What the hell is this, 7.1 score? This film is lame and shallow, there is virtually no acting, no story, no nothing. I guess showing teenagers poking their dicks around is what now counts for art cinema.
Nonsense, BoringMiser! I love this movie with it's deadpan, ironic ambiance of claustrophobic small-town craziness. Sweet, charming and genuinely funny! One of my very favorites of the year.
Welcome to Costco, I love you...
[deleted]
eggbertsmith, I salute you!
shareall there appears to be is either extreme hatred or absolute love of the film.I thought it was ok . share
I liked it, but I didn't love it, and I certainly didn't hate it. I'd give it a 3.5 on Netflix's 1-5 scale (where for me 4= I *really* liked it, and 5= I loved it). I thought it was well acted and engaging.
I was curious about how common the story line's central "act" is--it wasn't something I have often heard about. Is "poking" like that a common occurrence among young men who want to communicate sexual interest in someone?
Not to get into this with somebody called Miser, but "Turn Me On, Dammit!" won the Best Screenplay Award at the Tribeca Film Festival and was given the prize for Best Debut at the Rome Festival. The reviews at Tribeca were all very positive. Not one bad one and the same thing has happened as it has played in numerous world festivals. In August, it opened number one at the box office in Norway, and just opened in Sweden, again to rave reviews. France is soon.
Anybody curious to look at the response to the film can go to the Facebook page or look on the web. The critics will tell you exactly why they think this is not just a good film, but an extraordinary one.
If Mr. Miser hates "Turn Me On, Dammit!" he is completely entitled to his opinion. But when he says there is "no nothing," there are a lot of people who don't agree, and unlike him, they go into great detail explaining why they think so:
Check this out for example:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jordan-zakarin/turn-me-on-goddammit-teen-film_b_853008.html
or Variety:
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117945036/
or this
http://34st.com/?p=20282&wpmp_switcher=mobile
or this:
http://exploringfeminisms.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/47th-chicago-international-film-festival-overview/
Knock yourself out. Google away. Dozens of great reviews out there.
Wait until the film comes out on March 16th. You're going to hear a lot more about it then. Do yourself a favor and check it out for yourself.
yep, it is called making an indie film about teenager life in the tiny isolated towns that exist in this continent.
yeah, Godzilla doesnt invade the little villages but drunk girls may get poked by drunk boys' pricks, nothing more interesting is on, so the film has to be quite simple.
found it amusing, light-hearted and well acted. worthy of a 7.
La jeunesse sait ce qu'elle ne veut pas avant de savoir ce qu'elle veut
Quick question for everyone who found this to be well acted:
Are you norwegian?
The line delivery by practically every single actor in this was pretty *beep* horrible imho..
So basically you've not seen any movies from the rest of the world until very recently.
This 'type' of film has been around for a very long time, as is the style - it's called realism: in the real world, you see, we do not spend our time developing plot lines via conversation. We are silent much of our lives, and realist films reflect that. .
It's called a 'coming of age' tale. The subject matter and style of film making may not be for you, but that means nothing, in terms of the quality of film.
And it's hardly an 'art' film just because you find it a little different, kiddo.
cinesimon: I wonder how old are you to call me kiddo. But you are making a valid point. I guess I don't need to go to a cinema to see the "reality", at least that type of it, it's all around me readily accessible to my sensors, but I understand that some people might do. I'm still surprised about the high score though.
As for the terminology and the "type" of film - this is all a grey area for me. I think the term "realism" means different things for different people. Say, when I was younger I was very impressed watching "The Mirror" by A. Tarkovsky. It looked very realistic to me so I would call it "realism". But then somebody told me: no kiddo, that's the art cinema. I guess I am still confused.
Art and Realism doesn't exclude each other. There is a whole period in literature called Realism, which is the fact I believe you are familiar with.
But I agree with you that this film is kind of lame.
***70s - the time when even Stallone had to make a decent film***
It's ladies cinema, the foreign element just makes it harder to pin down
shareIn 2023 it's down to a 6.3, which seems more realistic. I gave it a 6. It's okay, but a bit too "ABC Afterschool Special" didactic and not funny enough.
It was also weird that in the middle of one girl's story, we suddenly shift and start getting annother girl's viewpoint for some time for reasons unknown and then go back again, leaving the second girl's story unresolved. That was kind of amateurish.
Funniest scene in the whole thing was the androgynous neighbor who complains that they close the curtains, preventing looking inside their house. Then when they ask if they've seen the missing Alma, they read from the notebook they have compiled about what everyone has been doing.