Subterranea

The premise is interesting enough, and the cover caught my eye. Plus it has some guy named Bug in it and I thought that was pretty funny.

But man oh man does this movie drag. I had to remind myself to pay attention to the screen and not be lulled into a catatonic state by the endless drone of vague and melodramatic dialogue. It reminded me of shopping with my mom as a child when she would run into someone she knew. You're trapped there, listening to two people ramble on and on, hoping against hope that this will wrap up soon so you can do literally anything else with your life.

The lead actor (Bug) does his best to pretend like he's in a real movie. All of the rest of the supporting cast is boring at best and embarrassing at worst. This might be the first movie in history to be directed by someone in a coma.

I can't say this movie wasted 90 minutes of my time. I did have a few laughs at some bad ADR audio, ill-conceived costume and makeup choices, and the soundtrack that insists--despite all evidence to the contrary--that something interesting is happening on the screen.

Not offensively bad but also devoid of any flavor-- this is the cinematic equivalent of eating wet tofu.

The plot... Moralizing gibberish. It actually could have been an interesting premise. Like the story of the girl raised by wolves only this would be a boy raised on preachy boredom. I don't know, maybe it was lost in editing. But more likely the script was the culprit. The Cast

• A guy called "Bug".
• William Katt (Greatest American Hero) looked like my grandmother.
• One of the Turturros who can't act. That narrows it down to two.

If you must watch the first 5 mins then fast forward to the last 5. Now I'm "the provider" and have provided you with 1hr 28mins of your life that you would have otherwise wasted.

A man (Bug Hall) is raised since he was an orphan baby in an underground cell without seeing any other human or daylight. His only contact, for education and feeding, is with The Provider through an opening in the door of the cell. Twenty-five years later, he is released in a subway station having a scary experience seeing people and lights and hearing noises. He stumbles upon the homeless small-time criminal Remy (Nicholas Turturro) that teaches him how to survive in a wrong way. Out of the blue, he awakes in the house of a strange woman named Maya (Amber Rose Mason) that helps him and he falls in love with her. But when Maya vanishes, the man decides to find her whereabouts. But how can he do?

"Subterranea" is a film with an intriguing premise and an awful screenplay. The storyline of a wealthy sadistic lunatic that decides to raise a baby in a dark cell isolated from the society in a social experiment could have been better and better, like "Oldboy" (2003) or "Das Experiment" (2001) have been in the past. Unfortunately the messy non-linear screenplay is absolutely boring and the characters awfully developed. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Subterrâneo" ("Underground")

Deeply flawed. A deeply stupid and shallow story. Deeply insulting to the viewer. Deeply sorry for the kick-starters that invested. This film is slower than a snail stricken with rheumatoid arthritis trying to pull a cannonball up a steep hill covered in broken crystal. The preposterously unbelievable and naive story is enhanced by the appallingly naive make up, clichéd costume and awful acting - especially by John Turturro who has completely misread his character, but then the acting is the domain of the Director isn't it? I doubt that the director was actually paying attention to the performances and was instead spending most of his time looking at the pretty pictures - the videography was OK. I say videography because it was shot on Red video cameras (whatever happened to them?) The lead role, played by someone called Bug, was okay, but oh my goodness, everyone else was either miscast or just plain bad. If you really want to see this video at the cinema, take a sleeping bag and a good book.

The amazing ratings on IMDb. I will always wonder why such a great tool with amazing potential is never been managed better than it actually is now. This movie has two reviews before mine. One gave it a one star rating, the other a two star rating, but how amazing it is to see that this movie scores a 6,5 on IMDb. It's just not a fair or correct rating considering the reviews it got. But I still gave it a shot despise the reviews, and that purely based on the rating it got on IMDb. Because sometimes you stumble on a hidden gem. Unfortunately this one isn't a hidden gem. It's the complete opposite. I have to admit there was a certain mystery in the beginning, something that makes you wonder what happened and so on, but the more the movie advances the more you know this is going nowhere. The end is like I was afraid of at one point. A complete letdown. I have been fooled by the ratings, and I will probably be again in the future. If I could give one good advise to IMDb is that you make an option available where you can follow certain reviewers. So that I can watch movies that has been positively reviewed by people with the same taste of movies as me. Only then IMDb would be a great website. Now it's still just guessing if a movie is going to be good or not. Ratings don't mean anything on this website. There are hidden gems with a very low rating like there are awful movies with a high rating, like this one for example.