User reviews

So because this movie is basically 5 seperate small movies in one. I decided to rate each indivually and the average of that would be my overall rating for the film.

1.) Green eyed monster- 9/10

This in my opinion was the best by far out of all them. I honestly could've watched full length movie on this. It was very taboo, dramatic, and tension filled. The acting also was done very well by all parties.

2.)This little piggy-7/10

This one had good amount of humor in it and it was while pretty silly and kind of cheesy interesting for the most part.

3.)Buyers Remorse-1/10

This one was by far the worst out of all them. I literally hated it with passion. Dry humor, very disgusting scenes, draggy, and virtually had no payoff in the end.

4.)Kangaroo Court-6/10

This one was okay for the most part. I diddn't enjoy Lake Bell at all (I usually like her in everything else), the kid actors were pretty annoying, but the thing that had me convinced to not give it bad rating was the climax was very wild and something would never saw coming.

5.)Maneater-8/10

I can imagine this final scene must of had tremendous out of controversy and if it was released in 2020. I personally think this movie would got shelved immediately. With that said this scene by far had the best acting. Zoe Saldana was excellent and very believeble. It was wild/unexpected spin on something so very vile that you can't help but look away from the scene.

Overall after averaging these scores on it left me with final score of a 6 out of 10. Which I think is pretty fair for entire movie. Was it masterpiece? No. Will it be massive cult film? Def not. But it is solid watch if its weekend and you have nothing better to do just please make sure you know what you're getting into as this movie isn't for everyone.

"Burning Palms" is supposed to be a dark comedy. I didn't know if I was supposed laugh, cry, or stare indignantly at the offensiveness on the screen. I chose the latter. There was nothing remotely funny, nothing emotionally-engaging, but everything filled with crimes being committed or people who should be committed to a mental institution.

I'm assuming the entire point of such a film was for the shock value. But shock only matters if there's something to care about in the first place. These filmmakers do not want you to care about these characters, even if they do deserve care and support, they just wanted to laugh at them. But let me repeat, there is nothing remotely funny about any of this. Rape victims, child murderers, and suicidal women are not funny.

These filmmakers are probably sitting back laughing at me right now because I didn't get it. But what they don't understand is that the art of offending relies on either an underlying truth to the situation or a greater meaning or purpose. There is no redeeming value to "Burning Palms", just inappropriate actions being played out for no reason, or for inappropriate reasons, but either way this is not acceptable filmmaking.

What is normal? This is a movie about five different groups of people. A very close father and daughter. A boyfriend with a strange bedroom habit. A gay couple who want to adopt. A boy who is a borderline psychopath, and a women who falls in love with her attacker. Very, very strange. Very offensive in parts, and also pretty good. This movie I really liked, and I don't think I should of. When you watch it you will see why. This is a hard movie to recommend because of the subject matter. But if you like movies that are very different and not a movie that has been re-done 50 times this is the one for you. I liked it, but again if you are easily offended do not watch this. I give it a B.

Would I watch again? - I don't know if I would *Also try - 11:14

OK, so put it this way, I have NEVER written a review of any kind, of anything, on the internet or otherwise. As a film and television industry professional, I felt obligated to sign up with IMDb just now in hopes that this review will stop even one more person from watching this insult to the medium and all things creative.

Before you jump to the conclusion that I am writing from an uptight, close minded, or otherwise humorless perspective, let me assure you I am not. I am as dark humored as they come. I am a fan of any films that push the boundaries of social decency, as well as addressing societal taboos through the use of humor. With that being said, Burning Palms is not even a film.

This Thing that is masquerading as entertainment should be used as an example in educational courses on mental illness and sociopathy vs. psycopathy in Hollywood film production. Not in the content of the films produced, but within the industry that produces and distributes such material as this Thing. I looked up Psycopathy on Wikipedia and this is what it says:

The prototypical psychopath has deficits or deviance in several areas: interpersonal relationships, emotion, and self-control. Psychopaths gain satisfaction through antisocial behavior, and do not experience shame, guilt, or remorse for their actions. Psychopaths lack a sense of guilt or remorse for any harm they may have caused others, instead rationalizing the behavior, blaming someone else, or denying it outright.

Psychopaths also lack empathy towards others in general, resulting in tactlessness, insensitivity, and contemptuousness. Psychopaths can have a superficial charm about them, enabled by a willingness to say anything to anyone without concern for accuracy or truth. Shallow affect also describes the psychopath's tendency for genuine emotion to be short- lived, glib and egocentric, with an overall cold demeanor. Their behavior is impulsive and irresponsible, often failing to keep a job or defaulting on debts.

Psychopaths also have a markedly distorted sense of the potential consequences of their actions, not only for others, but also for themselves. They do not deeply recognize the risk of being caught, disbelieved or injured as a result of their behavior.

Researcher Robert Hare, whose Hare Psychopathy Checklist is widely used, describes psychopaths as "intraspecies predators". Also R.I. Simon uses the word predator to describe psychopaths. Elsewhere Hare and others write that psychopaths "use charisma, manipulation, intimidation, sexual intercourse and violence" to control others and to satisfy their own needs. Hare states that: "Lacking in conscience and empathy, they take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without guilt or remorse". He previously stated that: "What is missing, in other words, are the very qualities that allow a human being to live in social harmony".

To everyone who watched this Thing and found humor, entertainment, or value of any kind, need to seriously check themselves against this description and evaluate their state of mental, social, and emotional health.

I am not sure if this was meant to be ironic, subversive or surreal, but it failed on every level. Framed as stories in some demented comic book, it isn't presented as 'different' enough to be believable as a comic story. It comes off as racist, sexist and just generally unpleasant. The actions of the characters are so unbelievable and irrational as to drive me to distraction. The acting is just awful in most cases. It is supposed to be some comment on Los Angeles, yet it is just absurd. There was potential for this to be insightful, witty or interesting, yet that was all frittered away with shock value and the extreme unbelievability of the characters. And because it was presented in a normal world, this makes it all the frustrating. It was just unrelentingly bad.

If you have a dark humor, and speak cynicism fluently - this movie definitely worths your time. Usually when a movie depicts a couple of different stories with a common denominator, shown one following the other, not interlacing, it is used in order to show "a bigger picture", which brings me to one of the two only issues with this film (in my opinion): there is no bigger picture. If you're looking for a final scene that will connect all the dots together, you should know there isn't any. It's just not this kind of movie, nothing to be disappointed about.

The other thing that might bother you, is the lack of "tightness" in the plots. This becomes very apparent in the different endings - as if the writer had an excellent idea for five sketches, but not a movie.

However, "Burning Palms" is a very good movie indeed. It could score a solid 8 (not kidding!) if there would have been some small modification in the screenplay, but as it is it's still captivating - go watch it.

Why did it get such a high rating on IMDb? I've seen movies that actually had something in it with way less points. A seven should be a really pretty good comedy like for example "Hangover".

"Burning Palms" is pretty much a cynical and pretty nasty way to make fun on people that have a mental problem or a mental illness. It's insensitive and even if you are an insensitive kind of men or women it's just not funny. Go to a clinic for mentally ill people sit around there and laugh at them. And hope you will never be there. That's what this movie is.

I don't want to be too emotional about it, so I just say, it's unwise, intolerant, ignorant and absolutely without any care for the people around you to make such a movie.

In other words: The filmmakers are actually hurting other people.

Considering some of the talented actors and the general premise of this movie, it should have been, at the very least, an average or at least slightly amusing film. Instead, it's a ridiculously cynical, bitter, awful tale that throws societal taboos around like confetti at a ticker-tape parade for no other reason but to see how many can be clumped together in on movie.

The stories try to be sardonic and darkly whimsical. But the absolutely terrible script and overly despicable and poorly written characters instead result in an utter waste of the viewers' time.

For the reviewers who compared this to anthologies such as Pulp Fiction, Creepshow or Trick 'r Treat, they are insulting the very essence of much better such films.

Burning Palms completely misfires on all cylinders, and unless you're a stuck up film school snob who thinks they find more meaning in films than is actually there, avoid this one at all costs. It's not worth an iota of your time.

I thought this was terrific although I have not seen the last story yet. Very funny and NON PC which is refreshing.

I am surprised I highly recommend this movie unless you are a prude or can't handle NON PC type stuff. I give it a 6 instead of higher because some of the acting is bad.

I don't see how you can not laugh at this movie. It is dark humor and if you like that kind of thing you should watch this one

The adoption story and the finger is worth the price alone.

I am not sure why more people did not like this one. I will look for more movies from this writer

Anthology films can be fun when done well, even if a vast majority of the time the good ones have some unevenness. While 'Burning Palms' is not a complete disaster, the disturbing and entertaining moments were too far and between, much of it being in bad taste and not for the easily offended.

The best of the five anthology stories were, for me, "This Little Piggy" and "Maneater". The former being the most entertaining, where the few humorous parts that worked were present (just wished that the ending was better rounded off), and the latter being the creepiest and most compelling. Didn't care for the acting on the whole, but some are decent. Coming off best are a sincere Jamie Chung, an intense and touching Zoe Saldana and a suitably sleazy Nick Stahl. Rosamund Pike doesn't have all that much to do, but brings a sense of urgency and intensity without being melodramatic that makes "Green Eyed Monster" watchable. Some of the music score is used to unsettling effect, not being bombastic, one-note or intrusive, though most of the time it does its job serviceably but with not much distinction.

Sadly, two good segments, a few decent performances and some nice moments musically were far outweighed by the numerous things that didn't work at all. Aside from Pike, "Green Eyed Monster" is forgettable and doesn't really do anything with its incest subject matter. It also suffers from its ending feeling the most incomplete-feeling and anti-climactic of all the five stories, in a film where neither ending feels that well-rounded off. "Kangaroo Court" is similarly not that memorable, and is further let down by a bland atmosphere, a particularly limp pace and very predictable shocks. The worst of the five this viewer found to be "Buyers Remorse" which was an embarrassment, with the film's most cringeworthy dialogue, vicious gay stereotypes galore and even Africans will find the film's depiction of African stereotypes verging on offensive (or even worse offensive full-stop).

Visually, 'Burning Palms' has an unfocused and monochrome visual style that fails to bring any atmosphere of any kind, while there are also too many superfluous shots of people and objects that have nothing to do with the storytelling, seeming only to be there for director Christopher Landon to revel in his cynicism and self-indulgence. Those are also the two words (self-indulgent and cynical that is) that would describe Landon's directing here, am aware that this was his film debut but those characteristics completely take over any tension, pace or suspense Landon could have provided.

'Burning Palms's' script is at best sloppy, only showing spark really in "This Little Piggy". The funny parts are crass and vulgar, with as said the supposed humour in "Buyers Remorse" enough to make even those with a strong stomach cringe. The parts intended to shock, especially in "Kangaroo Court", are timed limply, feel predictable and either too disgustingly crude or too tame with the film never feeling dark enough. The satire is next to non-existent, and if there was any it was nowhere near biting or sharp enough. Whatever points were made about stereotypes and such were done so viciously, especially in "Buyers Remorse" and the film's general treatment of women, that it all felt bigoted and misogynistic.

Generally, the storytelling apart from in two segments doesn't come off that well. Not enough of 'Burning Palms' entertains or disturbs; pacing is slack; the subject matters for all five stories are trivialised and not explored enough being completely lost in the film's content; the five stories as well as ending on anti-climactic notes don't seem related to one another and little attempt is made to tie them together (instead limping from one segment to another); any parts intended to be dark are not dark at all, being too tame and too safe, like the writers were afraid to take the plunge properly and at the end of the day the viewer question what the point of the film was. Nothing is done to make the characters emotionally investable or easy to root for, they are written too blandly and others are downright annoying.

All in all, not unwatchable but generally it didn't entertain and it didn't disturb, or at least not enough. The only thing that was shocking was how distasteful much of the film felt. 3/10 Bethany Cox

If you can stomach/appreciate dark humor in the line of Louie C.K. and Jimmy Carr, this movie will entertain.

There are five stories, simple pulp fiction type tales without significant character development, but still resembling Aesops fables - only for adults.

Stripping off the cozy duvet of political correctness some of the tales will disgust and others will amuse, but buttons will be pushed for most.

By grossly exaggerating the little neuroses most people in modern society happily allow themselves and tolerate in others. The movie quickly reveals how seriously we take ourselves and our stereotypes, and how fragile these ego shells are when exposed to ridicule or scrutiny.

If you're unused to questioning motives, be it your own or those of others, and firmly believe there is such a thing as a "victim" - steer clear. Otherwise allow yourself to be shocked, it won't kill you and you may be healthily disillusioned (to be deprived of illusions).

As far as the acting, some support actors seemed to enjoy their mostly satirical roles - e.g. Shannen Doherty's accent and Paz Vega's emoting (worthy of the telenovela playing in the background), helped to lighten the fairly dark subject matter.

Oh, the segment "Buyers Remorse" is a must see for those looking to adopt.. If you spot ANY of those traits, please don't.

Not anywhere near as good as what the synopsis would have you think. The stories are not interconnected at all and the plots are mostly very predictable. Is quite gritty, but in some cases this is a bad thing: the characters are so loathsome you just want the individual story to end.

The set-up for most of the punch-lines is pretty good, but the conclusions often feel rushed, contrived and out-of-the-blue.

Despite its amateurish plot, the cast are mostly stars: Rosamund Pike, Dylan McDermott, Shannen Doherty, Zoe Saldana, Paz Vega, Nick Stahl, Performances are mostly pretty good. Shannen Doherty does put on the worst English accent ever though, assuming that's what she was aiming for.

Let's start with: Two caricatured gay men adopt an extremely young little black girl, and she ends up making tribal sounds and chucking a spear at an animal out of "instinct." They also joke about fingering her. BONUS: She is left for hours in a car on a hot day and ingests crystal meth, all in the name of comedy.

And there is so much more! So if you find that funny, this is for you. If you are older than eight and have more than a few neurons firing, you will hate this movie.

It's not even just the content. The directing is bad-TV-movie level stuff, the pace is off, the music is low rent, the dialogue is as bad as it gets.

That this writer/director (son of a person who used to be famous, natch) was then given future projects is everything that is wrong with Hollywood. It is impossible to imagine that Landon has accumulated much taste or talent, and no doubt qualified people collectively working on his films are carrying his career. Pathetic.

Writer/Director Christopher Landon (Paranormal Activity 1- 4, Disturbia, Dirty Sexy Money) has pasted together five unrelated stories and placed them before the audience like an O'Henry buffet. Cast with some excellent actors (one wonders why they signed on to this project) some of the stories work better than others, but the problem is that the story line of each deals with some dark material that is placed in an attempted comedic vein: most are not at all funny.

Traveling around different areas of Los Angeles Landon pulls up situational stories that are apparently supposed to represent life in those particular zones. Very bad for tourism as well as somewhat challenging for the real neighborhood personnel! Santa Monica: a woman (Rosamund Pike) becomes alarmingly concerned over her fiancé's (Dylan McDermott) unnaturally close relationship with his teenage daughter (Emily Meade). In Westwood, a sexual act requested by a man (Robert Hoffman) turns into a psychological obsession for a young woman (Jamie Chung). In West Hollywood, a gay couple (Peter Macdissi/Anson Mount) buys a young African daughter and attempts (unsuccessfully) to mold her to fit their lifestyle. In Holmby Hills, maladjusted kids and their equally maladjusted nanny (Paz Vega) play murderous games. In Sherman Oaks, a rape victim (Zoe Saldana) faces her violator (Nick Stahl) with a revenge all her own. There are lot of other fine actors caught up in this mélange but their roles are small.

Depending on your state of mind, these stories border on parody, black humor, sick outlook, and just uninteresting. The things presented as comedy….makes you wonder.

Initially I wanted to give this film grade five, that is one note for each story. But after I watched, in the first and last segment are events that can happen in real life so I stopped on four. The remaining stories are cheesy and tacky. A father has intimate relations with his underage daughter, a girl has problems with hygiene after a bizarre practice with her boyfriend, a gay couple buys a daughter, then realizing it's better to buy a dog. A housekeeper is mocking by a rebellious kid and then stolen by something that seems out of the ordinary and a young woman is a victim of a rape, then she seeks the aggressor and put it in a position to repeat the scene.

I'm not surprised that this movie has so few votes and opinions.

Hopefully this kind of films will not be made.