Ok, this is either going to be amazing, or a flop. But Sam Elliot alone makes it worth a try.
85% on rotten tomatoes, feb 8 release.
85% on rotten tomatoes, feb 8 release.
Post Reply
1 of 1
***The Man Who Killed Hitler and then The Bigfoot***
4,700 Views |
29 Replies |
Last: 6 yr ago by Stupe
Don't even know where to begin with that title
I'm curious. And Sam Elliot so I'm in
I'd watch it.
Orlando Ayala Cant Read
Joined:
May 17, 2004
Posts:
72,987
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hitler, Bigfoot, Elliott....
How can anyone NOT watch such a movie??!
How can anyone NOT watch such a movie??!
It's easily the greatest movie title of all time
That said, it looks like it takes itself a little too seriously, but I'm in
That said, it looks like it takes itself a little too seriously, but I'm in
I just enjoy seeing Sam Elliot be a badass, so I'm in.
So, apparently this movie has already been showcased in festivals. Here are some things people had to say:
Quote:
**** this trailer. This is the very first time I've ever watched a movie BEFORE the trailer came out, and this is incredibly misleading. The two major things they emphasize are very minute portions of the film. Not to give spoilers in case people want to watch this, but do NOT go into this thinking it's about a badass dude who has to kill Hitler and then Bigfoot. It's the story of the 60 years (or whatever) in between and the PTSD that his actions and sacrifices have caused. 90% of the experience is very much following a sad and depressed Sam Elliott who is reflecting on how his humanity was lost.
Quote:
I saw it last year and really liked it. It's definitely not a comedy though, it's a slow and serious movie about remorse.
Quote:
The film alternates between flashbacks to the war, and the present day where Elliot's character lives a quiet life and is an alcoholic. The main plot in the flashbacks is a love story.
Sounds like the difference between the trailer for "bridge to terabituida (sp?)" And the movie.
FightinTexasAg15 said:
So, apparently this movie has already been showcased in festivals. Here are some things people had to say:Quote:
**** this trailer. This is the very first time I've ever watched a movie BEFORE the trailer came out, and this is incredibly misleading. The two major things they emphasize are very minute portions of the film. Not to give spoilers in case people want to watch this, but do NOT go into this thinking it's about a badass dude who has to kill Hitler and then Bigfoot. It's the story of the 60 years (or whatever) in between and the PTSD that his actions and sacrifices have caused. 90% of the experience is very much following a sad and depressed Sam Elliott who is reflecting on how his humanity was lost.Quote:
I saw it last year and really liked it. It's definitely not a comedy though, it's a slow and serious movie about remorse.Quote:
The film alternates between flashbacks to the war, and the present day where Elliot's character lives a quiet life and is an alcoholic. The main plot in the flashbacks is a love story.
This thread: At first I was excited, and then I was less so.
White Liberals=The Worst
Joined:
Nov 9, 2016
Posts:
10,783
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Same here. Me after uber-depressing movies:Noblemen06 said:FightinTexasAg15 said:
So, apparently this movie has already been showcased in festivals. Here are some things people had to say:Quote:
**** this trailer. This is the very first time I've ever watched a movie BEFORE the trailer came out, and this is incredibly misleading. The two major things they emphasize are very minute portions of the film. Not to give spoilers in case people want to watch this, but do NOT go into this thinking it's about a badass dude who has to kill Hitler and then Bigfoot. It's the story of the 60 years (or whatever) in between and the PTSD that his actions and sacrifices have caused. 90% of the experience is very much following a sad and depressed Sam Elliott who is reflecting on how his humanity was lost.Quote:
I saw it last year and really liked it. It's definitely not a comedy though, it's a slow and serious movie about remorse.Quote:
The film alternates between flashbacks to the war, and the present day where Elliot's character lives a quiet life and is an alcoholic. The main plot in the flashbacks is a love story.
This thread: At first I was excited, and then I was less so.
*reads the title, then the plot summary*
We got to have some law...
We got to have some law...
Watched this today on Netflix..... sucked.... bad.
Have all the Sam Elliott fans completed The Ranch? He's great, but you get a lot of him over 5 seasons. I don't fill the need to see a movie just because he's in it.
I feel bad for anyone that thinks this movie sucks. You just didn't understand it. It's so freaking good.
The movie is not depressing, it's not an action film, it's one of the most unique and interesting movies I've seen in awhile. If anything it's a comedy and it's so well done.
For those that have no interest in the film:
The whole point is that the film is bad and not what you expect. The movie starts out with Sam Elliott sitting in a bar and Lonely is The Night seemingly triggers his flashback to when he kills Hitler.
As he's leaving the bar he gets mugged and while he's kicking their ass Bill Withers Use Me Up starts playing.
The soundtrack is stupid, the story is bad and jolting, the dialog is bad, the editing is bad. It's all bad and it's supposed to be. The thing that makes it great is that there are people out there that don't get that it's bad on purpose and that's great.
The movie is not depressing, it's not an action film, it's one of the most unique and interesting movies I've seen in awhile. If anything it's a comedy and it's so well done.
For those that have no interest in the film:
The whole point is that the film is bad and not what you expect. The movie starts out with Sam Elliott sitting in a bar and Lonely is The Night seemingly triggers his flashback to when he kills Hitler.
As he's leaving the bar he gets mugged and while he's kicking their ass Bill Withers Use Me Up starts playing.
The soundtrack is stupid, the story is bad and jolting, the dialog is bad, the editing is bad. It's all bad and it's supposed to be. The thing that makes it great is that there are people out there that don't get that it's bad on purpose and that's great.
.
JABQ04 said:
I'm curious. And Sam Elliot so I'm in
You're Sam Elliott?!
Ulrich said:JABQ04 said:
I'm curious. And Sam Elliot so I'm in
You're Sam Elliott?!
No, he's Curious. Learn to read.
.
awful movie. was only watched cause of sam elliot. Im glad at least one person feels bad for me though
It was awful with intention. That's the point.
.
that doesnt make it a good movie though. Tarantino and robert rodriguez made a spoof film, it worked. so did keenan ivory wayans. this one didnt.
It's not a spoof film. It's a representation. You're not supposed to laugh at the dialogue/action. It is not an exaggeration of the genre like Planet Terror and Death Proof were; it is a representation of the genre. Grindhouse had a budget of $50+ million, it's intention was to be entertaining/good/visually appealing, and it was.
This film is a representation of films that are made that's sole purpose is to be low budget and have an enticing enough trailer/title to get enough people into the theater to make a profit, but are bad movies leaving the audience feeling like they got ripped off.
Ever seen Argo or Trumbo? The films that John Goodman's character is making in both films is what this film is trying to replicate. Not spoof, replicate. The marketing was more important than the art.
For it to be a success as a piece there has to be a little bit of people like me and a little bit of people like you. People that expected an entertaining film, and people that appreciate that the film itself was never intended to be entertaining, but the concept behind it was.
I'm not saying you're wrong for saying it sucks, it unquestionably does. I just appreciate that sucking was the point. It's why they were able to get actors like Sam Elliott, Ron Livingston and Larry Miller to participate.
This film is a representation of films that are made that's sole purpose is to be low budget and have an enticing enough trailer/title to get enough people into the theater to make a profit, but are bad movies leaving the audience feeling like they got ripped off.
Ever seen Argo or Trumbo? The films that John Goodman's character is making in both films is what this film is trying to replicate. Not spoof, replicate. The marketing was more important than the art.
For it to be a success as a piece there has to be a little bit of people like me and a little bit of people like you. People that expected an entertaining film, and people that appreciate that the film itself was never intended to be entertaining, but the concept behind it was.
I'm not saying you're wrong for saying it sucks, it unquestionably does. I just appreciate that sucking was the point. It's why they were able to get actors like Sam Elliott, Ron Livingston and Larry Miller to participate.
.
hph6203 said:
It's not a spoof film. It's a representation. You're not supposed to laugh at the dialogue/action. It is not an exaggeration of the genre like Planet Terror and Death Proof were; it is a representation of the genre. Grindhouse had a budget of $50+ million, it's intention was to be entertaining/good/visually appealing, and it was.
This film is a representation of films that are made that's sole purpose is to be low budget and have an enticing enough trailer/title to get enough people into the theater to make a profit, but are bad movies leaving the audience feeling like they got ripped off.
Ever seen Argo or Trumbo? The films that John Goodman's character is making in both films is what this film is trying to replicate. Not spoof, replicate. The marketing was more important than the art.
For it to be a success as a piece there has to be a little bit of people like me and a little bit of people like you. People that expected an entertaining film, and people that appreciate that the film itself was never intended to be entertaining, but the concept behind it was.
I'm not saying you're wrong for saying it sucks, it unquestionably does. I just appreciate that sucking was the point. It's why they were able to get actors like Sam Elliott, Ron Livingston and Larry Miller to participate.
Wtf is this guy talking about?
So if a movie sucks, but the point was to make it suck that makes it not suck?
Yes. If you can appreciate that making a movie suck, while not making it obvious that it was supposed to suck, is a hard thing to achieve.
EDIT: It's definitely not for everyone. I'll leave it at that. If you want Bourne mixed with Gran Torino then this isn't for you.
EDIT: It's definitely not for everyone. I'll leave it at that. If you want Bourne mixed with Gran Torino then this isn't for you.
.
I'd pay money to watch you give an impassioned plea to the Academy that Battlefield Earth deserves to be retroactively given a Best Picture award.hph6203 said:
It's not a spoof film. It's a representation. You're not supposed to laugh at the dialogue/action. It is not an exaggeration of the genre like Planet Terror and Death Proof were; it is a representation of the genre. Grindhouse had a budget of $50+ million, it's intention was to be entertaining/good/visually appealing, and it was.
This film is a representation of films that are made that's sole purpose is to be low budget and have an enticing enough trailer/title to get enough people into the theater to make a profit, but are bad movies leaving the audience feeling like they got ripped off.
Ever seen Argo or Trumbo? The films that John Goodman's character is making in both films is what this film is trying to replicate. Not spoof, replicate. The marketing was more important than the art.
For it to be a success as a piece there has to be a little bit of people like me and a little bit of people like you. People that expected an entertaining film, and people that appreciate that the film itself was never intended to be entertaining, but the concept behind it was.
I'm not saying you're wrong for saying it sucks, it unquestionably does. I just appreciate that sucking was the point. It's why they were able to get actors like Sam Elliott, Ron Livingston and Larry Miller to participate.
How much? If you can get the Church of Scientology to fund the speech and guarantee my freedom afterwards I'm all in. Maybe throw in one of Tom Cruise's slaves for good measure, I hate folding clothes.
.
I thought it was good, but not as good as I thought it would be.
But still, love Sam Elliot.
But still, love Sam Elliot.
Just finished it. It sucked way less than people here led me to believe. I wouldn't say it's outstanding, but was worth the hour and 40 minutes.
A little late to the party. Just watched this movie last night. I really enjoyed it. One of the better indie films out there. Sam Elliott was great.
I think he's Curios AND Sam Elliot.hph6203 said:Ulrich said:JABQ04 said:
I'm curious. And Sam Elliot so I'm in
You're Sam Elliott?!
No, he's Curious. Learn to read.
Featured Stories
See All
36:13
16h ago
4.6k
Baseball Thoughts: Gauntlet is about to ramp up
by Ryan Brauninger
Sims earns SEC Pitcher of the Week for Friday's gem
by Richard Zane
15:34
18h ago
2.8k
10:32
18h ago
3.0k
J.D. PicKell remains high on Texas A&M under Mike Elko
by David Nuño