User Reviews (25)

Add a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    ...was the tagline for this flick, so it caught my interest. Burning Palms is a film that tries to push boundaries and would only upset tight conservative folk. It seems to try too hard and comes off a bit juvenile. There are 5 stories, they act as their own stories and do not interconnect with one another as some ads might say. They are told from a comic book, a tales from the crypt style thing, minus the hilarious Crypt Keeper.

    The first deals with a couple who are getting married. The husband to be is seeing his daughter for a week, she is flying down from wherever she was. Innocent enough, until you find out that the relationship between the two is a little too close for comfort. They openly talk about sex, sunbath nude and dance erotically. The soon to be wife is taken back and tries to get the the bottom of the "relationship".

    The second deals with a couple in college or university. He loves big boobs, she has small ones/ During sex, the man asks the girlfriend to stick her finger in his anus. She does so because she doesn't want to lose him to a bigger chested woman. After the act, she gets it stuck in her mind that her finger smells like poo, so she scrubs and scrubs until she finally decides to cut the finger off.

    The third story has two gay men adopting a black child from the black market. She seems to be straight out of Africa because she doesn't say a single word to anyone, yet grabs a spear and throws it at an animal and growls. Thinking they are over their heads with a child, they leave her alone in the woods and get a dog instead.

    The fourth story is the least exciting one. Three young and spoiled boys hold a "Court TV" bit in their house when a valuable item from the housemaid goes missing. We discover a dark secret from the housemaids past that turns things upside down in the house. Their stoner babysitter laughs at the sticky situation.

    The final and last segment actually happens to be my favourite, and the one redeeming factor in this film. The story opens with the Rape of Sarah. After the rapist flees, she finds his wallet under her couch and decides to track him down. When she does, he soon finds out she has some sick and disturbing plans of her own.

    The final segment with have one thinking of a rape revenge bit, but that's where the story wants you to go and the direction it takes itself is something I applaud. I was surprisingly taken back at the last one and it had the best performance. It helps that the two leads were Zoe Saldana and Nick Stahl.

    Overall, a lackluster film that wants to be more 'dirty' than it actually is. Who knows, maybe I'm one demoralized sicko and this film actually is twisted. But if you've seen half the films I have, you'll find this pretty tame and immature.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I feel compelled to report on this film which I watched on DVD last night. It is the first film I have chosen to report on here for quite a while.

    It is an interesting film at best but not more. All the above comments about the lack of entertainment of the film overall are totally justified and it is certainly a film in bad taste, have no doubt - a father making provocative sexual gestures to his teenage daughter in front of his obviously offended wife/girlfriend, a young girl confused about her sexuality and the hygiene of anal sex, the morality of a gay couple adopting a child from a different culture, a kangaroo Courtroom held by spoilt and out of order kids while masochism and revenge are to some extent a feature of the last story.

    All the stories are interesting in their own way. Although the Doctor appears in Row of the stories, NONE of the stories link in any way except that they all take place in different suburbs of Los Angeles.

    The basic storyline of the five stories are attention seeking, the ending distinctly disturbing. Dark comedy or not, we should not overlook that the film is intended for entertainment. In the first segment, there is very little to make me laugh.

    The most entertaining segment was certainly the gay couple and their mission to adopt, either a child at any cost or a dog as an alternative and then the two guys with their 'pet child' meeting another similar couple with a 'pet child' in a shopping boutique.

    The last segment merited closer scrutiny but we were denied the opportunity to understand how the young lady found courage to handle her rape situation after the event and approach the guy who did it. I feel there was such a wasted opportunity with this storyline in particular to take it further.

    for example, the rapist could possibly have been one of the children holding the Kangaroo Court a few years before, not sure about link to the other story.

    There was momentary humour in the second story when it was explained to the girls parents what was the reason for her psychological paranoia but it was humour misplaced because the scene was essentially a sad one.

    Not sure at all why it was called 'burning palms' unless it is reference to being caught 'red handed'? The film is NOT rubbish and is worth watching. Certain scenes may offend but overall sexuality is moderated considering the extremity of the concept to the story lines and profanity is not as bad as you might think.

    You could easily watch this movie and feel you 'get something' out of it. That is not to say it is a good movie, it is not.

    Make up your own mind!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    i loved this film and the fact that it was brilliant in it's use of allegory and imagery! early on i definitely realized that there was at least one very over the top image in each vignette. not only is it a great way to re-engage a viewer to significance but you can also push boundaries which they chose to do! excellent. taboos need to be pushed occasionally just to show how much our world is messed up and to test your own moral compass. this succeeds admirably.

    i love the comic book/graphic novel/pulp rag horror comics style. it works in the film as a good transition and i think sells the whole concept of short vignettes with a common theme.

    this movie will turn some viewers off. just be aware that it is probably an even money guess if it was intended so or not. but the film still retains a sense of humor especially about itself.

    a very strong 9 for me on this. i don't feel this way often about movies but when i do i tend to go with my instincts and like it despite what "joe schmoe" thinks of it. it is a cerebral film which most people will not get.
  • 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
  • Warning: Spoilers
    SPOILER ALERT -----------

    The movie is a bad movie, that is clear. But I guess you've read a lot of comments about how cynical, cold and insane this movie is and you may be wondering about that. The short answer? critics who labeled this movie as "deeply disturbing" are immature, weak and simple minded and truly disturb me with their insensibility to human frailty.

    These are all the things depicted in the movie that some reviewers think are the most "aberrant corners of humanity":

    • Incest - Anal sex - Gay couples adopting out of fashion - White people adopting minority kids to buy redemption - Gay sex - Superficiality - Absent parents - Racism - Rape - Masochism


    The movie is not good but it is not by any means that politically incorrect. I guess critics today are kids who can't appreciate cinema without judging the characters like they were real people—even if that were the case, labeling these people as aberrant without any sign of compassion is extremely arrogant—or being willfully ignorant to how ugly or stupid we humans can be.

    I assume that these critics have never seen (and will never see) some of these really good movies that go around the same topics and are truly disturbing and challenging: Salo, anything by Pedro Almodovar, Irreversible, American Psycho, Bad lieutenant, Buffalo 66, Cruising, The Piano Teacher, Putney Swope, Repulsion, Dogville.

    My recommendation would be this: Watch the movie to realize how infantile contemporary movie goers are, watch some of the movies recommended above and enjoy cinema like the smart adult you are.
  • "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.
  • 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.
  • 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 just want to start by saying that this is the first movie I'm writing about on IMDb. Another user felt it necessary to also write his first review but to warn others of this film, yet I felt I feel compelled to write the opposite as the first 5 reviews are quite mixed so far..

    I had to wait four months from the time I saw the trailer until the DVD arrived. The DVD is not even offered here in Vancouver, Canada at future shop, best buy, or in video stores which is pretty strange. I had to find it online! So I'm not sure how many people are even going to hear of this let alone find a copy other than online.

    The film itself was definitely different but very entertaining in a good way. I don't see a need to explain the stories as other users have already, but feel it necessary to say this is not as shocking or offending as I thought it would have been after watching the trailers and waiting for months in anticipation.

    I did love this film, but it takes a lot to shock people nowadays so not sure why some people find it so terrible instead of treating it like a dark comedy... It portrays somewhat 'weird/odd' plot themes, but don't feel this should turn people off from enjoying the film, but only make it more enjoyable as it's a good change in pace from your average film. It also makes it more comedic that they've focused a plot on such stories..

    I don't feel that everyone will be offended or shocked, and feel it laughable that someone would call viewers psychopaths and sociopaths for enjoying such a film.

    I do feel that Shannon Doherty could have played the psychologist in all 5 scenes but maybe due to time restraints they chose to only put her in 2. But they could have used her to interrelate the stories in my opinion. I also wish the order of the stories had been a little different. I thought the 5th story 'man eater' could have been told first. After laughing for an hour and a half at the other 4 stories, I felt the last 20 minutes were a bit more of a drama than a comedy and I wish I could have finished the film on a comedic note. All in all this was an excellent film. I only gave it a 9 as I felt the 5th story should have been watched first to keep comedy going until the end.

    Excellent job Christopher Landon...Hopefully he has 5 more of these stories up his sleeve for a sequel! Go see this film!!!
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I haven't laughed this much for a long time at a movie. This movie really was funny, even more so than a Will Farell, Jack Black, or Ben Stiller comedy. If you have any sense of humour, and you understand how funny soap opera can be, this is for you.

    Yes, this is a comedy. The second story, This Little Piggy (which I also dubbed "The Poo Finger") was downright hilarious. What's more, if you've done some PSYC, you'll know that there are certain disorders that result in this kind of behaviour (there is a term for association to odours). In any case, we know that Ginny is experiencing a psychological problem when she sees Jesus on the cross telling her to break off her finger.

    The third story, Buyers Remorse, was also very entertaining, and the music was perfect. The gay couple interacting with each other made for hilarious scenes, and really brought to mind memories of drama sketches. I laughed real hard when the first word Mahogany said was "faggot". Great!

    I think the movie did a great job at being original, and I credit it for its unique approach. There were certainly some pitfalls, such as the storyline and plot, but overall, I found the acting to be superb. The script needed some work.

    Overall, I would recommend this movie as a rent. It's definitely worth seeing if you want to be entertained. But I warn watchers to open their minds to the meanings of each of the stories, as they can be interpreted in many ways. And really, if you don't laugh at "the Poo Finger," ask yourself why.

    Also, as a side-note for anyone wondering: I'm pretty sure I heard variations in the psychologist's accent, and as the boy in the Kangaroo Court suggests to her, I am also inclined to believe she was faking an accent. That boy would have to be pretty bright to piece together the nanny's murdering of her child.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • First of all, a lot of comments here made me laugh too: Overacting, bad acting? I guess some people don't realize the kind of acting fits perfectly in each story. A hysterical housekeeper, Stereotype gay men, and so on. In my opinion 'overacting' and 'bad acting' belongs in these scenes and stands as a house..

    Some of the stories are predictable, but that didn't kill any of the fun for me. Even when some endings are kind of a given, the timing is that surprisingly good, it even takes some predictability away.

    A lot of the dialogues are unbelievably funny and the cast is well chosen! Shannen Doherty (even how little her roles are), makes you forget all her bad acting in the past. The gay couple is hysterical and the scarry daughter in the first story is very credible!

    If you like dark humour, with sharp dialogues, my humble advice would be: go watch this underrated, misunderstood and witty film!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    If I don't enjoy a film I just leave it be and am never one to write a bad review, in fact this is my first review of such nature. I felt compelled to warn people, and although quite a few people gave 'awful' reviews, no amount of of awful reviews can give this film justice.

    Firstly, whoever classified this film as a comedy clearly has the sense of humor of a sociopath. If you think that ditching a child out in the middle of a forest or giving her crystal-meth is comedy then you are sick. Likewise if you think that rape portrayed in such an in-depth fashion is funny you are very sick and need help. I understand if there was some sort of psychological or social context behind the rape in this movie to justify the 'Man Eater' sequel, however the filmmakers seam to have put it in there because they get a kick from portraying human suffering and exploiting the sickest most perverted crevices of the human mind to an extent where storytelling looses its potential and only revulsion is left.

    I actually enjoy a fair share of dark-comedy and movies that are meant to gross you out and to disturb you, but the film must have some meaningful backbone. In the sense that it must either have some metaphorical or personified meaning. 'Street Trash' (1987) is a movie I can recommend to anyone who truly wants to be shocked, and not come out of the film feeling like a terrible person for laughing at societal taboos. The portrayal of sexual violence (which isn't actually shown) in 'Street Trash' goes overboard to the point where it's unbelievable, and although crude and sickening, it doesn't take you into the perception of the victim and the overall feeling is unreal with obvious humorous intent. Whereas 'Burning Palms' takes the victim and exploits such sensitive emotions (close up on her face while being raped) going further into her insecurities as her wanting, in fact begging, to get raped again.

    If people enjoy this and insist on it being a comedy, then I have to ask, what kind of society are we leaving in, where people knowingly create films that exploit peoples insanity and insecurities in such a perverse way, and have the audacity to call it comedy. Some of these so called 'taboos' that the film tries to explore are actually deeply serious and very unfunny problems that people deal with on a daily basis, illegal adoption (trading children on the black market), abandonment of children, rape and the psychological effects that it can have on a victim. So don't tell me it's "just a movie". 'Buyers Remorse' and 'Man Eater' are the inscrutably offending segments of 'Burning Palms'.

    I can see the potential for humor in the third segment 'This Little Piggy', however I found the first and fourth segments to be in bad taste however I can see that this was the intention. I was surprised that well known actors agreed to star in this poor excuse for a movie, and have lost respect for each one of them especially Lake Bell (Boston Legal) and Zoe Saldana (Avatar).

    If you read my review and then think to yourself 'hmm I might as well just watch it out of interest sake' please don't, you have nothing to gain from the film unless you're a sociopath who gets a kick at watching the in-depth misery of people. I know that much more sick movies exist out there but irrespective, Voyerism needs to have a line drawn through it at some point.
  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I beg of you...please don't waste 2 hours of your life on this movie. It really has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Even if you spent that time poking yourself in the eye with a sharp stick and you'd still likely have a more enjoyable time.

    I have no idea how this movie can possibly be classified as a comedy. I have a very dark sense of humor and can see the funny in just about any situation, but nothing about any of these vignettes is in the least bit funny...An incredibly inappropriate relationship between a father and daughter, topped off by the dad's fiancé committing suicide? I don't see any humor in that. Then there's the girl driven to madness, cuts off her finger, and is institutionalized after participating in a (pretty vanilla) consensual sexual act? Still not funny. Then there is the gay couple...this story is offensive on SO many levels. Drug abuse, infidelity, buying a black market child who isn't the perfectly adjusted living doll they desire, so they abandon her in the woods? HOW IS THAT IN ANY WAY FUNNY!? Then the rich brats with the horrible nanny and baby-murdering housekeeper who hangs herself in their front yard? Sorry, I'm still not seeing the humor.

    Then let's finish off this "comedy" with a woman being raped, then tracking down her attacker and making him do it again. While this is not at all funny, this piece was the only reason I rated this movie with a 2, rather than the 0 it otherwise deserved. This one was a little more thought provoking and well acted, and I feel it would have been a better stand-alone short film had it been explored a little more deeply, rather than just thrown in for shock value.

    It's not that I don't "get" this movie. I get that they wanted to push boundaries and buttons, but that counts for nothing if done at the expense of weaving a great story and creating characters people can feel anything for.
  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The story with Jamie Chung was obvious from the start since it's been done soooo many times. What made it awful were the scenes in the hospital. A psychiatric session where everyone you know gets to observe through a window? A female shrink that runs out of a session to stop a fight? A hospital with police standing around to chase patients instead of staff? Everything after kicking in the apartment door was completely unnecessary. The adopted child? CPS would have those two in jail within a week. They do check up on adopted children. Soooooo stupid! Rosamund Pike's story was Ok though highly predictable. Dangerous rich children? Gimme a break.Doesn't anyone call the police? Add that it's boring and ridiculous that adults would go along with any of it, this one gets a single star. Oh, and the ending is the worst part. The last story with Zoe Saldana was interesting and kind of tense, but it goes nowhere. 2 stars because the actors were really good, somehow.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    What kind of sick twisted psycho would write this garbage? And who would even consider making it into a movie?

    Oh, I know, sick mentally ill fools, which, ironically, is what this movie is about. Several stories, in all of them is mentally ill person or persons who end up killing themselves or otherwise causing some harm to themselves or others. You have to question, was there no better script out there? The actors, I guess they badly needed a job to agree to be in this one. Seriously, this is sick garbage. Don't waste your time or money on this movie, you will regret it.

    I want my two hours back!