, this is an insult to both sci-fi and horror, but maybe I misinterpreted that and it's supposed to be a "so bad it's good" example, but I don't take sci-fi lightly, sci-fi is meant to teach us stuff, but if it's only cheap entertainment, that's why we have sci-fantasy, don't lower sci-fi to this, this has more to do with Jason X than actual sci-fi, but the insult here is that this tries to be sci-fi... 
I know, ****** review, but ****** movie.
Event Horizon - 2/10
Oh hell is a place of gore and mutilation, how spooky ooooh, I haven't seen that one before.
Oh interplanetary crew doesn't have the slightest resemblance of protocol or procedure, scientific or otherwise.
This was a waste of time, blergh.
Some interesting, even if unoriginal ideas, I feel like if this was a book, written by a smarter, more educated and more creative person, would be fantastic, but, as is, it apes left and right from brilliant stuff, like any number of vastly superior sci-fi and horror works, without being as successful as those works, I could make a list but it'd be long, but not hard to pin-point said influences, you'll find stuff that ranges from Arthur C. Clarke to Clive Barker.
I went with open arms into this movie, ready to say "it's the first good Paul Anderson movie I've seen", but nope.
I've heard this is considered a "cult classic"?
No remarkable themes, subtext to mention, no depth.
Script is terrible, sets are ok, performances go from ok, to underacted, to terrible, cinematography feels like the work of a novice sci-fi fan, who doesn't understand why sci-fi is cool, even if there's some (probably random) merit to some parts of the movie, cgi is dated but practical effects and composite are mostly very good.... blaaargh, whatever, this is as far as I go
Event Horizon - 2/10
Oh hell is a place of gore and mutilation, how spooky ooooh, I haven't seen that one before.
Oh interplanetary crew doesn't have the slightest resemblance of protocol or procedure, scientific or otherwise.
This was a waste of time, blergh.
Some interesting, even if unoriginal ideas, I feel like if this was a book, written by a smarter, more educated and more creative person, would be fantastic, but, as is, it apes left and right from brilliant stuff, like any number of vastly superior sci-fi and horror works, without being as successful as those works, I could make a list but it'd be long, but not hard to pin-point said influences, you'll find stuff that ranges from Arthur C. Clarke to Clive Barker.
I went with open arms into this movie, ready to say "it's the first good Paul Anderson movie I've seen", but nope.
I've heard this is considered a "cult classic"?
No remarkable themes, subtext to mention, no depth.
Script is terrible, sets are ok, performances go from ok, to underacted, to terrible, cinematography feels like the work of a novice sci-fi fan, who doesn't understand why sci-fi is cool, even if there's some (probably random) merit to some parts of the movie, cgi is dated but practical effects and composite are mostly very good.... blaaargh, whatever, this is as far as I go
I don't think I viscerally hated it, I was prepared to be entertained, this movie had me on its side from the beginning cause I'm a sucker for sci-fi, but sci-fi/horror? Bring it!
I honestly don't remember anything about the movie, but your sentiment does seem to be the same as what I felt after watching the movie back in the 90's. It's one of the few films I recall viscerally hating, while some of my friends at the time thought it wasn't bad.
