Bullfighter (2000) User Reviews (12)

Incoherent

[tarbosh22000 · 3/10 · 1 January 2005]

"Bullfighter" was made in 2000 but it is being released on video 5 years later for some reason. I wonder why? Could it be: The confusing storyline, the incomprehensible dialogue said by Oliver Martinez, and the annoying editing? It's got to be. I think the plot was Mary (Michelle Forbes) and Jacque (Oliver Martinez) go on a mystical road trip. They meet a lot of wacky characters and avoid some evil ones too. The movie looks great and there is a lot of style, but there is no substance. Most movies, when trying to subtle, don't call attention to themselves with unanswered plot developments, and weak special effects.

Don't be fooled by the cover: Willem Dafoe is in it for 2 minutes at most.

For more insanity, please visit: comeuppancereviews.com

utterly the worst film in 20 years

[mannoe · 1/10 · 1 November 2005]

I didn't know Willem Dafoe was so hard up for bucks that he'd disgrace himself with such shocking hamming in this monstrosity. Hell: I'll donate that money that I was going to send to Ethiopia if he's that desperate. I have never seen such a pathetic and disgusting film for a long time...who paid for this? They are either pulling some tax scam or insane. A 5-year old would be ashamed of the plot, and I'd rather get cancer than sit through more than the hour I suffered already. Everybody involved should be locked up for a year in the sodomy wing of a third world prison. Avoid at all costs. I'd give it minus 10 if possible...unbelievable.

Well, the camera-work is good....

[winner55 · 3/10 · 1 November 2006]

Some very interesting camera work and a story with much potential. But it never comes together as anything more than a student's graduate thesis in film school.

There are two primary reasons for this. Fist, there is not a single likable character, not even a villain we might admire for his/her chutzpah. Secondly, all the acting is awful - even from veteran Willem DaFoe. The ham is so plentiful here, you feel like you're at a picnic - but one of those wretched company employee picnics where you drink too much cheap beer and get your hangover before you even stop drinking. Then you eat an underdone hotdog and throw up.

All right, I'm being a little rough on a young director who might still go places - as I said, the camera work is quite good.

But I feel cheated - the blurb for this film suggests we will get to watch a "Modern western", and the DVD packaging has pictures on it that suggest this as well - but nobody actually connected to the film's making seems to know that this is the kind of film they're supposed to be making.

That betrayal is what hurts; but even without it, the fact remains that we don't like these characters, we feel embarrassed for the actors, the story is hopelessly muddled, and in the last analysis, we just don't care.

I took it out of the DVD player about half way through. but the rental store wouldn't give me my money back.

Now, that really hurts.

Why would Robert Rodriguez lend his name to this?

[iheartdoingyourmom · 2/10 · 29 July 2005]

I only rented this movie because of promises of William Dafoe, and Robert Rodriguez. I assumed that upon seeing RR's name on the cover (as an actor) that this movie would be good. It sounds like a movie that Rodriguez would of made so if He's going to lend his name to it, than it has to be good right? WRONG WRONG WRONG. By far the worst editing since "Manos Hands of fate". The way it was edited made no sense and made the movie impossible to follow and after the first 30 minutes you wont even want to try to follow it anymore. I have no idea how Dafoe and Rodriguez got involved in this film, maybe they owed somebody, but they are way to good for this. Besides they were only in this movie for a couple minutes apiece and Rodriguez didn't even talk. So if you wanna see a movie with Poor editing, poor acting, and confusing storyline than be my guest but don't say you weren't warned.

Worst movie ever

[sweetjennie79 · 1/10 · 22 July 2005]

I bought this movie last weekend at my local Movie Gallery. It was buy 2 get 2 free and I needed one more so I chose this one. Horrible mistake. The box reads like it would be a really good movie. Well, it starts out like it is going to be this great movie. For about 5 minutes, that is. The movie is about a young woman, Laila, who gets killed trying to save her beau, Jack, from a bull. Laila's dad, Cordobes, is a rancher that the townspeople are afraid of. He assumes that Jack killed Laila because she was supposedly afraid of this bull, and goes on this hunt to find him. That was the first 5 minutes that is good. What follows after that is only gonna get 100 times worse. Whoever wrote the script, in my opinion, had to of been on some kind acid trip or something because nothing else made any sense what so ever. Jack is on the run and finds this traveling radio DJ named Mary who gives him a ride. I think Mary is supposed to be a virgin Mary type character. You know, Jesus' mother. But, who knows, I couldn't make heads or tails of it. As they're running... we get to see bad guys, magical visions, ghostly encounters, flashbacks, etc... And all these things are done in such a way that your brain hurts from trying to figure out what's going on. Needless to say, I took the movie back and exchanged it for something else. It's horrible I tell ya, horrible. And, there is absolutely no bull-fighting in this movie. Unless you count the first minute of the movie. Hope I helped some other people keep from wasting their time on this movie.

Terrible.

[michellewebster · 26 February 2006]

I rented this movie due to Robert Rodriquez, Willem Dafoe and Michael Parks being involved. I thought that with these 3 in it that I would be watching a good film...Wrong!!!! Like another review said the first 5 minutes start out alright then it just goes on to be a bunch of incoherent scenes. Michelle Forbes is terrible (as usual). And the camera work and editing was some of the worst I've seen in as long as I can remember. Rodriguez and co must have owed someone some favours by agreeing to appear in this mess of a film. This has got to be the worst movie I've seen since Boogeyman. (and Boogeyman was so boring I thought I was going to go nuts watching it!)

Why?

[abinewton07 · 2/10 · 31 May 2022]

Why did Willem Dafoe lower himself to star in this horrendous film? Why can i not understand anything they are saying? Why did anyone think this was a passable film to release? Why at the end of the film did two white characters have a black baby? Why just Why.

Horrible, Terrible, and Worse Than That

[voyageur0713 · 1/10 · 4 August 2005]

I only watched this movie because I was so impressed with Olivier Martinez in SWAT. But this is no SWAT. SWAT had a plot and some likable characters and made sense. Bullfighter had none of these.

I should have realized that it couldn't possibly be any good, after all, the always painfully bad Michelle Forbes had a starring role.

One poster here called the movie incoherent. Another called it the worst movie ever. Both gave the movie far too much credit. I am so glad I got it from the library for free, yet I still feel ripped off.

IMDb needs to include a "0" in the "rate this film" vote, just for movies like this one.

Beautiful

[eyddibesti · 10/10 · 28 February 2017]

One of the more exciting films of the 21st century. I highly recommend that every single person reading this goes to your local video shop and buy this masterpiece. Rune Bendixen has yet again made a brilliant piece of work. The man is a techno legend and a directing lengend, no better yet he is a god.

Whats wrong with everybody

[DilvishW · 7/10 · 14 November 2005]

When i rented this I had the lowest expectations possible. I was extremely surprised at how good it was. I watch hundreds of movies of year and most of them i don't like. This weekend after watching the horrible BOO and tepid sixteen years of alcohol. I found Bullfighter, the one I thought would be the worst out of the ones I rented, to in fact be the second best. ( I rented cronicas too.) I thought it was very stylish, and can't wait for this guy's next movie. He could be the next Rodriguez or Tarantino. Yeah it was a little weird, and the acting was pretty bad at times, but I liked the flash three times between scenes, I liked the elvis character, Michael parks was great, and Oliver Martinez did a good job to playing a scared little french man. The only acting that was horrid was "the angel lady" and whoever played Lila. Overall the plot was good. What really capped it for me was the Country BOb scene, where you think they're gonna run into a crazy guy but he just gets blown away. I'd give it a 7.6 if i could.

what was this all about?

[bdk52156 · 12 March 2005]

I just watched this movie. It was sent to me by a supposed friend. I think I want the last 1:40 of my life back. Did this guy(Rune Bendixen), the "Writer/Director" go to some cross between a Robert Rodriguez-David Lynch Film School? How many different plots can you put into one "Modern Western"? And just because something is set in Mexico, does that make it a western? Some people probably shouldn't listen to there egos so much and make a movie more than 6 people in the world can understand. I think there was a great idea for a movie, but somewhere along the way something went VERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRY VERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRY WRONG! Watch this movie if you are really in the mood to talk to your TV asking the question HUH?

what's the point?

[zimbo_the_donkey_boy · 6/10 · 15 October 2005]

of watching this, that is. I figured I was going to end up dragging the average down by pegging this as simply average but now I see that most people quite disliked it, while I simply did not care. I gave this flick a higher vote than the other DVDs I borrowed this weekend, as it's at least different. I'm tired of seeing tons of purely mediocre films getting high marks on IMDb due to all the teenage girls swooning over the hunks in them.

I pretty much agree with all of the previous comments. This movie makes no sense, and, while it was meant to be mystical (as was said), that's no excuse for the thing making NO sense (as was said.) It sure would have been useful for them to have added a commentary track to the DVD, wouldn't it? But they did not. They did add short interviews with three of the actors. One of the three was Dafoe, believe it or not. And he seemed to think that his role in this project was important, even though (as was said) his part is minor.

From viewers' reactions, I'd say they very much mismarketed this. They obviously should not have lulled average viewers into seeing this. I'm sure this would go over better after a night of heavy drinking or to groups of pseudo-intellectuals looking for a novel way to interpret this goofiness.

I hope this doesn't sound disrespectful but do roman catholics believe in this stuff? I know little about catholicism but everyone in this story is one and it seems to play a major part in what happens. Do Mexicans (who are most of the characters, the extras anyway) or catholic Americans enjoy this film more than the rest of us? Or maybe do such hate this film because it presents stuff they do NOT believe in? I'd like to know.