ÉVALUATION IMDb
3,7/10
1,6 k
MA NOTE
À propos du jeune footballeur Jake Graham qui croit qu'il devient fou, incapable de se débarrasser du sentiment d'être traqué par quelque chose, par quelqu'un.À propos du jeune footballeur Jake Graham qui croit qu'il devient fou, incapable de se débarrasser du sentiment d'être traqué par quelque chose, par quelqu'un.À propos du jeune footballeur Jake Graham qui croit qu'il devient fou, incapable de se débarrasser du sentiment d'être traqué par quelque chose, par quelqu'un.
Avis en vedette
I really wanted to like this movie. Witn a description like "about a handsome young soccer player," I understood it was going to be a vehicle to present a half to fully naked Ronen Rubinstein. Got it, no problem, but you can do that and have an engaging storyline. This one forgot that part.
Two of my writing pet peeves were repeatedly exercised throughout this movie. The first, dialog that wanders around and takes 7 or 8 lines of exposition, when a good edit and trust in the actors could have got you there in 2 or 3. Show me someone is depressed, not have three characters tell him he's depressed. The second is when a character reflects back on some really important, life impacting thing that happened in the past, and then goes on to tell the impacted character about it. Generic example: "Remember when your arm fell off that time? You were so scared and in pain. There was blood everywhere, and we had to go to the hospital and have it stitched back on." Pretty sure they'd remember all that, and it's kinda rude to spell out the pain to a friend like that. Again, needed another edit.
Most of the rest was pretty cliche. Bloody gore for bloody gore's sake. Ended exactly the way I thought it would. And to all the gods in B movie heaven, a white panel van? Really?
Actors unchallenged by lazy writing, barely make their way through a movie that could have been edited in half, but doing it on a low budget, brings me to a 4.
Two of my writing pet peeves were repeatedly exercised throughout this movie. The first, dialog that wanders around and takes 7 or 8 lines of exposition, when a good edit and trust in the actors could have got you there in 2 or 3. Show me someone is depressed, not have three characters tell him he's depressed. The second is when a character reflects back on some really important, life impacting thing that happened in the past, and then goes on to tell the impacted character about it. Generic example: "Remember when your arm fell off that time? You were so scared and in pain. There was blood everywhere, and we had to go to the hospital and have it stitched back on." Pretty sure they'd remember all that, and it's kinda rude to spell out the pain to a friend like that. Again, needed another edit.
Most of the rest was pretty cliche. Bloody gore for bloody gore's sake. Ended exactly the way I thought it would. And to all the gods in B movie heaven, a white panel van? Really?
Actors unchallenged by lazy writing, barely make their way through a movie that could have been edited in half, but doing it on a low budget, brings me to a 4.
You'll be disappointed. I watched this movie because Crispin had top billing. But he's shown only for a few seconds here and there, and he's wearing prosthetics, so you don't even recognize him. And with Ellis penning the script, I would have thought this would be better. Don't bother.
Yeh it's one of those movies where you could be on your phone the entire time and basically get the point.
There isn't a single aspect of this movie that works. It has some if the dullest shots ever seen on film, half of the movie is literally just people walking and acting confused. It's even a bigger disgrace that they dared to even remotely allude that the events depicted are based on a true story. If you plan on watching it just because of Crispin Glover, he's in the movie for like a minute and has no lines.
...and believe me, I've watched some bad ones.
Watched this because it was a Lionsgate films and generally they are fine but what even was this.
You take a premise of a well known spree of crimes and it becomes this boring mess.
Could have been so much more. Forgettable.
Watched this because it was a Lionsgate films and generally they are fine but what even was this.
You take a premise of a well known spree of crimes and it becomes this boring mess.
Could have been so much more. Forgettable.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesLoosely based on the Smiley face murder theory in which the bodies of young men have been mysteriously found in water with smiley face graffiti nearby, dating back to the 1990s. The deaths have been ruled as accidental drowning but many believe a serial killer or a group of killers may be involved. The plot of this movie is based on the latter theory.
- GaffesFollowing Devon's murder, Jake leaves his home to return Karen's cell. Despite appearing only a few minutes later, it is now evening and Devon's car is now missing.
- Citations
[repeated line]
Woman Killer: The Water Wants You!
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Smiley Face Killers?Propulsé par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Улыбающиеся убийцы
- Lieux de tournage
- société de production
- Consultez plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Brut – à l'échelle mondiale
- 11 944 $ US
- Durée1 heure 36 minutes
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Smiley Face Killers (2020) officially released in India in English?
Répondre