Fraudulent reviews

"ok... first... calm down... take a deep breath... if you are on medication maybe now is a good time to take some... wow you take this awful personal for someone with no vested interest??? hmmm???"

I take most things seriously. However, I take this seriously because in this case, I realize that the person badmouthing the movie has no clue what they're talking about.

"dear sir if i really wanted to watch that "piece" again and break it down scene by scene i could and would and maybe if you were open minded you would realize or admit what a travesty it truly is... but i am not going to indulge you... however i will give you a running commentary on your reply to me..."

I never said "break it down scene by scene". I said "give proof". It's not that hard to do. Two or three points about the movie suffice most of the time. If you have nothing to support your view, then it's clearly just a bunch of pointless trash talk about something you don't understand. However, no matter how unrelated the following is to what I'm stating, I will respond nonetheless, as you said it was toward me.

"just a note it is amazing from reading your other posts how much you know about the inner workings of this film, more than most casual admirers... double hmm..."

I know more because I've read more about the concepts therein. Go read up on psionics. Do a quick search for the basic guideline of Dante's Inferno. This movie is heavy on spirituality aspects of life which most people do not take the time to delve into.

"i highly recommend anyone reading this to read all the possitive and then the negative reviews... you don't even need to see the movie, you can get all the feeling of egomania and self promotion and complete garbage with out the rental price."

I actually had never heard of this movie until I saw it on the shelf at the rental store. I checked the description and thought "eh, it might be good...I'll check it out...worst that'll happen is I lose 5 dollars in a rental". Turned out to be much better than I expected, obviously. If there was any bit of egomenia and self-promotion with this film, I definitely would've heard about this a long time before I posted here (I posted here immediately after watching this film).

"as for so many people being not open or smart enough to get this... well it is funny that you are the one of few gifted with intellect that "gets" this when so many other highly respected critics and film professors laugh at it... you must be a super genious... i think you are missing the forrest for the trees or vice versa... it is not the obscure religious and or socio political notions that people don't get... it is the sloppy filmmaking poor acted psuedo- intellectual idiotic plot..."

You still haven't said a thing to support the claims given. It's not that hard to do, you know, if your statements have any bit of truth to them. It's rather pathetic that you can't bring up even one point that will support your statements of the quality of this movie. As for "highly respected critics and film professors laugh[ing] at it", could you give a link to any of these reviews? I'd like to see what they believe makes the movie oh so bad.

"at any rate back to your response:
so you can't talk to someone who has a negative opinion? or maybe an opinion at all? how could you not have an opinion of this film after seeing it... ok maybe you want someone that you can talk very lofty to and fill there mind with loose explanations... sorry you don't get that with me or what it seems most people."

I can talk to someone that has a negative opinion. The problem comes when it's someone who has a negative opinion FOR NO REASON. Until you actually explain what makes you think this film is bad, you have nothing supporting any of your negative remarks, just a bunch of idiotic crap that holds no weight. If their reasoning is solid and founded, then not only will what I say not affect them, but I will likely agree to their statements if I see any truth in them. There's a difference, however, between a person not being affected by someone else's argument because they're correct and having the same response because they're a fool who does not know how to listen to what others have to say on a particular matter.

"i never said you were an idiot... you have chosen that term. and just read the bad reviews if you want one thing... don't make me reitterate...
["point out one thing, merely suggested that I'm supposedly an idiot for not seeing something you consider wrong about it."]"

If it were your exact words, that would be in quotes. It's my summary of your attitude throughout the post. Before you even try to pull it on me, I don't call you an idiot because you have a different opinion than me on Unspeakable, I call you one (when I do) because judging by your unwillingness to present any evidence to support what you say, you have no reason whatsoever for disliking this movie and giving so many negative statements about it.

"["Following your statement about what you thought I would say (whether or not I would have if you hadn't said anything is up in the air now because that influences the line of conversation), I could turn around and say you're stupid for not catching the many aspects of this movie that require an open mind and perhaps even some knowledge of those other things."]
listen friend... i would like to wager that i have a great deal of "knowledge of other things and an open mind" it is a two way street though maybe you should check your own inability to see why so many people hate this film. heaven forbid if you are the only one with conversation that is influenced i think you should take your ball home and not play with me..."

Given that this is a board for this film, those who enjoyed it are the primary target for its existence. With that in mind, it's much more appropriate for you to "take your ball home" than for me to stop posting here. I stated that an open mind is needed to understand the movie, and as I said before, there's a topic RIGHT THERE on the board by me for you to post in if you want to know. It's very simple, not that hard. Meanwhile, I've asked you numerous times to point out the supposed flaws in this film. You have done nothing in this vein. Your inability to point out anything at all shows your lack of any real knowledge about this movie until you show you know otherwise. Before I go on, I also feel I should say that correct grammar isn't that hard to use.

"[I'm not "drawing loose ends together", nor am I "grasping at straws".]
ok then you must really believe the psuedo intellectual stuff, or just be really off base."

Another bigoted point. You're much closer to "grasping at straws" than I am. At this point, I'm repeating the exact same points multiple times because you just don't get it. If this keeps up, I'm just going to disregard everything you say as entirely false and unfounded, and stop responding to you because it would be a waste of time to bother with someone who doesn't know the concept of logic and reasoning.

"[I wouldn't have created a topic for people to ask questions if I were in such dire straits that I had to fabricate reasons why this movie is good (and additionally why would I say this movie is good if I saw it and actually DID think it was bad? That would be stupid).]
after all no one has ever lied or done anything stupid in spite of what they believed to profit or gain or sway public opinion... nice try. poor rhetoric... you sound like a doctor? are you?"

Actually, I'm a college student, thanks for asking. I don't see how your response has any relevance to my statement there, as there's no way for me to lie about this movie. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and think it sucks that people say this movie is bad simply because they don't get it.

"[Instead, I would be trying to passively run through a bunch of stuff that isn't true about it and hope that people don't question it. And if people did question it, I would be trying to lead them astray from what they asked. Kind of like what you're doing right now.]
that is unless you really believe the stuff you are spouting is true and would sway people... you must be blinded by something? maybe the need to be understood? wow that is cool just like poor little jesse womat! you have so much in common!"

This whole conspiracy theory of yours is rather fascinating and humorous. Any writer who would go to a message board like imdb and post around about their movie under a different name to try and make their product seem better is pathetic. At this point, you're just pointlessly trying to flame me because you have nothing to supplement your quite clearly unfounded position about this movie. All I am swaying people to do is actually THINK for five seconds about this movie. If they have accurate and true points, then good, that helps their view that this movie isn't good seem more reliable. Otherwise, it's meaningless flaming thrown around only to bash a movie that they obviously know nothing about.

"[Answer my original question: how was this movie "crap"? ]
dude! i am not going to get into a debate with you... the film the film was not good... it is obvious... quit trying to fool people... read anyone of the film reviews... do i need to cut and paste for you?"

Again, your inability to bring up any points shows you have NOTHING supporting your claim.

"[I just checked the casting because I had no clue who Pavan Grover is.]
haha nice try... you crack me up! answering all the questions you are the sage of the movie in love with it... now trying to play neutral enthusiast... too late you made!"

There's a difference between knowing the actors and other people who worked on a movie and knowing the concepts and storyline. Not many people know the name of Nobuo Uematsu for the Final Fantasy music, or Yasunori Mitsuda for Chrono Trigger and Chrono Chross, yet many people talk incessantly about both.

"[I assumed, at first, that you were simply comparing me to the antagonist in this film.]
don't play silly with me... i was doing nothing of the sort... i wouldn't be so mean to compare you with such a silly one dimensional irronious character... i was implying that you must be pavan grover to be defending this film with such passion! please you insult your intelligence!"

Or, I simply enjoyed the movie and realize how idiotic you've been about it. Nazis still exist in this world that support Nazism. So, why don't we go around calling every Nazi "Hitler"? Same reason.

"[ Instead, I see that it was the writer of the script as well. Yes, I'm Pavan Grover. ]
FINALLY HE IS HONEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Wow that was stupid of you to say, especially since you see the following comments which accompany this.

"[I'm also Paul W.S. Anderson because I'm ok with the Resident Evil movies, aside from a few gripes. I'm also M. Night Shyamalan because I thought Unbreakable was fantastic while the majority thought it sucked because they didn't get it. ] nice tangent and nice try... don't try to pull that old technique... it is tired... you are so blindly for this film i can't explain your motives... and for the record resident evil was entertaining as a pop corn movie i liked the action and thought it was the best adapted video game movie. unbreakable although not my favorite M. movie had some really cool aspects... so don't try to play the obscure intellectual martyre.. just admit the movie is terrible... then save up some money, or borrow some from your mommy or friends, next time only do one thing and let professionals tell you what to do and listen cuz although you maybe be something like... dunno a doctor... the people i don't know... like... director! they do it for a living... and they know more... try again..."

I see that you've degenerated into suggesting a 20 year old male in college is akin to a 7 year old boy. Now you're just flaming because you realize your statements are completely untrue and unfounded. Am I wrong? Then prove it by giving accurate and true points as to what makes your claims right. Otherwise you're just an idiot who has no idea what they're talking about, and is trying to weasel out of making it known and look good at the same time.

"[I also obviously must be homosexual because of the fact that I support gay marriage]
you are so off base it is funny... you are trying so hard aren't you? i support gay marriage too... heck i am gay... so get off your horse..."

Same statements as before in response to this.

"[I'm apparently every single person directly connected with what other people hate]
no sir, you are one person who is responsible for or defending a bad self indulgent poorly made film. sir the masses don't like to be cheated... they also don't like to pay to watch another persons masturbative attempt to glorify themselves... please... go defend something more worthwhile."

Another sad attempt at trying to make me look like Pavan Grover in hopes that anyone reading this doesn't realize you're a moron. Labels are the last resort of people who have nothing else to back them. You've hit pretty low when you've gone this far. I could also say to go bash something more worthwhile, if this movie is apparently so bad to you.

Edit: Before you even say how I contradicted myself by calling you a moron and then saying labels are the last resort of someone without a case. The difference is that I use it to sum up what I'm trying to say and to flame back at you as you started it. You, on the other hand, have pretty much started it with stuff like calling me Pavan Grover, and you clearly mean it as an attempt to sway anyone reading this toward your side, rather than simply using it to make your points easier to make. Of course, again, if you show me anything AT ALL that supports your statements that I can see as valid, I will retract the statements which appear to be wrong on my end. Of course, seeing as how you can't seem to make even one statement in this topic other than "this movie sucks" and "you're Pavan Grover and you suck" and with any bit of reason to it, I don't see that happening.

It's been a while since I saw this movie. But by my recollection, the "gizmo that can look into peoples fantasies" wasn't actually something meant to record thoughts in his head. If I remember it correctly, it was SUPPOSED to take measurements of aspects of the brain. I think even her reaction to what she saw on the screen was a good indicator that the device wasn't meant to act like that: she'd have to expect at least enough that it wasn't a major deal if it really WAS meant to record fantasies. That, and the psychotic killer doesn't kill a hell of a lot of people...you have to kind of realize it's not exactly in his character. If you pay attention to the movie, you realize the only people he kills are those who have sinned somehow.

In other words, for at least the killer portion (I'm not going to say a definite on the device, since I haven't seen the movie in a while), you weren't paying enough attention to the movie to really see what was going on. You probably won't do it, but if you go back and watch it again, I'm pretty sure you'll see places that you completely ignored, either accidentally or purposely, the first time.

I have to say after suffering the movie last night......but i do personally think if pavan grover hadnt acted in it..it wouldnt have been that bad a movie. Yes there was heavy cliches, and well..from the very first second you saw the "killer" you could tell thier wasnt much talent behind the camera. Too much of a "i am so COOL!" camera shot. And to be fair....i dont recall the psycho killer...actually killing anyone on camera. he hurt some people....but doesnt directly kill anyone, apart from maybe the lady cop at the start..as a flash back/fantasy. So he might not be a killer at all...technically.

Incidently..did anyone catch Lance Henriksen laughing when dennis hopper ripped his face off?...just before you see dennis infront of the electric chair...lance turns to dina...with a big ole smile on his face! funny as hell.

Also....we must not forget the executive producer was Mimi grover....i assume pavan's sister...or mother. I saw that (along with all the pavan credits) and got very worried as to the films quality....but hey..i spent a buck on seeing it. and my wife and i had a hell of a time watching this movie, And to the reviewer of the movie here, how do you explain all the unexcepted twists and turns in the movie...well what i should say is....how come i was able to whisper to my wife almost every single twist in the movie.....a good 5 or 10 minutes ahead of time(and vis versa). We do challenge ourselves to figure out movies as we watch them...and well...we both did.

This movie...i think could have been really good, it had alot of potential. I do wonder why on earth hopper and henriksen would attach themselves to this movie..and i have to think the original script was good. Hopper did his normal..mostly insane..but normal average acting job, Lance..was under used in my opinion. I do think if lance and pavan..switched places the movie would have been a hell of alot better, dina meyer did well i thought (compared to everyone else that is).

The biggest wrong that this movie did was have the drawings of hell and the quote at the start. It was so good....it shouldnt have been wasted on this movie! My wife and I were talking away...both of us were drawn to the movie....both going "looks like a good movie" and then...well....it sucked.

Major disappointment, it is a good lesson on how to miscast and let your own pomp go to your head though...