MovieChat Forums > Nomads (1986) Discussion > 5.5? Pathetic people...

5.5? Pathetic people...

posted 14 years ago by WalRen-Mail
32 replies | jump to latest

Another IMDb absurd rating. This movie is a gem.
There are some seriously stupid people on the web.

Don't give up. It's never too late for dreaming, it's never too late for things like that

[–] ibaihk-1 14 years ago

Agreed. This movie is awesome, dark and surreal.

I guess it doesn't have enough gratuituous torture sequences for the contemporary audience.

[–] Myau76 13 years ago

Very good surprise this movie. Surely underated.

[–] d_brimblecombe 13 years ago

Yes, strangely low. I assume most people simply haven't seen or heard of the film, but the few I know who have watched it all remember it as being very good. I certainly thought it was great. Oh well.

[–] ivankafka 13 years ago

After reading this thread the other day and all your recommedations I decided to give it a watch. Never saw it in '86 which surprises me a bit. Anyway, after watching it last night I think 5.5 is an accurate score as that's what I would have given it: a so-so rating.

The premise of the film is intriguing and the two leads are of course decent actors and their performances fairly good. But the movie isn't well crafted and put together, it feels disjointed and doesn't flow very well. Also it needed more to the story, or at least more coherence. Instead even at 90 minutes or so it felt padded out.

[–] jasir_arafat 13 years ago

actually for a horror movie 5.5 is rather good. you have to keep in mind horror viewers are either die hard genre fans and therefore very picky to begin with or they arent horror fans at all and watched the movie because of pierce, those wont like it. horror is either love or hate and the wider public still hates the genre

[–] kollision-1 12 years ago

it's actually too high a rating, it doesn't deserve it
confusing, boring movie. surreal stuff did not work, reality was a chore to keep track of
ach

[–] WalRen-Mail 12 years ago

it's actually too high a rating, it doesn't deserve it
confusing, boring movie. surreal stuff did not work, reality was a chore to keep track of
ach

In my open post I wrote: 'There are some seriously stupid people on the web'. So... your comment is not a surprise to me.

[–] kollision-1 12 years ago

to each his/her own
thankfully McTiernan saw the light after doing this

[–] knowledgefiend 12 years ago

Yeah, I wondered the same thing. Great flick and indeed underrated. It had a unique story, which I didn't exactly know where it was headed. Plus it's from the director of Die Hard and Predator... Who would have thought.

[–] Professicchio 12 years ago

I agree, I watched it back in the 80s and thought it was really so intelligent and subtle that it was a shame it came out in that era, but I am surprised it's still not find the audience it deserves.
I guess the problem is that most people that have watched and rated this in recent time might have been expecting something along the lines of "Predator" or the more typical Hollywood fares that McTiernan became famous for later on.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jabbapop 11 years ago

i didn't understand the premise of this movie. i tried to relate to the themes of rootlessness vs emednedness etc, what with myself currently being of age where one moves out and tries to establish residence of ones own... but the bad guys were punk motercycle ghosts I mean, it's just absurd. maybe if pierce was living in the slums or a 30 something retail worker encountering urban blight and he was facing the chaos of the city, but he wasn't; he was academic old guard out in the burbs and hence the conflict reeked of melodrama amped into parody. the conflict was out of left field. not to mention the fact that the movie was told as a frame story. just very confused and unengaging imho.