IMDb > Nowhere Man (2005) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Nowhere Man
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Nowhere Man More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 11 reviews in total 

14 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

dark bawdy and ferocious

Author: cmalcolm-1 from United States
2 August 2005

DARK, BAWDY AND FEROCIOUS This no budget hand grenade rips apart the mold of gutless, brainless and disingenuously politically correct products that have become DE rigger in film-making today: our main character discovers that his fiancée has appeared in several interracial porno films; our main character calls off the engagement and abuses said fiancée; our main character has his penis cut off and held for ransom. Sound like an exploitation film? Yes, but this one has brains and wit. Probably one of the darkest films you'll ever see, but the pathos is leavened with a twisted humor (catch 'Daddy Mac' rapping, or 'Dr. Johnson' counseling). This being said, 'Nowhere Man' is sure to offend some of you, especially those who specialize in getting moralistic and self righteously worked up over whatever. And many will be turned off by the low production values, and somewhat thin storyline. But these are petty qualms in what is a gutsy little piece of counter-culture.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

Surprisingly well made exploitation gem

Author: Phil Karlson from United States
25 July 2005

Description: Conrad, our hero, must retrieve his beloved 'member' within 24 hours so that it can be surgically re-attached, and… Well, you get the idea. You probably know now whether you're interested in seeing this little flic or not. If you are, you're in for a surprising treat, because writer/director McAnn serves up this no budget gem with a dose of spicy black humor; but the real kudos go to actor Michael Rodrik (who is this guy?) who steams his way through one of the darkest psychic tunnels an actor ever had to go through, and does so with alarming gusto. Some viewers will get their panties twisted over the lewd (and I do mean lewd) subject matter; but hey, that's how I feel about romantic comedies, so different strokes, right? Hopefully this flic will not be buried amid the tons of crappy video sensationalism. Whoever released it deserves some credit for having the courage to do so. Two thumbs up!

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Video Cheapster Makes You Wince and Laugh

Author: flyingwitch from usa
25 July 2005

Okay, I feel like I've just been tickled and punched for eighty minutes. This shot on video movie about a good looking guy who searches for his penis in the porn underworld deserves a lot of credit for it's intelligence, but most of all for it's unrelenting intensity. Asidefrom the pulpy aspects, this film has some incredibly honest moments: the relationship between the two leads rings strong and true; this film also has the most intense 'rape' scene since the one in that French film "IRREVERSIBLE". Probably not your cup of tea if you like comedies with the word 'wedding' in the title. But if you don't mind the cut-rate production, get ready for a very interesting viewing.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

Great low-budget effort from largely unsung director

Author: arthurpewty from United States
27 March 2005

I have been recently watching a lot of Tim McCann movies in anticipation of his new movie with Robin Tunney and Aaron Stanford.

This second-newest release, NOWHERE MAN, is a great slice of low-budget DV independent/ B-movie film-making. And when I say B-movie, I mean it in the best sense of the term. I read a FILM THREAT interview with McCann where he talks about preferring Anthony Mann movies to anything made today, and NOWHERE MAN has that same sort of hard-hitting pulpiness that a film academic could respect... if they weren't TOO uptight. After all, this is a movie whose main character has had his willy removed.

The acting all around, from leads Rodrick and Rochon and Olivier to one-scene appearances by Michael Risley (who starred in McCann's excellent REVOLUTION #9) and Bob Gosse and Lloyd Kaufman, is really solid and plays more to the realistic side of the situation, but with a few moments of comedy -- both broad and subtly dark -- in there for good measure.

The theme of NOWHERE MAN is quite similar to McCann's first feature DESOLATION ANGELS, which also featured Rodrick as a man who learns a secret about his girlfriend that drives him to unnecessary macho violence, but this is a much leaner, more effective film. Unfortunately, I fear too many people won't be able to get over this flick's cockiness, so to speak, and see it for the well-told drama that it is.

Of course, the filmmakers aren't helping matters with the selection of crude outtakes put into the end credits, which sort of undercut the tone of the film -- but which presumably are there to pad this lean, mean film out to feature length.

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 35 people found the following review useful:

An outstanding, grim and gritty movie

Author: Mike Watt (happycloudpictures) from Waynesburg, PA
19 January 2004

A pitch-black dark comedy about the consequences of your actions. The acting could not be better - those familiar only with Debbie Rochon's comedy-horror roles are going to be stunned by the depth of her performance. The structure of the story ensures that the viewer works to grasp the levels of the narrative. It's just an outstanding, grim and gritty movie. Not for the squeamish, insecure men or anyone lacking a sense of humor.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Its actual value is a little exaggerated on both ends if you ask me.

Author: capkronos ( from Ohio, USA
4 December 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Judging by the reviews on here, this seems like a "love it or hate it" type of film. After watching it, I came away strongly indifferent to what I saw. It's put together very well for the budget range, the technical work (lighting, photography, sound, editing...) is above average for the format (digital video) and it is well acted by both indy horror queen Debbie Rochon and promising leading man Michael Rodrick. What really shocked me was how it fluctuated from intriguing and entertaining to monotonous and unfocused, and how it often did it within the confines of a single scene. Ultimately it seemed to drag on for about 20-30 minutes longer than it should have, and with a running time of around 80 minutes (about ten of which consist of credits and some sorely misused closing credit outtakes), it is simply unforgivable for a film barely clocking in over an hour to drag, seem padded out or become redundant a half hour before the finale. Simply put, there is enough material here maybe for a short, but not a feature film.

The structure of the plot doesn't intrigue as much as it annoys - jumping back-and-forth in time is becoming such a cliché now that it's almost expected in a film of this nature. But fracturing the time frame on a script does not add any additional depth to an already slim storyline. Nor does it automatically give it any kind of immediate artistic value. Nor does it heighten any of the suspense. This film would have played out much, much better had it taken place in real time with the events chronologically presented. If we could see the embitterment and desperation of the Rochon character grow and grow without being constantly interrupted, the impact would have been much greater and the violent retribution of her character much more believable. But the filmmakers chose to present it in a certain way and it's too late to go back now... So I'll go ahead and lay out the story chronologically to make the point that the layout isn't as important as content contained within.

NOWHERE MAN, which basically attempts to be a black comic play-up on the John and Lorena Bobbitt castration story, deals with a middle class New Yorker named Conrad (Rodrick), presented flatly as a typical male with typical male hang ups, who seems to be in a fairly healthy relationship with his long-term girlfriend Jennifer (Debbie), who he wants to marry and have a family with. One day out of the blue an unmarked video ends up on the doorstep of their shared apartment a la David Lynch's LOST HIGHWAY. But instead of the visions of a creepy voyeur, he sees his girlfriend in an amateur porn tape from many years earlier having sex with a well-endowed porn star named Daddy Mac (Frank Oliver). It is then that his jealously, machismo, ego, violent and sadistic temperament and abusiveness kick into gear and he puts Jennifer through an incredibly humiliating and agonizing ordeal before throwing her out into the street. He shows the tape to all of his friends at a party, voices his opinion about what a worthless whore he thinks Jennifer is and, in the films most grueling scene, subjects her to the most impersonal rape-sex scenario imaginable where he refuses her any form of tenderness. Jennifer is thoroughly devastated, confused and dehumanized... so she sneaks into his bedroom one night and cuts off his penis with a pair of shears and runs away with it (one way to cure the male ego problem, eh?). The rest of the film details Conrad's attempt to retrieve his penis before it goes "bad." If he gets it back in a certain amount of time, it's salvageable. By the time it gets to that point, I seriously doubt many people will want him to get his way, so the director appeases his audience's desire for a fiery finish...

At best, the film offers a platform for the two lead actors to prove they deserve a shot at better roles in better quality productions. I've always felt that Rochon's talent has been shamefully wasted over the years on films that exploit her looks over her acting chops, so it's nice to see her in a juicier role that actually allows her opportunity to expand on a character. Rodrick is equally fine (not that I gave a f**k what happened to 'Conrad' after a half hour or so) and could hold his own in a more expensive production; he's good looking, appealing and delivers most of his lines believably and naturally. Much of the supporting cast (including Lloyd Kaufman in a brief cameo as a doctor) is amateurish and detract a little from the overall realism, but not enough for that to be an overall factor in this films overall quality.

But there is so much untapped potential here... unexplored subtext and worthwhile dramatic content about love, loss and adult relationships that is not even explored... The script doesn't seem to give the characters the right words at the right times... The camera doesn't stay where it should at crucial moments... A lot of it seems half-hearted and unfinished. There IS meat on these bones, but there's no real muscle or flesh. It's not terrible like some are saying, but it's also not a revelation like others would like you to believe. It's a case of being a watchable film that COULD HAVE been so much more.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Total Train Wreck

Author: yourebeingfilmed from Kansas City, MO
26 October 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

*********************SEVERE SPOILERS AHEAD.**************************

Basically this movie, is about a macho guy turned vigilante trying to find his ex-girlfriend who cut off his penis within 24 hours or so (she has it on ice) so he can get it surgically reattached, then we find through flashbacks that he was treating his girlfriend awful, after he found out she was in a couple porno's, and then eventually rapes her, and then she cuts off his dick while he's sleeping. In the end, She holds his dick for ransom, he promises to pay ransom, when he doesn't have it, she sets his dick on fire in front of him. The END. Okay the acting was good for the most part, if not a little overly intense. The problem with the movie is, firstly, it tries to play this movie straight, like a paranoid action-thriller in an "Hardcore", "8mm" "Ransom" type of way, except it's his penis he's trying to rescue. Sound funny, they play it so straight that there's no laughs. They never get campy once, they want to be ironic but with no irony in the script other than the concept, it's boring, pretentious and ridiculously over serious. Also, it's clumsily edited together like they didn't have enough coverage or know how to edit well, and a lot of the shots are pretty boring and I'm not talking about the fact it's DV but that they're poorly composed, and there is nothing interesting in the sets either. Also, the music is atrocious, and poorly fits the movie. Then ten minutes after we watch an intense rape scene, the movie has it's finale with the penis being set on fire and the man crying out, and then we receive 8 minutes of unfunny blooper footage mixed in with the credits, with a super crappy upbeat song, what the hell were they thinking?! Total train-wreck, like trying to make a fart joke melodramatic.

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 37 people found the following review useful:

Excellent dark horror/humor

Author: JDCasey ( from Tampa, Fl
28 February 2005

This is a must see film and Debbie Rochon's performance is her best one ever. Debbie will invoke emotions in you. as she chooses her own special type of vengeance upon a boyfriend that takes offense to previous job that Jennifer once held. Debbie by all rights should be collecting awards for her performance in this difficult role

Tim McCannn has has written a great script and done great job in directing this film. Michael Rodrrick and Frank Oliverare really good in their roles as the abusive boyfriend and the porn star/friend

I was really glad to hear that it was showing in limited release in New York, Chicago, and L.A.

This movie is a lot better then some of the stuff showing in theaters today and a must buy when it comes out on DVD

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

My f*cking dick was cut off!

Author: lastliberal from United States
5 July 2008

You don't usually expect a lot from a "B" movie, but this does have the Queen of Horror, Debbie Rochon, and Lloyd Kaufman, one of the founders of Troma.

Conrad (Michael Rodrick) finds out that the love of his life, Jennifer (Rochon) has a sordid past. When he breaks it off, she breaks it off - literally! So, he has to find her and it. What a story.

You are not going to find great acting or fantastic sets or much of anything here except a few laughs and a fantastic look at Debbie. Maybe you want more, but maybe this is all you need to get you through the night.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 27 people found the following review useful:

No. This is NOT a black comedy/spoof/drama. This is very nearly nothing at all.

Author: talltale-1 from Jackson Heights, NY
21 July 2005

Chutzpah has a new--perhaps permanent--definition: NOWHERE MAN, an execrable would-be drama, would-be comedy, would-be satire, would-be goof/spoof, would-be Troma-type gore fest (Lloyd Kaufman even has a small role). So many would-be's and not a single be.

The height of the chutzpah is using outtakes during the end credits to what has already been one long outtake in itself. Without these dumber-than-usual add-ons, the film would have rolled in at just 70 minutes. With them, it stretches out the insult to 80. Jumping off (and crashing) from the John and Lorena Bobitt tale, the movie plays it mostly straight (very badly) but occasionally veers into leaden satire, which is even worse. The two leads could very possibly be decent actors. But not here. Technically the movie sucks, too, which leaves it without a single redeeming feature.

Now that I rethink for a moment, I must admit my earlier mistake: The tip-top height of chutzpah is that fact that this film actually received a theatrical release. Imagine the poor schnooks who paid movie-theatre prices!

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Ratings External reviews Official site
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history