Guess the film…

Not The Archers
1

…from the online review:

i am not going to rate this movie 5 stars just because others have chosen to do so based on the movie name or title. i will do so based on the content and of what i have saw. i have to say based on the films content it has to be a one for the biggest disappointment i have felt in such a long time. The movie was nothing short of a normal WW2 Movie with a weird concentration camp that looked more like some military base.

[TITLE] is about Totalitarianism, the NWO. didn’t mention the word Totalitarianism once. same with NWO, illuminati, etc. nothing to do with reptilians, Extraterrestrials, etc. just really a love story of an older man with a young girl in WW2 that wasn’t approved of in them times. how boring.

it was set in the past, not future, What a mess of a movie. it was a remake of the 50s movie which set [TITLE] (in the past unknowingly) because the director and everyone else at the time can’t really predict the future. its hardly 2020 let alone 3000 or 4000. so the new movie doesn’t use any brains and just makes a remake of the old movie with no thought to improve it or really make a movie of [TITLE]. i felt funding and money making are issues here.

No Flying cars, No Weird technology, no futuristic soldiers, no smart technology, no nothing. its as almost the director was scared to do it like that in case it was another 5th element movie. it takes a good director to show how it greatly differs. i think it would take a good surrealist director who is fond of Salvador Dali and his artwork and futuristic internet Artwork and the new age movement and spiritually to get the gist of this movie. The movie didn’t show enslaved people, only a prison. it didn’t show people prisoner in their own homes or telewcreens in their own homes. no mention of biochipping, biometrics, RFID, etc. it really goes to show [AUTHOR] was ahead of his time and people who copy him aren’t. i fee! your average conspiracy theorist has more understanding than thia director and writer. Billy Meier and David Icke are the 2 biggest contributions to this field. it would have been nice if they got a mention.

4 Likes
2

No flying cars? We are immediately in refund territory. Can’t guess the film.

3 Likes
3

Check your email - I’ll leave this open for others to have a go tomorrow. Well, today…

4 Likes
4

I neither know nor care what the film is, but I must say I admire a true illiterate trying to put two ideas together in what passes for a brain, on the whole. Zero for content, but ten out of ten for effort.

4 Likes
5

Not really cutting down the field, there…

5 Likes
6

Indeed.
'Everyone ‘s a critic’, as they say…

4 Likes
7

Me included, obviously.

4 Likes
8

Don’t imagine that a thought along those lines didn’t strike me ;- )

4 Likes
9

No! Really?

4 Likes
10

I think you might reconsider on seeing the context :wink: The appeal to authority at the end was particularly illuminating, I thought. (Or should shat be “illuminati-ing”?)

Of course we all have our own expectations; he clearly anticipated a different type of film, just as I might anticipate a different ending to a sentence beginning “Billy Meier and David Icke are the 2 biggest…”.

4 Likes
11

That has made me grin fortissimo, a not inconsiderable achievement today.

4 Likes
12

I consider that a job well done, then! Now off to the kitchen. Scones, muffins and bread, I think…

4 Likes
13

Do you want an earworm to go with that? Here you go: Young, Gifted and Black

Ah, don’t mention it :wink:

4 Likes
14

Well, I think that’s enough time for anyone who might have been tempted to have a guess, so I can now reveal that that was a review of–what else?–Nineteen Eighty-Four.

I think they may have missed the point slightly.

4 Likes
15

I fully understand the flying cars disappointment. And a film without extraterrestrials or enslaved people isn’t worth the celluloid it’s not printed on.

But I lose sympathy with the reviewer when they start wishing for a ‘surrealist director who is fond of Salvador Dali’. That’s never going to end well, is it?

4 Likes
16

I dunno, Buñuel’s take might have been interesting…

4 Likes
17

A razor-blade slicing into a human eye forever?
Yeah, okay, give you that one.

4 Likes