MovieChat Forums > Thriller - En grym film (1974) Discussion > This movie sucked and I'll tell you why.

This movie sucked and I'll tell you why.

posted 16 years ago by movie_nazi
10 replies | jump to latest

Many people will post on here disgustingly how they hated this film but do not give a reason. I know the reason why they don't. It's hard to choose a place to begin!

Some of the worst editing I have ever seen. They should use this film in film school to demonstrate bad splicing and bad editing. Especially with the slow motion scenes, I mean, did they cut ANY of it out? The film had to have a minimum of 20 minutes of slow motion scenes! I think the film would have been a little over an hour without the slow mo scenes.

The direction was horrible! Who in thier right mind would have left those atrocious explosive scenes when the timing was so bad.

The acting was horrible. The main chick did not even have to say any lines and she still screwed it up. Evoking no type of emotion whatsoever. I was having a hard time telling whether she was moaning in ecstacy or disgust.

3 out of 10. If your thinking "Swedish and Bergman" think again.

My vote history link:http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=5504773

[–] parkchef 16 years ago

I absolutely hate this film. For the reasons you gave and many many more.
It just doesn't deliver on anything that it promises. I was expecting a sick revenge film but what I got instead is what seems to be a film that was made just to piss people off. Even up the end it just disappoints. I mean what villain is challeneged to a showdown in the middle of nowhere, and shows up alone!? What an honorable guy! He'll stab you in the eye, he'll get u hooked on drugs and prostitute you, but he'll give you a fair fight!? Give me a break.

I at least thought that the end would be worthwhile. But even that scene with the horse, they don't show what happens! Its just another example of how this movie sux from the first second to the very last.

[–] sarahllsjones 16 years ago

yep, this movie sux big time.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] parkchef 15 years ago

"Hence the term - exploitation cinema."

it still sucks.

[–] facefacechick 14 years ago

you gave a perfect reason why they need to remake this film...

I definitely thought the ending was going to 'up the ante' on the violence, especially after all the woman had been through. So you show scenes of her eye getting slashed, show penetration, but you don't show the dudes head getting ripped off...i admit i was pissed, but i still like the movie

i just think a remake would have to be done with an edgy director, and NOT TARANTINO ....ugh a fanboy would just ruin this picture even worse.

Dam U IMDB! I can't get any work done with you around!

[–] Eli_Zardo 15 years ago

Some of the worst editing I have ever seen.

You obviously haven't seen much. This film is not edited badly, it is simply low-budget, foreign and from a previous era. Your complaints are empty "film school" regurgitations.

The main chick did not even have to say any lines and she still screwed it up. Evoking no type of emotion whatsoever.

This is one of those situations where the critic is completely out of touch and focusing on all the wrong issues.

I hope nobody takes this guy seriously, this film is a blueprint and well worth checking out.

[–] zombizombizombi 15 years ago

great exploitation!!

I'm not a lady I'm an anthropologist

[–] movie_nazi 15 years ago

You obviously haven't seen much. This film is not edited badly, it is simply low-budget, foreign and from a previous era. Your complaints are empty "film school" regurgitations.

Wha'? Every reason you named is a non sequitur . What does low-budget have anything to do with leaving so many parts of the film in that obviously needed to be cut? So it's foreign, SO WHAT? What does that have to do with the bad editing? I have seen many foreign films and editing was never an issue. Previous era? You completely lost me on that remark. You telling me that type of editing was all the rage in that "previous era" ?

Sheesh, if your going to try and counter my criticisms at least bring something to table. Or is that how they criticize in the country and era you're from? Half-assed like the production of this film.

My vote history link:http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=5504773

[–] Eli_Zardo 15 years ago

What does low-budget have anything to do with leaving so many parts of the film in that obviously needed to be cut?

Just because you personally think parts of the film should have been cut out doesn't mean it was badly edited. I have watched both versions recently and to nitpick the editing choices from a modern perspective seems ridiculous to me. The film told its story effectively and efficiently.

So it's foreign, SO WHAT?

Different style of film-making. Just because you are not accustomed to it doesn't mean it is bad.

What does that have to do with the bad editing?

That statement assumes the editing was in fact bad. A bad slice or use of slo-mo doesn't mean the film was edited badly.

Previous era? You completely lost me on that remark. You telling me that type of editing was all the rage in that "previous era" ?

Why did you insert "all the rage" there? How was this film part of the rage?

Sheesh, if your going to try and counter my criticisms at least bring something to table.

Your criticisms are about your personal dislike of slow motion and a few bad splices inherent in low budget films and in particular films made outside the U.S.

Identifying bad editing is far more involved than "I don't like slow-mo".

[–] rabksaj 15 years ago

this film is and always be crap. FULLSTOP.