Wound All User Reviews (8)

Average ratings from 7 ratings, 8 reviews
Reviewed & Rated by
Your rating & review
Rate / Review this movie

But not terrible. Considering the budget and yes the script definitely had it's imperfections but I thought the majority of the acting was STUNNING, especially by the 2 leading ladies. I think this is what held the film together for me.

A shame the effects (maybe a bit "old school horror"?) really showed the limitations of Wounds budget but the following links prove it isn't as horrible as you guys think..

ON FILM REVIEW
onfilm.co.nz/editorial.asp?EditorialID=52112&src=E

From Tuesday 27th... More July Dom Post...

"FF Picks.
Tuesday. 27th July.
Wound. Paramount. 6.30 and 8.45.
4 stars.
David Blyth's Wound should have been the film that got the little men of the religious right into a lather this year. I guess they just didn't make it to the last page of the Festival programme to read about it. Blyth has been working in and under the New Zealand film industry since the late 1970's, and seeing him re-emerge with something as fresh, grotesque, polarising and smart as Wound is a real treat. The film is a serious psycho-sexual horror, with enough twists and turns to keep the post-movie conversation going all night. There are a couple of scenes of horrific violence, and it often betrays its microscopic budget, but Wound is as an original, intelligent, and curiously poignant wee film. Blyth's 'Jodorowsky of the suburbs' reputation is safe. Star Kate O'Rourke – who delivers an incredible central performance - will probably be at both screenings. - Graeme Tuckett"

But the film isn't going to be for everyones liking and maybe if there wasn't so much pre movie hype we would of all gone in without the high expectations and pre conceived ideas and enjoyed Wound for what it is.Hide


I concur with, Jon. I do not think I have seen a film more atrociously awful than Wound, and I've seen some bad films. There are films that are so bad that they become good again (Birdemic, The Room etc), but then there are films that just have few redeeming features. Then there is Wound.

The films biggest failing had to be its script which is riddled with setups that don't pay off, cliches that would make even a student director shudder (that ending? Come on!) and dialogue that isn't so... More much clunky as painful. The problem with all of this is that it isn't even laughably bad. It's just unpleasent.

David Blyth mentioned in his pre-amble that films like this would 'keep the film commision honest'. I completely agree. It'll ensure that they never fund rubbish like this.

Doesn't even deserve a 1/5.Hide


"Wound" is quite simply the worst movie I have had the misfortune of watching. Do not be fooled that this is not a "stupid splatter movie" to quote the reviewer below, because despite all its pretensions otherwise this is exactly what "Wound" is. Factor in some terribly amateurish film making and special effects and you will have an idea as to how big of a disaster the film is. And yes this is a movie to show psychology students or medical students doing their psychiatric attachment; "Wound" is... More as unsubtle an example of dime-store psychology as you can get!Hide


Bad reviews can be an indication that the film was good, and vice versus. 'Wound' is not a film for the faint hearted, nor is it some stupid splatter movie that some equally stupid viewers seem to like. At some level the sane message seems to be that sexual abuse and sexual violence leads to total mental breakdown but at another level - especially as visual impact - one wonders why the insane consequences are being acted out on stage when we already know that fact is stranger than fiction.... More True, classical allusions can be equally grim but they are not acted out, apart from themes in equally classical paintings. Graphic depiction of long scenes of rape and castration are hardly a deterrent for people so inclined - however technically accomplished the cinematography. The film should be shown to students of forensic psychiatry as a case study. After all, Ian Mune - as the psychiatrist in the film - makes the wry comment that this is an INTERESTING case.Hide


BY JennL nobody

I have to agree with all the critic Robin posted.

After staying for the Q&A at the NZFF screening I was somewhat appalled at the audience who were stroking Blythe's ego, I'm glad to see other people weren't impressed.

I also really wanted to enjoy this movie, a good horror movie is what I had hoped. But it was largely confusing, and despite the promise of "explicit graphic violence" I felt it under-delivered as a splatter horror film, which would have been it's only saving grace from a trite... More storyline.

I must say I was impressed with the more technical elements - while the more tiresome cinematography felt bogged down by the story requirements other aspects I felt were very well done.Hide


Ever watched a horror movie that is so tedious it bores you to tears? Try Wound. The acting was generally terrible, the horror effects were rubbery and laughable (which could have worked if it was supposed to be a gore/splatter thing, but it wasn't), the characterisation was trite, the narrative was badly conceived and it pulled out every bad cliche in the book as far as 'this is what a psychiatrist is like', this is what a dominatrix is like', 'this is what psychosis is like', 'this is what... More subcultural teenagers are like'.
I really wanted to like it and I really wanted it to be good because a great NZ horror would be a wonderful thing, but it wasn't. It was rubbish. Not just slightly rubbish, but irredeemably rubbish.Hide


I just watched "Wound" at the NZFF last night and found it to be terrible. All its artistic pretensions can't mask how poorly made "Wound" is. I went into "Birdemic" expecting a terrible film and got a few laughs out of the experience. "Wound" however features all the amateurism seen in "Birdemic" without any of the humour. Definitely one to be avoided!


I want to see this movie so bad.