2/10 ?


Are you insane? I would recommend the movie to everybody who likes Western. At least 7/10 in my book.
Loved it and it will be in cinemas soon. So go watch it.

reply

If you look at the actual votes. More than half of 41 voters, voted 10, and a bunch more voted 9. IMDB has a weighted voting system, but you'd have to discount all but a few of the lowest to get a 2.1

reply

I agree! I was very surprised to see Good for Nothing's rating on IMDB. I think anyone who is remotely a Western fan would enjoy this film, especially for the unique New Zealand spin it puts on the traditional Western. I was super impressed to find out that this is Director Mike Wallis' first film, and that Inge Rademeyer is his fiance/co-producer. To make such a well put together film on such a low budget and be able to have it penetrate American theaters, is something they should be so proud of. I'll definitely be looking out for more of Wallis' work to come! http://bitly.com/wm5zhy

reply

Why don't you *beep* go and market your film elsewhere?

reply

"Inge Rademeyer is his fiance"

Ah, that explains why she had this role. Not that she did a bad job by any stretch, but certainly could have cast someone a little more appropriate as a lead. Physically, she's definitely more of a character actress.

Of course, I'm sure her "pay" was the deciding factor.

The one thing that bummed me about the film was the sound stage setting for the climax. They must have gotten bumped by the weather because I can't see a logical reason why they'd do such a thing.

reply

I don't see this film appealing to fans of classic western movies.
It is more likely to be enjoyed by people who appreciate subtle humour at the expense of that whole genre. In others words, if you're not a fan of western movies you might enjoy this film.

reply

I don't see this film appealing to fans of classic western movies.

Well, yes, if they're only fans of classic John Ford-type westerns. I'm not sure how many of those type of people are giving ratings on IMDb though. Do they have internet access in nursing homes? I'm a huge fan of the genre, and will eat up just about any incarnation I can find. That said, I can't really explain the low rating for this movie. It was decent enough, with some beautiful scenery, brutal violence, and moments of dark humor. Of the few new westerns I've seen recently (Blackthorn, Meek's Cutoff, The Scarlet Worm) I thought this was the best of the lot. On the whole, it was entertaining. As a directorial debut, it was impressive. Gave it a 6.


You saw Dingleberries?

reply

Blackthorn is way better than this. This is a poor movie.You don't have to be a fan of John Ford westerns to have this view. Anyone who likes a decent Western , will only like this in an ironic way.

reply

Hmm, well I like it so... I guess you're wrong.


You saw Dingleberries?

reply

Well, judging by the lack of activity on this forum, you're alone, or at least in the minority. Although, maybe a few more of the cast and crew will now post to back you up:)

reply

Maybe it's just that not very many people have seen the film. People with negative opinions on something are usually just as, if not more vocal than the positives. Of the people that have posted, you're the only one saying it stinks, and looking at posting histories, I see no obvious studio plants. All but one of the critic reviews was either glowing or generally positive, and that one negative was from a critic that just couldn't get past the (admittedly disgusting) premise.

I enjoyed the movie's eccentricities and satirical bent, but I didn't like the film "ironically" like some hipster d-bag. I gave it a 6, and it looks like the rating has started to even out a bit.


You saw Dingleberries?

reply

Perhaps. Although I suspect if actually more people share your view of the movie then this movie would by word of mouth manage to garner a good following in time. I realize that getting distribution is difficult when you don't have the financial clout or good connections, but i think a really good movie will manage to get out to a wider audience in time. I just don't think this movie will be one of those. The acting was terrible, and, while it tried to be funny, i felt it wasn't for the most part.
That's why I could only like this in an ironic way. Also I've been described as a lot of things, but a hipster d-bag is first:)

reply

Haha, I wasn't describing you as a hipster d-bag, I'm just tired of the hipsterish attitude of pretending to like obvious garbage, but it's ok, because *wink wink*, they really only like it ironically. It's played as lighthearted, but it just smacks of superiority and mean-spiritedness to me. It's nicer to just call something crappy.

I don't know if that's the way you meant "ironically" (maybe you meant that you can appreciate the film's use of irony, and/or subversion of classic western themes) but that's just the first thing that came to mind. That I couldn't actually like the film, just pretend to like it.

You saw Dingleberries?

reply

I agree, it wasn't a classic, but for a western it was pretty decent. It kind of reminded me of a Sergio western,..but obviously not nearly as well done.

"Yeah,. Well,..you know that's just like,..uh.. your opinion man"

reply

I agree with you Bux, on recommending this movie to someone who appreciates western films. A 7/10 would be a more suitable score in my opinion.

reply

It was a solid 4.

reply

[deleted]

I also thought it was worth a 7.

5.9/10 606 votes

It would seem, 3 1/2 years later lots of others agree.

I give it high marks for the same reasons so many people commented on the things they liked.


Everyone you meet is fighting a battle you know nothing about.
be kind, rewind...

reply