I have a sort of system when it comes to assigning stars to a film. All films, in my view, start with five stars. If I find it vaguely entertaining I might add a star. If it's quite enjoyable it might go to seven stars. Likewise, if a film is not so good the rating may go down to four or three. The truly awful get two or even one. For me, five stars equals "meh".
Superterranean has it's good points. The bleak Scottish landscape is beautiful but unsettling to look at and is well shot and the fact that this is all done by one man is impressive. However it's all kind of dull and not a lot really happens. There's some stuff about Cairns and faeries and cabin fever, I can't really remember. I doubt I'll remember anything at all about it by tomorrow.
Not bad enough to turn off but not good enough to be entertaining. Can I recommend it? Maybe, if you like rocks you'll get a real kick out it.
Superterranean has it's good points. The bleak Scottish landscape is beautiful but unsettling to look at and is well shot and the fact that this is all done by one man is impressive. However it's all kind of dull and not a lot really happens. There's some stuff about Cairns and faeries and cabin fever, I can't really remember. I doubt I'll remember anything at all about it by tomorrow.
Not bad enough to turn off but not good enough to be entertaining. Can I recommend it? Maybe, if you like rocks you'll get a real kick out it.