MovieChat Forums > Dog Tags (2008) Discussion > why the low rating?

why the low rating?

posted 15 years ago by modrngarde
10 replies | jump to latest

The characterisation was really well done. At no point in this film
were the characters clichéd - they were wonderfully nuanced -
unconventional but totally realistic at the same time. The story itself
wasn't groundbreaking, but it didn't need to be - there was enough
depth in the performances to make up for it. What you have here is a
simple movie that is, for lack of a better word, moving. The low key
style here really suits the tone of the film, which pretty much
explores basic and universal themes of change and progression. I think
the IMDb rating is unfairly low.

[–] info-14187 15 years ago

if you're going to write something about a film you were involved in, you should definitely seem less knowledgeable about cinema in general, and less attached to said film. otherwise, it's a dead give-away

[–] bbb-97 15 years ago

Not only did I find this film discusting and the entire concept was ,Ohhhh a faqot with a sensiblity and emotional issue. Do you really believe that film seekers explore for these types of flics. Just tasteless,and your self serving review is an insult to the rest of humanity.

[–] vernon 15 years ago

Ooh! We have a self-hating piece of humanity here. Says it all.

[–] Jerry02149 15 years ago

I totally agree with you modrngarde. I really enjoyed it, and these types of movies are far better than the dreck mainstream Hollyweird puts out.

[–] lordofthelake 15 years ago

Because it sucks. It's boring and trite, an aimless journey.

[–] redhenry 15 years ago

I enjoyed it. Nate was nice on the eyes too. :-)

[–] WarpedRecord 14 years ago

I gave it a 6/10, and a very weak one at that. The performances are decent, but the plot and motivations make no sense whatsoever. It's always nice to see Candy Clark, but she is underused here and appears to have no idea who her character is. Ditto for everyone else in this film. On second though, I'm downgrading it to 5/10.

[–] AnotherCineFan 14 years ago

It got a 9/10 from me, because I expected garbage and got something nice. My Samsung "Upscaling" player didn't make a full screen out of the DVD though, too bad. This was a nice-looking film!

I don't know why the mascara was necessary, Nate first appears at a gay party, so we know he is gay, and I don't think this element was important to the rest of the story. I agree that the other characters were well-developed too, and even though the story direction was a bit scattered at the beginning, it pulled together and I believed it all.

The film may seem pointless to viewers who don't understand that there are many young, STRAIGHT men who have homosexual relationships - just as long as no one thinks they are gay. The co-dependency issues, emotional, car repair, child-care and yes, SEX, do not determine the outcome for any of the players. This is a story of one part of a journey, it's not intended to be The End.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ItsTheAngelMan (135) 5 years ago

Because folks wanted a movie about hunky marines banging each other and instead they got a wimpy guy with eye-liner and a mostly unbelievable idea that this guy actually impregnated a woman. lol