Stupid (spoilers)


You find a stranger who wants to kill your husband and rape you.

Logical conclusion: believe the stranger and kill you husband.

Plain stupid.

The movie is so so, don't believe the reviews as the whole cast and crew are writing here.

reply

Seems that you did not understand the move at all. That's plain stupid.

reply

Fortunately, time (and business) will show who is stupid.

Was I supposed to deconstruct the movie? Dude, call Slajov Zizek.

reply

Considering I'm a producer of a top rated radio show that's about to put this film on it's top 10 of 2009, I would say it's still you.

But good try at a rebuttal my friend

reply

Considering it's 2012 and this movie is still widely unknown, I'm guessing that your plug didn't make much of a difference.

Good try at relevance.

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

reply

Totally agree. Well put.
Complete and utter rubbish of a story.

Just terrible.

reply

[deleted]

K...............lemme see now..

(plain stupid)...........................lol

k its an indie film..low budget

location= must be 9/10

cinematography...damn that was good..so 9/10

cast...oh wait was there maybe 100 ..nope 50 ..nope what about a main cast of 3 people plus one at the cafe and the old lady at the end..so yer lets just say 3 people..damm good movie for having a cast of 3 ...so i gotta give that 9/10

story line,,well it wasnt about cgi or explosions..nor was it a slash flick,,seems i read it was about the breakdown of a seemingly happy couple resulting in payment for their crimes.................re..the ten commandments..so yer apathy fits. 8/10

sadly it did int have big subtitles explaining what was happening, so for that 2/10

sorree but i hafta say that overall this was a good movie not at all like police acadamy 4,5,6,7,8,9,...............................................

signed
yo mamma

reply

WOW, can you get any more transparent? I haven't even seen the movie and I can tell it sucks just by listening to these morons desperately defending it. Good movies use writers for their script, not posting comments and reviews on the internet. And you got to be a pretty sucky actor/ess when you can't even act like you're a real person.

And on a side note, why would you compare it to police academy 4,5,6,7,8,9? You do know those are all comedies right? And you also say that 1-3 was better than this? Do that mean that police academy 1-3 are better horrors and 4-9 are worse comedies? Or?

reply

i agree with you the movie is a stinker, so i advice people to spend their hours on somethingelse than this horrible movie.

reply

I guess people who can not figure out the movie would view it as bad, shame
how ignorance is manifested into hate in so many ways.

reply

This film was crap. However, I will admit the scenery, cinematography, setting and anything that doesn't have to do with the story was above average. Having said that the story was utter *beep* If you guys want to talk about spoon fed, talk about spoon fed religious propaganda that passes for a story line with idiotic characters who can be manipulated with a few metaphorical sentences.

reply

How can you watch it and now realize that she firmly believes that he is not a stranger but some messenger of God? Anyone who has paid heed to old testament scriptures knows that God is awkward, arbitrary, and often violent in getting his revenge/making a point.

Part of the fun of the movie is that she'll never know if she made the right decision. We're left wondering whether Joseph or Clark was the real demon.

reply

If people don't like it then fine but dislike it for the right reasons and not because you have to think during it. I personally thought it was a fascinating film with some fine high intensity acting and some great cinematography.

To those who prejudge it before watching it: you're missing out; if not on a great movie then certainly on one worth watching and thinking about.

reply

IMDB really needs to have an intelligence test before people are allowed to vote on here. That way great movies like this will have the decent rating they deserve and survive from being bashed by unintelligent morons like the ones who are posting in this thread. All because there microscopic minds do not understand and or cannot comprehend what is actually going on in the movie.

I suggest you morons stick to watching the likes or those retarded simpsons or american idiot! As that's more in line with your ability to comprehend and or understand whats going on.

After all under achievers will always stick together.



--------
I'd rather be hated for something I am, than be loved for something I am not!

88

reply

I gotta agree with you on that. IMDB ratings are proving more & more hopeless to me, so I've given up.

I wouldn't say this movie was fantastic, but it kept me gripped throughout (even through the long end sequence).

Cinemaphotography was great
Sound was great
Story was pretty good
Acting was very good
Budget looks low, but in the desert I wouldn't expect anything less

I don't think this film could've been done any better. I'd give it 7.5, but I can't so I'll give it an 8.

I might check out a few more Andrew Mason films off the back of this one. Deserves more credit I think.

reply

I noticed that you posted this on April the first, but if you are really serious you might have just convinced me to watch this movie. I'm sill a little on the edge from the comment above yours though. If that's the kind of people who like it maybe not, the simpsons is the longest running show on tv and still continue to provide at least some good episodes. I'll give it a try but if this turns out to be crap I'm coming back to slaughter it hard.

reply

Just noticed this reply. In answer to your comment, no it wasn't an April Fool.

My comments were genuine. One to note is 'Story was pretty good'. It's not an enthralling one.

reply

I would have rated the story above the rest. It's gripping as I don't know what. There aren't many movies that stir these kind of emotions in me, this is definately a movie I will be returning to.

It reminded me of Farmhouse (2008).

reply

i couldn't agree more with you.stupid plot,retarded actors and generally a waste of time.I just can't see what some people like in this ..

"IWASCUREDALLRIGHT!"

reply

I'm usually a fan of slow-burning indie films but my GOD is this film BOOOORRING! It plays like a half-hour twilight zone ep stretched out to film-length. Despite valiantly engaging performances from the actors this film is over-long, depressing and pointless. Virtually nothing happens in the whole damn movie and we are left with numerous unresolved plot threads, barely explored characters and questionable morals and motivations. Not my cup of tea

reply

SPOILERS GALORE

I loved "The Broken" and was really looking forward to the next work by Adam Mason, but sorely disappointed by "Blood River". As others already pointed out: The last-minute plot twist was ill-prepared; I couldn`t figure out why they introduce the fate of a little boy the audience doesn`t know about until the last 5 minutes of the film. And the behaviour of the wife to trust the stranger was completely illogical given his previous behaviour towards her. Or why the husband would readily admit he has done something wrong without any hard evidence against him.

Also, though I admit the protagonist was an interesting character/anti-hero/avenging angel, his motivations were "unbalanced" to me. While I would understand that he has an agenda with the husband if he had done something to the unknown little boy, to force the motel receptionist into suicide (for what ? impure thougts ?) was over the top for the minor offence of flirting with the husband.

The intense discussion between lovers and haters of this movie is not about liking indie films or not. The plot has some serious flaws which unfortunately can`t be healed through great landscape shots or a good score.

reply

I couldn`t figure out why they introduce the fate of a little boy the audience doesn`t know about until the last 5 minutes


The fact that Summer had a 5 year-old son and Clark was the stepfather was revealed fairly early in the movie. She even showed a photo of the boy to Joseph (who is later revealed to be an angel of wrath). Info regarding Clark's questionable relationship with the boy is slowly unearthed from there.

And the behaviour of the wife to trust the stranger was completely illogical given his previous behaviour towards her.


By that time she had clear evidence of Joseph being a supernatural being and, furthermore, he was wholly right about her sin of turning a blind eye to the molestation of her son in the name of maintaining the appearances (lie) of a healthy marriage/family.

why the husband would readily admit he has done something wrong without any hard evidence against him.


The scenario wasn't a human courtroom, but rather a divine confrontation in the desolate desert whereupon evidence is already known by the Almighty.

Clark actually never 'fessed up due to stubborn arrogance, which is (presumably) why divine mercy was not extended to him, as was done with Summer at the end.

to force the motel receptionist into suicide... was over the top for the minor offence of flirting with the husband.


Which reveals that it obviously wasn't just that. She had a long history of such transgressions of which the angel was now confronting her. As it is said, when God's mercy ends, God's judgment begins. For a biblical example, see the fate of pompous Herod in Acts 12:21-23.

The plot has some serious flaws which unfortunately can`t be healed through great landscape shots or a good score.


Does it? Or were you simply unable to discern the clues and draw the likely conclusion? The film respects the intelligence of the viewer to put the pieces of the puzzle together without spelling everything out. That's part of the appeal of psychological flicks like this.

reply

It's as if you didn't watch the film at all.

Conform or be cast out

reply