Could have been developed much better

Rating: 5/10 (11 March 2017)

It's been a while since I've reviewed a film on IMDb, but on this one I felt the urge to do so. Event Horizon has a well-thought premise, which simply fails to become anything good. The "starship in distress" trope has been used in many films, and much better. One such film was Solaris.
The fact is, I enjoyed Event Horizon's first half or so. It had some stupid jump scares, all right, but until then, the mystery was well executed. I believe the story started to get stupid and ridiculous when a certain video showed up.
Who's seen Solaris (mind, the 1972 Tarkovskij film) might remember a similar plot: a Space station near a planet reports of certain anomalies that occur on board, as well as the breakdown of the scientists working on the station, and a Psichologist, Kris, is sent. When the Kris gets aboard, a long series of really unsettling and scary events and circumstances ignite to the viewer, and what's relevant, with almost no gore. Some might say Solaris is boring, but, damn it isn't. It's very scary, and also much deeper than many movies. Now, Solaris is also a masterpiece of cinema. Is it fair to confront this film and Solaris?
The fact is, that the story of the two films is similar. Sam Neill's character is in this movie's first half in almost the same situation as Kevin, there's the theme of the unknown and the alien dealt with in a similar manner, the setting is almost entirely one space ship / station's corridors.
So whats's the difference? The way the material was dealt with. Solaris is clever, unsettling, lets the viewer have deep thoughts but also freaks him out. Event Horizon is, on the other hand, full of Jumpscares (a quite cheap way of scaring the viewer), mentions superficially some aspects that might have been dealt more deeply (e.g. what happened to the ship), and destroys all the premises it built up in the last 30 minutes, letting go to a flow of endless gore (another cheap way of scaring the viewer). Even the ending wasn't satisfying.
All the actors did the best they could, Sam Neil for example executed well his role, even in the final arc, even if I personally hated that part of the film. VFX and photography, for a 97 movie, were fine-ish, as well, also I remember that I appreciated some shots and even the set designs. The technical side of the film was well executed. What went wrong, terribly wrong, was the story, and the ultimate meaning of the film.
The movie's first 20 minutes made me want to give it an 8/10, the next 30 minutes a 6/10. The final arc was worth a 3/10. Therefore, I feel right to give it a 4.75/10, approximated via IMDb rating system to 5/10.