barenfotze
Joined Mar 2016
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews2
barenfotze's rating
I have to admit, I am torn on this one: an honest rating for this production would be 2/10, but it's so incredibly bad it's amazing! I was crying and wheezing from laughter by the end of the second part. Sure, it's hard to get there, but by the end you wish there was more. Move aside, Peter Jackson, there's a new hero in town!
Literally everything about this movie is either pure nonsense or so incompetently done one is left speechless. Perhaps the heart was in the right place, but the execution (and the budget) couldn't have been poorer.
I won't go into details over the CGI (remember, it was before the "cool CGI era") or the plot, you have to see it for yourself. No words can describe what my eyes have suffered. The VFX were so amateurish they couldn't really film most of the 'epic' adventures so they had to invent hilarious 'go-arounds' or leave the job to the narrator who suddenly appears mid-scene and takes over, staring into your soul with his deep, black eyes...
The dialogues are an untapped meme material: "Gandalf's prophecy was true: winter came!" (NO WAY, Gandalf!!) I think I cried a couple of times. The editing is equally bad - so bad it looks intentional. For instance, the Fellowship would lament losing its member in battle despite the fact that he was present in the previous sequence! Wtf? Why?! I have so many questions. And most of them are probably about the horribly mismatched cast - who, incidentally, all have Tommy Wiseau's (over-)acting talents. Legolas is played by a woman, Galadriel is in her 50s, Aragorn looks barely 19 and fresh out of school, hobbits are a bunch of middle-aged alcoholic dudes and Elrond looks like a gym guy from Aberdeen. It couldn't have been more amiss had they tried!
Seriously, imagine LotR with Tommy Wiseau playing every part (including Galadriel), combine it with the VFX of 'Birdemic' and you'll get the picture. Oh, and Neil Breen probably wrote the script.
It's painful, it's horrible, it's FANTASTIC - if you're into 'so bad it's good' films. And if you expect to see Jackson-like quality here, NO. Run, you fools! It is but for the strong-willed.
8 poorly costumed dark riders out of 9.
(Oh, and did you know they only had 3 horses between them? Well, they did! Sorry Tolkien, that's the new canon now)
Literally everything about this movie is either pure nonsense or so incompetently done one is left speechless. Perhaps the heart was in the right place, but the execution (and the budget) couldn't have been poorer.
I won't go into details over the CGI (remember, it was before the "cool CGI era") or the plot, you have to see it for yourself. No words can describe what my eyes have suffered. The VFX were so amateurish they couldn't really film most of the 'epic' adventures so they had to invent hilarious 'go-arounds' or leave the job to the narrator who suddenly appears mid-scene and takes over, staring into your soul with his deep, black eyes...
The dialogues are an untapped meme material: "Gandalf's prophecy was true: winter came!" (NO WAY, Gandalf!!) I think I cried a couple of times. The editing is equally bad - so bad it looks intentional. For instance, the Fellowship would lament losing its member in battle despite the fact that he was present in the previous sequence! Wtf? Why?! I have so many questions. And most of them are probably about the horribly mismatched cast - who, incidentally, all have Tommy Wiseau's (over-)acting talents. Legolas is played by a woman, Galadriel is in her 50s, Aragorn looks barely 19 and fresh out of school, hobbits are a bunch of middle-aged alcoholic dudes and Elrond looks like a gym guy from Aberdeen. It couldn't have been more amiss had they tried!
Seriously, imagine LotR with Tommy Wiseau playing every part (including Galadriel), combine it with the VFX of 'Birdemic' and you'll get the picture. Oh, and Neil Breen probably wrote the script.
It's painful, it's horrible, it's FANTASTIC - if you're into 'so bad it's good' films. And if you expect to see Jackson-like quality here, NO. Run, you fools! It is but for the strong-willed.
8 poorly costumed dark riders out of 9.
(Oh, and did you know they only had 3 horses between them? Well, they did! Sorry Tolkien, that's the new canon now)
I don't know why this film has a rating of 5.5 stars here on IMDB. I don't know why it has a rating at all: out of 10 stars, it deserves 0. Unless your definition of a comedy is people shouting annoyingly and drinking all the time, you wouldn't find it funny or entertaining.
Arguably, it is a semi-accurate portrayal of a provincial Russian wedding, with parents wanting a big pompous event for the whole family and disregarding the wishes of the newly-wed couple themselves, but... So what? Literally, what's the point, what are they trying to say?
"Gorko!" fails to make a statement, to develop this wedding situation in whatsoever way, it literally just films it, and that's it. Beside some flat and weak jokes (like the one about parasites) being repeated over and over again, there isn't much of a comedy element in there. Characters? Poorly written and illogical; if they inspire any feelings in the viewer, it's the feeling of annoyance and tiredness. I don't enjoy screaming and howling characters, I don't find them funny. I don't like hysterical characters, either. Maybe someone likes it in a comedy, but not me. Especially when the whole "comedy element" relies on that - on that, and on the excessive alcohol consumption. Speaking of which...
It's true that a lot of comedies rely on a heavy consumption of alcohol (see Hangover) or drugs (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas), but it's because it either helps establish a comedic character (like in Whithnail and I) or leads up to a farsical situation (as in said Hangover). But the sheer process of drinking, what's funny about that? You can see people drinking heavily in a pub at their night out; you wouldn't film it and label it as a "comedy". Why do it to a wedding? You would think that it would lead up to some conflict of situations, or provide the unexpected and funny plot developments, but no. As I said previously, "Gorko!" fails to make use of that.
The plotline is straight, flat, uninteresting and unredeeming. Everyone drinks, fights, acts like alcohol-crazed pigs, and then... Suddenly (and without any reason or explanation whatsoever!) everything is fine, everyone loves each other again, and basically ignore what's been going on for the whole duration of this "film". It's like they ran out of ideas (read: cocaine) and had to come up with a denouement on the spot. It went poorly. As did the whole film.
View at your own discretion, but be warned: unless you find obnoxious screaming, grimacing, hysterical fits and incessant drinking funny, you won't enjoy this meaningless and tasteless production of yet another money-grabbing director. My verdict: 0/10, would erase my own memory and never watch it again.
Arguably, it is a semi-accurate portrayal of a provincial Russian wedding, with parents wanting a big pompous event for the whole family and disregarding the wishes of the newly-wed couple themselves, but... So what? Literally, what's the point, what are they trying to say?
"Gorko!" fails to make a statement, to develop this wedding situation in whatsoever way, it literally just films it, and that's it. Beside some flat and weak jokes (like the one about parasites) being repeated over and over again, there isn't much of a comedy element in there. Characters? Poorly written and illogical; if they inspire any feelings in the viewer, it's the feeling of annoyance and tiredness. I don't enjoy screaming and howling characters, I don't find them funny. I don't like hysterical characters, either. Maybe someone likes it in a comedy, but not me. Especially when the whole "comedy element" relies on that - on that, and on the excessive alcohol consumption. Speaking of which...
It's true that a lot of comedies rely on a heavy consumption of alcohol (see Hangover) or drugs (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas), but it's because it either helps establish a comedic character (like in Whithnail and I) or leads up to a farsical situation (as in said Hangover). But the sheer process of drinking, what's funny about that? You can see people drinking heavily in a pub at their night out; you wouldn't film it and label it as a "comedy". Why do it to a wedding? You would think that it would lead up to some conflict of situations, or provide the unexpected and funny plot developments, but no. As I said previously, "Gorko!" fails to make use of that.
The plotline is straight, flat, uninteresting and unredeeming. Everyone drinks, fights, acts like alcohol-crazed pigs, and then... Suddenly (and without any reason or explanation whatsoever!) everything is fine, everyone loves each other again, and basically ignore what's been going on for the whole duration of this "film". It's like they ran out of ideas (read: cocaine) and had to come up with a denouement on the spot. It went poorly. As did the whole film.
View at your own discretion, but be warned: unless you find obnoxious screaming, grimacing, hysterical fits and incessant drinking funny, you won't enjoy this meaningless and tasteless production of yet another money-grabbing director. My verdict: 0/10, would erase my own memory and never watch it again.
Recently taken polls
1 total poll taken
