Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Nice effects though.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

Well, starting us off, this isn't a horror movie at all, sure it has blood in it and violence but... there is no really sense of urgency or suspense in this movie. And because of that this gory effects just seem silly and laughable. Second of all, most acting is really bad and the character's actions/reactions to what's happening around them just seem so unfitting to their poorly developed characters. Also... there was a reasonable amount of times that this movie attempted at comedy and I didn't found none of the jokes funny or even fitting to what was happening at the moment, and it was really weird. Cinematography is acceptable, but oh god some of the special effects are really bad, I laughed when they left the building in the end and that green screen just looked so fake. And also, what the heck is up with that ending when they pull that philosophical crap, expecting us to take the movie seriously? Like this was a really well done thought provoking movie? Well...no. 1/10

'The Belko Experiment (2017)' has an interesting central premise that unfortunately doesn't stand up to much scrutiny and isn't helped by an unambiguous ending that simultaneously reveals too much without explaining anything. The core concept, mostly in terms of the villains' motivations and the validity of their experiment, falls flat when you think about it for more than a few seconds, but it could be trying to 'satirise' the way they justify their actions as opposed to presenting their justification as legitimise. Still, the wider 'satire' isn't quite as successful as it perhaps should have been, or was intended. Some silly moments punch through the generally realistic tone and the tangible violence - which is helped by wonderfully splattery and gruesome practical effects - offers plenty of brutal enjoyment, though. It's just that the story and characters are somewhat lacking. 6/10

I've been looking forward to this movie, I wasn't so disappointed by the overall concept, but the execution left a lot to be desired. This movie aims to tackle morality, what is good and what is bad and whose life is worth more. It reminds me of the Stanford Prison Experiment which we briefly covered in psychology - what do people do and how do they change if they're put in a position of power. Unpacking that psychology was interesting in the movie but I feel like we never get close enough to any of the characters to really care & there is a lot of 'convenient' killing for the sake of not having to do that deep dive that the topic asks for. It's a pretty gorey and blunt film that begs the question but fails to answer. Acting was decent enough, would I recommend it? Probably not, it shows us things we already know and expect but fails to provide any logic or reasoning, or offer any alternative perspective.

SPOILERS! When I heard the concept, I was excited. It was marketed as "Office Space meets Battle Royale." It was not. The first thirty minutes are promising but it's all downhill from there. You have a horror film that has John C. McGinley and Michael Rooker and they aren't even the main antagonist? McGinley is more like a side character. He could've been a great main baddie. Like an evil Bob. Instead he's just playing creeper, and not even a likable creeper. Haha. Rooker is totally wasted as well. Tony Goldwyn, while a competent slimeball in Ghost does not seem like he should be the main baddie, a special ops guy who easily gets bludgeoned at the end? That's one of many nitpick things (killing off Dany in a lame way, not even a struggle; lame payoff). The movie doesn't know whether it wants to be funny or serious. It should've been played for laughs (a la Cabin in the Woods), instead it's just kind of depressing. Most of the people who get mowed down don't deserve it. If anything, the cast is good, to their credit...most notably James Gunn. But yeah, disappointed.