Sorry, this movie sucks

Sadly Over-hyped

Absolutely Fantastic

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

London Underground has so many old passageways and forgotten station no-one really knows exactly what is down there. What an excellent idea to make it into a horror movie.Now British movies suck usually by being too serious and the overuse of the 'f' word an this is no exception. I didn't find this fun to watch but I did find it interesting as it was shot entirely on location as the history of London Underground and its secrets are a passion of mine.The setting is kind of dull and so is the dialog. I am only giving this 10/10 because it is the best British horror movie I've ever seen, it is certainly not up there with the best movies ever.

Yeah that is a weird explanation but I guess the unique British style of the 70s is no more and we may have to settle for the Hollywoodized horror films nowadays. Not that it is a bad thing.There is no character development at all. I don't mind that, I care for the atmosphere and the scares rather than the characters. Still, the movie could have spent some time building some atmosphere. But then it might be a really long film.On the positives, the movie has a capable and menacing villain. That must be the best part of the movie overall. Good makeup too. The movie has quite a few scares especially the scene where they show his face for the first time(WOW). I was impressed. But maybe showing the guy might not be the right idea but he was impressive enough so that didn't bother me. Another positive is the ending. No Hollywood style last second jump scares. At least they spared us on that one.There is quite a bit of violence too but that is common in current day horror movies. There is a mutilation scene that might be a little much but to the Saw generation, this might not matter.Regarding Franka potente...she looks a little bigger, I thought, for the role. Maybe they could have got a smaller actress for this role? She looks like she could take on any monster who comes her way.Overall I was entertained but this seems like a run of the mill Hollywood horror film rather than a movie like Triangle.

Okay on a first glance this horror film doesn't offer anything spectacularly new. A woman gets lost in the London subway, and gets chased by a potential attacker. Granted, I have never seen a (horror) movie set in the London subway, but in the end it's not that much different from any other dark environment with tunnels, corridors, unknown areas from a random other horror film. It's a cliché, and so is the fact that it's a semi-helpless woman being chased around. And there are a few other horror semi-clichés in this film that I won't spoil you about. But then again... this stuff is what horror films are about, and all of the elements are just enough different to make this an interesting film to watch just for those elements. Come to think of it, I haven't seen that many British horror films, besides 28 Days/Weeks Later and Shaun of The Dead. And I do like the choice for the London "tubes", especially the fact that I returned just a few days ago from a London city trip with lots of "tube" traveling made my viewing experience especially creepy. So it does offer something new. I also liked seeing Franka Potente; I haven't seen her in a while, and I think I have never seen her in a horror film. I think she did a pretty good job, as did all the other actors by the way.The thing that is special and that made me decide to write a review for this one is the "relationship" of Franka's character "Kate" with the rest of the characters, or the rest of her 'world'. It seemed to me that the makers of the film were trying to make some interesting points about her, or maybe about society as a whole? And that's in my opinion what makes a good horror film; not just blood and scares, but some stuff to think about. Now you may or not agree with my specific interpretations, but in any case I think this movie can offer some stuff to think about any viewer; regardless of whether you interpret it the same way as I did.MASSIVE SPOILERS AHEAD - MASSIVE SPOILERS AHEAD The most important, most ironic and also most obvious clue is the fact that "Kate", after surviving the ordeal, ends up looking like a homeless junkie, and is indeed identified as one by a random traveler in the closing scene of the film. A little less obvious one, but at least as important, is when Jimmie the junkie says to Guy the rapist "You're lucky she's a soft touch, you know." The third key scene I think is when Kate and George decide that Maggie must be dead, and leave her with predictable outcomes. Seems to me that Kate is a symbol for societies faults. While being the protagonist with whom we sympathize (she also has her "pros", and after all she is a victim), she only cares about her own survival, bribes the homeless guy with 2 x 50 pound to reach her own goals without caring one bit about him or his problems, and leaves Maggie without really checking if she is alive when this course of action suits her best at that moment. So while Kate is a "soft touch" several times in the film, she can be just as cold careless when it suits her. Put on top of that, that at the party she was talking about drug use (although granted we never see her actually use it), and the fact that like a childish little girl she is trying to get to meet the famous George Cloony clad in a dress that reveals as much skin as possible; so what would the film makers be trying to tell us about Kate with all these things put on top of each other? In the end she survives, but the random traveler giving her a coin like she is a junkie, reminds her what she has become or could have been. END OF SPOILERS - END OF SPOILERS - END OF SPOILERSOn the one hand she is the protagonist that, in the eyes of the viewer deserves to survive. On the other hand, regardless of the injustice seen in the rest of the film, both done *to* the antagonist and *by* the antagonist, she isn't totally free of blame herself in the way that she deals with the world around her. How's that for your average Friday night horror flick? Not bad, not bad. In a way, Kate is character with much more "depth" than most horror film characters (pro- or antagonist). In that sense she's an excellent main character and the film is at least as much about her as about what happens in those tunnels. All of this definitely puts Creep above the majority of (low budget) horror films, and that deserves some credit. A 7 out of 10 is just fair I think.

It was laughable and, for that reason, entertaining. Watch it if you like to make fun of bad horror movies.This movie has potential, a good setting and a seemingly scary monster. But instead the director decided that he wants to make the movie as schizophrenic as possible and then, for laughs, tack on lousy commentary.The movie is centered around an obnoxious German brat, who passes out in the subway after a half shot of vodka, and is trapped inside. She quickly finds out that she isn't alone, but rather she shares the tunnels with several drug addicts, a drug dealer, a monster, and probably a hundred other subway customers who closed their eyes for a couple minutes and got abandoned in the tunnels by clueless subway guards.After the monster kills several of these characters (and in doing so prevents rape), he captures the German bitch and locks her in a cage with the drug dealer. The duo quickly escapes the cages, and run through an abandoned surgery ward...in a subway station...connected to the sewer...? I guess the director figured he would explain the origin of the monster, by throwing a ton of loose ends at the audience. Our dumb heroine and gutless drug dealer, then fight the "monster," and our heroine walks out of the subway tunnels with a dog. The director then slaps the remaining audience in the face with a sad attempt at social commentary.