WTF - Don Peyote (2014) Discussion

[–] The_Truth_Hurts_For_Most 10 years ago

Just thought the same thing, looks like garbage.

reply

Why? because it doesn't have fancy cgi?

reply

Why? because it doesn't have fancy cgi?

Yeah because every great film has cgi.... Don't be so daft.

The trailer is very messy, I hope whoever's cut the trailer hasn't cut the film. It's strange though, some scenes look very well shot and lit whilst other scenes look like a first year student film, rolling shutter issues and no lighting techniques at all.

To me it looks as if this film took so long to be completed that in the end the budget was gone and the director just shot the remaining scenes by himself and rushed it.

Saying all this, if the story is good and the film flows right, it shouldn't distract. The trailer is a hack job though.

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth."

reply

[–] siope_chariie 10 years ago

This movie actually does have quite a bit of CGI.

Very cheap looking and bad CGI. So, what's your point? Oh, you don't have one.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Thrill_KillZ 10 years ago

This film totally sucked beyond the first 10 minutes, about 45 minutes in I checked the runtime thinking *beep* this film is long, felt like 2 hours had gone by. Seriously I never want to see Dan Fogler's mug EVER again for the rest of my life, so many extended close ups, so f'ing many! He was actually starting to repulse me.

This role wasn't right for Fogler, people may strongly disagree with me on this but I think Zach Galifianakis would have been a much, much better choice, but then again Visioneers 2008 is one of my all time favorite films.

Also using Anne Hathaway, Jay Baruchel, Josh Duhamel and Topher Grace as "bait" for viewers, giving them top billing even though they have little screen time is kind of a dick move. I guess it's okay as long as they don't have an actual character name assigned to them(as they currently do not on IMDb)

reply

[–] koffeenkreame41-1 10 years ago

This film totally sucked beyond the first 10 minutes, about 45 minutes in I checked the runtime thinking *beep* this film is long, felt like 2 hours had gone by. Seriously I never want to see Dan Fogler's mug EVER again for the rest of my life, so many extended close ups, so f'ing many! He was actually starting to repulse me.

This role wasn't right for Fogler, people may strongly disagree with me on this but I think Zach Galifianakis would have been a much, much better choice, but then again Visioneers 2008 is one of my all time favorite films.

Also using Anne Hathaway, Jay Baruchel, Josh Duhamel and Topher Grace as "bait" for viewers, giving them top billing even though they have little screen time is kind of a dick move. I guess it's okay as long as they don't have an actual character name assigned to them(as they currently do not on IMDb)

^^This.

"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna `*beep*` wit me!"- Hudson in Aliens.

reply

[–] shoutatthesky 10 years ago

It was made for $500'000 which is relatively low budget but the story was so good the couple of scenes containing CGI didn't detract from my enjoyment at all. Personally I felt that this was a great 'feel good' movie - one that I thoroughly enjoyed.

Dan Fogler has often made a point of helping out those he feels are talented but are not doing so well careerwise so I think this was the motivation for including some of the bigger names. I mean they were all successful actors in the past but haven't exactly been at the top of their game lately. He is just helping out his friends (and having their names in the credits probably didn't hurt either).

reply

[–] funkyfry 9 years ago

I'm sorry.... you seem nice, but..... you are a crazy person. How is this a "feel good" movie? I felt like puking half the time, seriously. And your theory that Topher Grace and Anne Hathaway are in this turgid tiny budget movie because the director wanted to help them out is about on equal level of plausibility with the Mayan Apocalypse theory itself. They obviously owed him a favor, or he's a really likable guy in real life. Just not much of a director, because you shouldn't shoot an entire movie in close-ups, even if it is halfway "mockumentary."

Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

reply

[–] MovieBuffYourMomLoves 10 years ago

Despite the "big stars" that volunteered there time, this movie is a mess. The audio was lacking any professionalism, shots were amateurly framed(for the first half), and the lack of decent cinematography(for the first half) all amounted to an ultra-low budget sandbox.But hey, the script wasn't too bad. The movie seems like two parts of a whole. With 2 directors, it hard to guess who directed which part, but there styles are noticeable. I'd say pass on watching this if sober. But like the title suggests, the movie is best viewed under the influence.

reply

[–] mysteryman019 10 years ago

I hate independent movies about drugs and clubing... so, i think i'll avoid this. The two or three storylines have already been done hundreds of times and they have been interesting maybe 4 or 5 times... and the clubbing has never been interesting. my 2-cents...

reply