There's a difference between a bad movie and a horrible movie. A bad movie can be as result of any number of things, be it writing, direction, acting, whatever. A horrible movie though, that's different. Because a horrible movie is more about what the movie is trying to do or say.
With The Hike, you get the worst of both worlds. On a purely technical level, it's awful in pretty much every department. But then there's the general feel of the movie.
And it's not hard to gauge the filmmaker's intent when the scenes of rape and torture and suffering make up the bulk of the 'action', whilst any subsequent revenge/retribution for the movie's hero are brief and perfunctory. It genuinely feels as though any actual payoff was just something the writer/director wanted to get done as quickly as possible.
Devoid of any style, substance, depth or entertainment value of any kind, a movie like this can therefore be only defined by its content. And its content is horrible.
With The Hike, you get the worst of both worlds. On a purely technical level, it's awful in pretty much every department. But then there's the general feel of the movie.
And it's not hard to gauge the filmmaker's intent when the scenes of rape and torture and suffering make up the bulk of the 'action', whilst any subsequent revenge/retribution for the movie's hero are brief and perfunctory. It genuinely feels as though any actual payoff was just something the writer/director wanted to get done as quickly as possible.
Devoid of any style, substance, depth or entertainment value of any kind, a movie like this can therefore be only defined by its content. And its content is horrible.