Bumperkleef gave me a negative experience despite it nails you into your seat for a big part of the film. To first mention some positives: villain Ed is really scary and really well performed. The film is directed quite well, the film is quite effective in its horror and the main characters quest for survival.
Still Bumperkleef leaves you unsatisfied and it didn't do well at all at the Dutch box office. The main reason could be that the main characters are just too negative and unsympathetic. They are frustrated people arguing and shouting all the time, which is exhausting in the end. By the time the film is over you leave the cinema with a very negative feeling.
Now characters in general don't need to be sympathetic. The mistake that is made in this film is that there is no compassion or a tender moment the audience share with the characters (see Joker for this - also a dark and negative character, but we engage). There is no love between the characters at all, only anger.
Horror also doesn't need to end on a positive note. Most of the time a horror film ends with the main characters not being able to survive. The mistake is that Bumperkleef lacks a real third act. You cannot make a villain leave for a while and call that a third act. There needs to be some sort of reversal within the hero. Usually, in a third act the main character has either a redemption or makes a turn facing evil (see Spielberg's Duel for this) going against it instead of trying to escape all the time. In Bumperkleef, the audience never share a moment of victory with the main character where he has seemingly conquered evil. The result is that there is no moment of real insight in the hero. And more importantly, no emotion. There seems to be some sort of intended catharsis with the main character going under the shower at the end. But the audience doesn't feel anything there and it actually feels superficial. Like the filmmaker doesn't know his theme or character well enough...
There is also a huge lack of humor in this film. Horror only works for the target audience when it's a form of escapism. Humor is one of the ways to achieve this. Or you can set it into another world or it could be that something happens that is otherworldly, like in Rosemary's Baby. Horror needs this escapism otherwise there is no form of relief (or distance) in the end. Therefore I think it was a mistake to make this film look so realistic. The photography is totally wrong for this film (it looks like 12 Steden, 13 Ongelukken - a cheap Dutch TV-series), and the lack of humor is even more of a mistake (there is some, but not enough). Put that together with the frustration and anger of the main characters, and the film feels too realistic, harsh and confrontational. You can do that in arthouse horror, but not in main stream.
All this leaves you unsatisfied, despite a strong second act.
Still Bumperkleef leaves you unsatisfied and it didn't do well at all at the Dutch box office. The main reason could be that the main characters are just too negative and unsympathetic. They are frustrated people arguing and shouting all the time, which is exhausting in the end. By the time the film is over you leave the cinema with a very negative feeling.
Now characters in general don't need to be sympathetic. The mistake that is made in this film is that there is no compassion or a tender moment the audience share with the characters (see Joker for this - also a dark and negative character, but we engage). There is no love between the characters at all, only anger.
Horror also doesn't need to end on a positive note. Most of the time a horror film ends with the main characters not being able to survive. The mistake is that Bumperkleef lacks a real third act. You cannot make a villain leave for a while and call that a third act. There needs to be some sort of reversal within the hero. Usually, in a third act the main character has either a redemption or makes a turn facing evil (see Spielberg's Duel for this) going against it instead of trying to escape all the time. In Bumperkleef, the audience never share a moment of victory with the main character where he has seemingly conquered evil. The result is that there is no moment of real insight in the hero. And more importantly, no emotion. There seems to be some sort of intended catharsis with the main character going under the shower at the end. But the audience doesn't feel anything there and it actually feels superficial. Like the filmmaker doesn't know his theme or character well enough...
There is also a huge lack of humor in this film. Horror only works for the target audience when it's a form of escapism. Humor is one of the ways to achieve this. Or you can set it into another world or it could be that something happens that is otherworldly, like in Rosemary's Baby. Horror needs this escapism otherwise there is no form of relief (or distance) in the end. Therefore I think it was a mistake to make this film look so realistic. The photography is totally wrong for this film (it looks like 12 Steden, 13 Ongelukken - a cheap Dutch TV-series), and the lack of humor is even more of a mistake (there is some, but not enough). Put that together with the frustration and anger of the main characters, and the film feels too realistic, harsh and confrontational. You can do that in arthouse horror, but not in main stream.
All this leaves you unsatisfied, despite a strong second act.