreigners, the couple finds that a woman called Coral (Tasia Zalar) was raped and murdered one hundred years ago in that island and her ghost feels an intense hatred for men.

"Uninhabited" is a low-budget ghost story that unfortunately does not scare. The character Harry has the most inappropriate attitude with the two strangers and the performance of Henry James is not good. Geraldine Hakewill is beautiful and convincing, but the plot is too weak and does not help the young lead couple to have better performances. The impressive location in the introduction is a wonderful lost paradise. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Paraíso do Medo" ("Paradise of the Fear")
26 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Unscary and Uninteresting
jjlevo8 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this one at the Melbourne International Film Festival double feature after the Clinic. As the other reviews have said, the setting for this film is great. Very nice scenery, the camera work is professional and really makes it seem like a high budget film. The lead female does well, but the male lead is horrible. It seems the audience hated him right from the start.

There are some elements that are interesting at the start, with some genuinely suspenseful moments. However, the film just goes downhill from there. The story is predictable and badly written. The apparent symbolism is a cop-out. And most importantly, the ending doesn't make sense.

Spoilers: Why did the girl step on a stone fish and become the new coral? She wasn't raped, she didn't seem to deserve it. I thought a lesson was being taught, however it just kept going. What is the point of this ending? If someone could answer this I would love to know.

In short, this movie is the worst film I have ever seen.

EDIT: Also, just in case people may have not noticed, the first review of this film is from THE DIRECTOR. PRETENDING TO BE AN AUDIENCE MEMBER. Just look at his user name. This is very poor form.
24 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A haunted house movie set on an island
krachtm28 October 2011
Some people seem to have really, really hated this movie, and I'm surprised that it managed to elicit such a strong reaction from them. I found this to be perfectly watchable, even though it's a bit routine -- even clichéd. I don't see how it could cause either strongly positive or negative feelings.

Instead of a haunted house, the setting is a haunted island, but the effect is the same. Like your stereotypical haunted house movie, mysterious happenings start spooking our young lovers, ratcheting up the creepiness factor as time goes on. Footprints in the sand that start and stop suddenly. Oooh, mysterious. Whispering and sobbing that might just be the wind. Oooh, spooky. A run-down shack that they somehow never noticed before and a grave nearby. Oooh, creepy. A book that helpfully explains the origins of the ghost and its M.O. Oooh, cheap narrative device... I mean, oooh, scary.

It's nothing you haven't seen before, but it's competently shot. The acting has been highly criticized by others, but it didn't really bother me. The soundtrack was more annoying, I thought. It's basically some woman channeling the pain of the world in soulful, non-lyrical vocalizations. You know the kind. I hate it, and I wish people would stop scoring their movies with it. However, even this failed to give me a strong emotional response. Whereas some other reviewers have judged this movie quite harshly, with the requisite "worst movie ever" assertions, I just can't work up the strong emotional response necessary to hate it. It was OK. I'd recommend it to people who love supernatural suspense stories, as long as they don't have very high standards. It's a generic ghost story about generic people on a generic island, haunted by a generic ghost. If you're looking for more than that, then skip it.
16 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Poor and irritating.
sunrise350031 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The performance of the male lead was terrible and painful to watch, and his character was quite irritable. Thankfully Geraldine (Female lead) was much more convincing as well as pleasant on the eye. The camera work throughout is consistently great; great composition and a lot of creamy bokeh. The actual story is rather poor, not well thought-out and seems to be written to be more convenient to the writer than the viewer. It is only further let down with a terrible and weak ending. The writer is also possibly trying to be clever to leave the viewer thinking (With the Island's new ghost..), but the reality is, the viewer is left stupefied and dissatisfied. One member of the audience gave the screen the finger at the credits which sums this film up well.
22 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Needs a little more life.
thekarmicnomad26 September 2011
This isn't a terrible movie, considering the budget there is a lot worse out there.

I can't put my finger on why it took me half the film to warm to the protagonists, but they do eventually grow on you.

The deserted island is creepy and there are moments of deep tensions but no actual scares.

A large portion of the film is dedicated to building up suspense but the director waits too long before bringing things to a head and by then the pay-off is just too light.

Good enough production, acting, no shaky cameras and this movie is totally watchable but it lacks the budget and the originality to make it anything more.
12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Of what sex was the fish who stung them both? Were both fish forgiven coz they were female?
fedor821 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Half of the corals on this beautiful Great Barrier Reef island died off after the filming of "Uninhabited" - out of embarrassment for having appeared in it. Ditto the killer-fish.

I have no idea why Coral-ghost didn't kill poisonous fish, too, as revenge. In fact, I haven't a clue why Coral-ghost harboured no ill-feelings toward those fish whatsoever. It must have been their cute big bug-eyes. One look and you forgive them instantly. Was Coral so dumb as not to realize that the fish (male or female) is just as much at fault for her death as the seven rapists?

If you're expecting another very good Aussie horror flick like the 70s "Long Weekend", which is similar in its set-up, forget it.

Plenty of credibility problems here.

First off, if a couple are alone on an island, and they know or suspect that they're in danger, then they would not split up from each other, even for a minute. Yet, these two knuckleheads (straight out of a Kelvin Klein catalog for underwear) keep splitting up continuously, over and over. Eventually, that leads to the guy getting predictably killed, while Sean Young stupidly wonders how the hell that happened.

Secondly, they found the diary after they'd realized strange things were going on. Wouldn't it have made sense for them to read it straight away as opposed to AFTER several additional incidents had already occurred? It's not as if they had better things to do. But I forget that this was written by a knucklehead, that the characters are knuckleheads, and that I must be one too for sitting through this nonsense.

Thirdly, if the woman you love is off - at night - on a lone island - while an apparent intruder is roaming about - wouldn't you want to NOT to have your ears covered with ear-phones, listing to music? Sure you do. Nevertheless, the male half of the nitwit duo actually listens to music, his back turned to the woods even, while his "great love" is off exploring the hut, on an island that threatens their lives. Duh.

Fourthly, the heavily-armed, shark-hunting, beer-drinking, metal-head Greek psychos. If they were such lunatics then they'd certainly have attacked the couple earlier, instead of waiting for Blondy to pick a fight first. Suddenly, the Greeks turn into serial-killer psychos, in what was an extremely idiotic (though predictable, coz seen-before) turn of events. Even more predictably, their murder(?)-rape(?) rampage is cut short by the ghost. Did anyone not see this coming? The mere inclusion of these two was such an obvious, predictable distraction from the supernatural danger. The instant I saw them on the boat, shooting sharks and listening to metal, I knew they were going to be the movie's "temporary scapegoats". I don't think anyone but the youngest horror fans actually fell for that very cheap shtick.

Fifthly, if they're in so much danger, why not take turns as guards during the night? That would be the logical thing to do. The problem with many (horror) films is that they're not so much about requiring a suspension of disbelief as much as a suspension of logic. But I can't do that. If you can't make an effort in writing a half-way intelligent script then don't even bother.

There is an underlying (and very PC) hatred of men in the script, one which is partly the cause of the many cretinous plot-twists. The woman who was killed 100 years ago died in the most ludicrous circumstances. She was stung by a poisonous fish, then while rushing off for help she gets RAPED and laughed at by no less than seven men. Does this seem even remotely credible to anyone? It's not as if she was stung on Prison Island. Add to this the fact that the two Greek shark-hunters are also portrayed as rapists and psychos. Plus the fact that the female half of the Duo Retardale actually sides with the ghosts for killing innocent men as vengeance for her rape and death (which predictable leads to her not getting killed hence becoming a ghost too), and one gets a clear picture of the rabid feminism that is lurking out of every pore of this story. Nevermind that a man wrote it. Just look at Phil Donahue.

What a let-down that ghost was! She finally appears 15 minutes before the end, and it turns out to be just a cute black girl, looking about as ominous as a Pez dispenser, ready to start "shakin' that boo-tey" in a really bad MTV video. A little later the evil male (coz all males are evil, you see) gets slaughtered, and then his gal runs over the reef, verrryyyy predictably stepping on a poisonous fishy herself. Meaning? Any symbolism to this? Nope. Just dumb.

Beth re-appears as a ghost, ready to kill all those who... Ehm. Actually, who does she kill? Well, no-one actually raped her, so I guess the only beef that Beth-ghost may have is with the Coral-ghost and the fish that screwed her over. So what is she going to do with the old man who came to pick them up? This is where the movie ends. Even the writer/director didn't know the answer to that. He had just written himself into a dead-end and didn't bother to get out of it with a re-write of the first draft. Yes, this must have been the first, and final, draft. Lazy bastard.

Perhaps there will be a sequel, in which Beth-ghost and Coral-ghost square off against each other. Or join up to kill some fish. Going straight to video, that one.
19 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
"Inspired by true events" WARNING huge spoiler- read after watching!
Jayson100026 August 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I registered simply to settle the overwhelming urge I had to comment on this film. Firstly I am keen to know if this film was actually inspired by true events, if so what were they (as I have been able to find no reference to them despite a thorough search), and if not was it a lame attempt to add intrigue? As has already been stated it seems the director left one of the first comments. I nearly fell off my chair laughing at the "If anything, the girl and the ghost kind of bond" remark. Seriously, if leading a girl out onto the reef so she meets her doom by stepping on a stone fish is bonding, then I have led a very sheltered life where getting close to someone doesn't involve topping them. If Im honest I did find the film watchable, but far too many loose ends and contradictions. A ghost who can appear and disappear yet can wield a knife and stab people? When she did make an appearance there was nothing ghostly about her at all, just looked like a native islander. How did the ghost dig the graves, operate a camcorder and plant a mobile phone in her hut? If she was a man hater why kill Beth? And why did Beth take over as chief resident hauntress? And for me the crunch, the guy who dropped them on the island clearly knew something dodgy was going on there to look all concerned when leaving them and spout the line "If you decide to leave early, call me". He seems like a nice bloke so why didn't he just tell them "Hey guys you know this island is just not right, ill drop you off on one of the other 599 where you will remain alive". Priceless.. and made me laugh. For that I rate this as an unintentional Thrill-Com.
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A couple's R & R --make that "F & F"-- on an island is spoiled by an unhappy ghost.
Boloxxxi19 August 2011
Beth and Harry go vacationing on what they believe is an uninhabited island. Jackson, the guy who owns the boat, drops them off and seems to know something the way he's looking at the couple; well, either that, or he's jealous of young love. Most likely the former. So why isn't he telling? Afterall, many horror movies start out with dire warnings by someone which are, of course (lucky for us), ignored. The same could have happened here but in this movie the person who seems to know something keeps their mouth shut this time and leaves the couple on the island to fend for themselves (Suckers!!).

Alone finally, Beth and Harry think they're in paradise and it certainly looks like it when we, the viewers, get that wonderful cinematographic overview of the island. Nothing to do for 10 days but fish and f!!ck. And fish and f!!ck some more! Sounds good to me. Probably to you too, reader, I don't know. The happy couple have a courtship of playful teasing, trading friendly jibes and silliness in obvious anticipation of their time together on the island. Then shortly they get down to business (you know, with the f & f) but as soon as they do, the morning after, they discover signs that they are not alone. It's not so troubling at first. It just meant that they would have to share the island with others or another. It is understandably somewhat disappointing when they thought they'd have the whole place to themselves. But they're basic plan still seemed intact; they could still fish and discretely f!!ck as much as they liked (Arrriiight!).

The naturalness or comfort level between the couple didn't feel right to me. I don't know why. They're banter seemed scripted (which it actually is, but they're suppose to convince us otherwise). That could be just me, reader. But if I'm right, then the acting was not as good as it should have been. Still, a horror movie can still be rescued from a "little bad acting" by a good story and good scares. So Boloxxxi, did the story and the scares save the day? --Well, reader, the story --at least the general framework of it-- is okay. Basically: A couple vacations on what they think is a normal, uninhabited island, discover it's neither normal or uninhabited as they thought; that the island is in fact haunted. Nothing wrong with that. I think the big disappointment of this movie is that there was a certain amount of anticipation and mystery as to who or what else was on the island. And when it came time for the big payoff it turns out that it's nothing that really creeps you out or makes you shudder. My attractive companion didn't grab me once during the viewing which of course was my master plan (Foiled again!).

So basically 3 things torpedoed this movie in my opinion: the acting (an unconvincing couple), some of the execution (how the ghost GRADUALLY made it's presence known), and how it FINALLY made it's presence known. The last was so, so, so anticlimactic. That's the ghost?!! Hell, I can see that walking on the street. Love, Boloxxxi.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I want my 90 mins back
kerryan-dawson26 August 2011
There was nothing lower than 1 star, that's what this film got. A boring story about a couple on an uninhabited island, who discover that the island is not deserted. It sounds promising on paper, but the reality is sorely disappointing. It starts off slowly, does not build up or speed up, then finally ends in a complete anti-climax - the film being over is the only piece of enjoyment I could derive from the experience of enduring this movie. If you need a film to sleep through, or are looking for an actionless way to numb your brain, then this is the film for you. A must to avoid for cinema connoisseurs and those who require any form of mental stimulation.
14 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Another Male Hate Film
axlerod-495-3900296 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
'Just wanted to give a shout down to the Australian film Uninhabited (2010). I just saw it on Netflix....

(Sigh)...it appears that the anti-male bigotry of Second Wave Feminism lurks the college halls of Aussie film theorists. at least, it's beginning to die in The States.

In Unihabited, all men are bad and all women are the righteous avengers who kill them. Even good men in the film die. The story's simplistic treatment of rape trivializes the crime to the point where I can't name who should be more angry after watching this crap, men or women.

Another piece of trash on the level of Hard Candy (2005).
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
My girlfriend nearly left me cause because I chose this piece of garbage to watch...
Silly_Sausage_6929 October 2011
From the moment the sickening cinematography performs a cliché 1st year film school pan across the deep blue sea, we felt like vomiting with the pretence of what was to come. Next it seemed that the sound engineer was trying to do all his work in a foley studio. At one stage the girl was breathing heavily and we couldn't even see her chest move. The love making scene was worth something out of 'Dallas' perhaps. It was not erotic. The dialogue was bordering on the banal and empty. I mean seriously, who knows these types of people. The writer? What rock has he been living under to regurgitate such spaghetti brained individuals. Really there's not a lot to say. Except it was awful. They were supposed to be clever but they do stupid thing after stupid thing. The girl doesn't play so bad (Please don't put this on your resume though love), but the guy should should go back to KMART commercials if thats where they found him. The ghost - Stupid. Not really a ghost either. The heavy metal fishermen who don't speak English - Why , how...completely useless in the film.

Anyway as a film, its no good. It is a waste of time, the director should not have put his name to it if he wants to direct again and the writer should consider seppuku.
13 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Fizzy and Forgettable
shuklavinash30 September 2012
Ever since the tale 'And the sea will tell' by Vincent Bugliosi and Bruce Henderson became a bestseller, numerous attempts have been made to discover the horror behind uninhabited islands. This Australian film comes straight from the director Bill Bennett, who successfully directed his critically and publicly acclaimed flick 'In a Savage Land.' Bennett, however, disappoints this time.

Beth (Gerlandine Hakewill) and Harry (Henry James) set off for a vacation to spend an idyllic time at an uninhabited island somewhere in the Coral Sea, off the eastern coast of Australia. Once there, the couple is fascinated by an appealing tropical climate, turquoise waters, white sands and pleasant winds. Led by their basic instincts the two begin combing the island and finally discover an old house and an abandoned grave with a name 'Coral' on it. They also become victims of lunatic shark-hunters, who tie the couple and leave them to die. The couple is however saved by an unseen entity, who forces the lunatics to take to their heels. The apparition's presence in the island is validated by 'her' sobs in the air.

Further investigation leads Beth to a diary, which belongs to someone who came to the island long back. The diary accounts the history of island claiming it to be haunted by the spirit of a girl named Coral. The diary says Coral worked for a fishing crew at the island a century ago, and once got a deadly stone fish sting. She was subsequently raped by other men of the crew. Now Coral turned into a ghost and had since been avenging her death by killing anyone who comes for spending vacation in this tropical paradise.

The film suffers from lack of content. Since the content is meager, several unnecessary sequences have been added. The photography is great but gets less attention from the director. The director could have used the silence of island for building a great atmosphere, which unfortunately 'Uninhabited' falls short of. The ending is fizzy and doesn't explain much about Beth's future. Harry dies in a jiffy and his part ends abruptly. I don't think its a good idea to be so concise when it comes to direction. I would anytime prefer to read 'And the sea will tell' or watch 'BBC's South Pacific episodes' instead of watching this somewhat childish and awkward creation or film, if this could be called one.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
How about a more positive review -with massive SPOILERS!!!!!
bsevingen15 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
It was actually not that bad compared to the average American light horror film. The bright and beautiful scenery is somewhat refreshing for this genre as opposed to secluded hotels and farmhouses. The acting was horrible and almost unprofessional but that in a way helped support sort of a realistic blair witch setting. Anyway what I actually want to say is, most of the reviewers here read a botched ghost story whereas I think it was plain that beth became obsessed with the myth of coral then became coral and killed her boyfriend. If they could have worked more on the first half of the film suggesting more strongly some of the tensions of her character, this film could have been really good, on a par with the French movie High Tension. As in High Tension, when you think about the first half here after watching the entire film you almost get some interesting clues. The Beth character had suggestions of some depth which were not sufficiently explored: surprisingly bossy ("stone fish, stay right where you are", nerdy ("please no studies here") and depressed ("you lightened up a bit"). Unfortunately it is only 'almost' high tension as these threads could have been much better developed. I suspect the script wanted to try such an idea (couple with an uneasy relationship as in Vacancy and Strangers + a twist at the end) but it was lost somewhere on the way. I am actually more interested in Australian horror films now and will try to watch new ones.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
creepy little gem
reddrokk26 August 2010
I was shaken up by Uninhabited when I saw it as part of the melbourne film festival. It was creepy but very beautiful, and it really got under my skin.

My partner and I talked about it a lot after the screening. He didn't like it as much as me, he was expecting another Saw I think, but to me it's more like the Harrison Ford movie What Lies Beneath, or even Picnic at Hanging Rock. To me it was a relief not to see bodies carved up and splattered everywhere.

There are really only two main actors in the film, and they were good. They kept me guessing the whole time and they were very watchable.

I hope it gets out to a wider audience because it offers an alternative to the usual blood and guts fare that you see so often and I look forward to seeing it again because there's a lot to think about in this creepy little gem.
13 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Good effort!
dhenry6817 August 2011
I am a fan of Aussie flicks and would like to see more offerings!

This movie is set on Masthead Island in the Great Barrier Reef. A marine biologist and her boyfriend are on a 10 day holiday, on a beautiful deserted island....or so they think. Strange events begin to take place leading to a shocking discovery of a sad event. Soon the two lovebirds are not alone and their new neighbours clash. However the new neighbours don't last long.

The movie is minimalist like the Saw franchise. There are only 6 characters but that is enough. If you like homegrown flicks, then definitely give this one a go. At the very least the scenery is breath taking : ) Enjoy
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
"Nothing ever dies. Things just reform".
lost-in-limbo22 August 2018
Don't you just love it when the credits open with inspired by actual events in an attempt to hook you in? A young couple decides to spend their holidays off the north coast of Australia, dropped off by a charter boat on one of the many tiny islands in the Great Barrier Reef. Thinking that they have the island all to themselves, they discover that it might not be the case and an empty, shuddersome looking shack next to a grave in the middle of the island might hold the answers to what they're experiencing. Forget about the deadly wildlife you might encounter, as someone or something is obviously trying to unsettle them.

While competently made it follows a standard pattern. Think along the lines of a haunted house formula, but the house is actually a tropical island. Its minimal style engineers the natural beauty of the surroundings to lure you into a false sense of security, as the two characters fool around, relax and explore the open spaces. A breathtaking, tranquil backdrop is strikingly photographed with visual contrast and abstract shots of a crystal blue coral reef, golden sands, richly green vegetation and the ever reaching skyline. But their intrusion stirs up a horrific past that won't rest, where the beauty masks something cancerous and vengeful. Their belongings are messed about, shadowy figure appears, footprints show up in the sand and voices are heard on the wind.

Suspense slowly materializes from its slight premise, questions begin to add up and foolish character decisions become the norm as a progressive plot tool. The couple eventually clash over what they believe they're facing and emotional remoteness sets in. There are moments when it makes your hairs stand up on the back of your neck, using subdued thrills with a hauntingly indigenous sounding score, but at the same time it's so familiar in execution it doesn't surprise. I really didn't know what to make of the ending and final shot though, felt overly redundant and before that occurs there's a tragically ironic twist of fate that worked much better. Palatable performances from the two leads Geraldine Hakewill and Bob Baines made their buoyant chemistry believable that I actually felt for them.

"UNINHABITED" had its flaws, not whole a lot happens and it's beyond routine, but I'm a sucker for anything on a tropical island.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
BatmanFunReviews11 June 2018
A young couple go to a remote and deserted coral island for a camping holiday, only to find that the island is inhabited by a ghost seeking retribution for a past outrage. Uninhabited started quite well at first and built a terrific mystery but once the twist started happening and the end came in the film lost it's track and just throwed one disappointing scene after the other. The main girl does her best, the main guy was kinda wooden tho. Overall a disappointing horror film that started interesting and went downhill after that. (2/10)
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Uninhas to be a joke
adi_20027 December 2013
Beth and Harry goes on a island to spent a holiday there for ten days. Soon they discover some signs and realize they are not alone there and somebody else lives and visits them at night when are asleep. After finding an old cabin also they found an book that has something written and so will know that a girl was raped and killed there one hundred years ago and now seek revenge on every man that stays on the island.

I was anxious to see this movie because of the poster that looks alright but it was a disappointment. This is not a horror not even a thriller. Based on real events? Maybe for the first ten minutes.

I think that you don't need to pay too much attention at this film but instead let yourself be mesmerized by the stunning landscape.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not terrible if you go unbiased
nickarrain12 September 2013
Uninhabited started off with some great film work showcasing a beautiful deserted island in the Great Barrier Reef region. Captivates seeing the beautiful surroundings the region has to offer. Beth and Harry come off as a wonderful couple escaping from the real world to spend some time alone on this beautiful landscape, but things take a turn downward as things go astray.

We personally enjoyed this one however acting was not top notch, and we found it extremely difficult to get sucked in due to poor scripting, and Harry seeming confused the whole time. This wouldn't be a bad one to sit back and watch to get a few nice scares out of! Nick A.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
horror? horrible
checabear23 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is about a marine biologist and a cook vacationing on an island with a ghost. It is not as boring as it sounds, it is worst. It had to be based on a true event because no fiction could be this bad.

Truly a waste of film, i kept waiting for something to happen and waiting and waiting. It was so bad my fridge became uninhabited with groceries. Exactly, i decided to make supper instead of watching this movie. After i finished cooking, and sat down to finish watching the movie. Guess what?, nothing happened. The poster is a picture of someone watching this movie, but is stuck on an island. As dull as star trek one and one tree lane (something like that).
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
not a horror movie, more a European art film
unhappyrabbit6 August 2010
I saw the film at the Melbourne Film Festival and I must admit, I was really pleasantly surprised.

I went with two other women, and we couldn't stop talking about the film afterward. It really left us thinking about the kind of things that aren't usually discussed in horror movies or thrillers.

It's more like a European art film than an Australian horror film. It has a slow suspenseful build-up, and then something shocking happens, then it has a really intriguing ending. It really made us think about everything that had happened during the film.

Both the actors are great. The actor playing Harry is gorgeous - and the girl playing Beth is a star in the making. Both are in fact. I wouldn't be surprised if they're the new Aussie big- thing in Hollywood in the next few years.

The music is fabulous, very atmospheric, and the photography was stunning. The dialogue was very real and life-like.

Overall I found the film thought-provoking and it stayed with me a long time afterward. It's not super scary, as I was expecting, but it's creepy. It's really unusual, and probably not to everyones taste but my friends and I loved it.
8 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Uninhabited of any original plot, pretty though.
snarkyphilo13 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
There is a frustrating trend in cinema now a days where you get some beautifully wrought films where you can tell that a great deal of care and attention is going into them, but only in one aspect of the film, leaving other aspects, necessary ones, like a flat tire that could have made for an otherwise smooth ride, and this movie is a prime example.

The focus, and thus the strength in this movie are the visuals. There is this almost too beautiful super-realism to it, a sense of texture that a spectator can almost feel with their eyeballs; the sheen, heave, and ripples of water, the grit of sand on the bodies of the two protagonists as they embrace on the beach, the deadly rough edges of a stone fish, the drips of water as one of the protagonists take an early morning dip in the cooling shallows. It adds a layer of visual experience to the movie that makes spectators almost feel the sand down their shorts.

The film also deserves credit for knowing how to use angle, close ups, and perspective shots in this film. There is also this trend in films from time to time where the creators get a little to enamoured of a particular type of shot and often it is used in a way that does not work well with the plot (for example a pointless pan across in M. Night Shyamalan's Signs, used where nothing of any great tension or obvious oddity is happening, which is one of the reason's filmmakers normally use the method, to heighten these moments), this is something that the movie fortunately doesn't do. The low angle first person shot of Harry as he looks up at the attacker who struck him with the gun, the use of in and out of focus, and the occasional over exposure give a sense of the surreal state of in and out of consciousness that Harry is experiencing.

It's not just camera though, the soundtrack highlights the sense of location while at the same time, winding the tension in the spectators more successfully than the narrative itself is in presenting the supernatural malevolence that haunts the island. It provides an auditory flavor that is beautiful and eerie at the same time without being intrusive. Sound in this film is properly used as a narrative aide, and not just there despite the narrative.

Despite these positive qualities, the weakness in this film lies in the narrative.

The transitions between these beautiful visuals to the actual plot happening (when it eventually does) gives a sense as if someone were filming an IMAX beach documentary and some semblance of a story wanders drunkenly onto set from time to time, reminding the viewer "oh yeah, I am watching a movie." The transitions between these moments are jarring and weaken the experience of the film.

Said drunken narrative itself is a lazily put together ghost story with the revelation of the reality of the ghost to the characters shoe horned in with an exceedingly weak-ass plot device. The two leads played by Geraldine Hakewell and Henry James, are portrayed well enough, particularly Hakewell as Beth, but all you really know about them is that they are in wuv and on vacation, with shallow dialogue that reveals practically nothing about themselves, except that one of them is a marine biologist, and that's it. There is nothing character-wise to hold on to in this film and it makes it hard for spectators to empathize with them as they have no internal conflict.

The ghost itself has an overused motivation of blind vengeance, and is just as two dimensional as the protagonists. There is no relationship between the ghost and her victims, other than the fact that one of them has a generalized trait, that there is a man on the island, which incites her actions. Her back story is too rushed and clichéd, and other then a brief moment where Beth feels a sympathy for the woman and how she died, there is nothing between the two women that fleshes out the ghost from the perspective of the victims, or vice versa. This is echoed in the conclusion of the narrative, as Beth's fate leaves a groan and eye roll at how freakin' unimaginative and nonsensical (in a bad, lazy way) it is within the established narrative – what there is of it.

This movie was frustrating to watch because of all this amazing visual detail and excellent use of sound, but the narrative in contrast was so bad, that it leaves one feeling unfulfilled against the promise that the technical side of things makes, but doesn't match with story-wise. It's a shame because if the narrative had even been half way better than it is, this would have been one of the better contemporary horror movies out there.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Good idea but could have done so much more with it!
atinder24 August 2014
Uninhabited (2010)

I thought this was going to full on full found footage movies but again was so-what disappointed that it wasn't.

Like I said in my last post, i not fan of Mixed of hand held and normal filming, it dose not work for me.

I thought this movie sounded great, the idea was really good and the locations was great.

There could have done so much more with this movies, it's mind boggling, it kinds slow in places and really predicable in some places.

The acting was decent from short cast and for once I actually liked the last scenes of the movie, I thought it was decent end to a worth watching movie.

4 out of 10
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Nice scenery, not much else
Mikel32 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Last night we watched 'Uninhabited'. It's the story of a young couple that camp out on a small tropical island near the Great Barrier Reef. They're dropped off there by a small boat that would come back to pick them up in 10 days. They have all the supplies they need and a tent. The island is supposed to be uninhabited so they would be alone and have a romantic getaway. After the first day or so they come to realize they're not alone, someone or some thing is watching them and messing with their things. Are the other inhabitants humans playing tricks on them or is it something much more sinister and supernatural? The movie contains some nice tropical scenic photography, unfortunately the story drags out and was ultimately a waste of time. I'll rate it 4 stars for the pretty scenery.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed