Santos

I just finished watching Santos, and was curious as to what rating it would have on IMDb, as the rating on Netflix was less than three stars. Now, I am just shocked! How could these two guys give Santos one star only? I would reserve that to movies which truly sin against my senses -- and that would have to be a TRULY awful movie, to deserve such a low rating.

I may be inclined to give this to one of those slasher movies, where you spend half the movie yelling at the screen "DON'T GO THERE!!!" You know, those movies where you can tell the actors are super stupid, as if the casting was done over a weekend, on one of those Orange Julius tables across from the GAP...

Or, OK, I could give one star to those class C dragon slayer movies, where the dragon is a little puppet, the fire is clearly coming from a blowtorch, the castle is made of papier mache and the acting is all done by yelling and extreme facial contortion. Nah, I'd probably give those a three star for effort.

But the acting in Santos is really good! I mean, REALLY good. I hate to compare apples to Spy Kid, but really, the acting beats most movies in a similar genre...

The story is unique! Different creative, weird... I love the story. There, I said it. I am not saying I loved the movie, but the story... Yes, there was gold there. Although you can tell that someone on editing "loved" it a little too much, cause quite a bit of the movie could have been cut... actually, make that "SHOULD have been cut." But who cares? Is bad editing enough for such a low rating?

So what, the guy snorted some crap. HOW can this movie be given so low a rating, when Kick-Ass (one of my favorite super hero movies -- and much grosser in parts) has almost an 8 star rating?

And the acting on Spy Kids... gag me. Please.

I agree that the editing should have been sharper (throughout! See, I am honest), and that the movie could have been a tad shorter; but to say that the story made no sense just shows a lack of imagination and/or a lack of trying... not that the reviewers above ALWAYS lack imagination, but maybe on that day, their imagination had been sucked by an alternative universe.

To claim that Santos is derivative without saying what it derives from is also a weak argument... I found the story to be quite different, the special effects to be quite decent and sometimes, great (except for the last five minutes!!! I think they may have run out of money or something) and the acting is superb.

I am giving this movie a 7 stars rating -- I am not comparing this to Citizen Kane, people. I am, however, judging this movie's entertainment value when compared to other movies such as this... it may not be a 7 for some, but it certainly deserves more than what it has.

Please, grab some popcorn, flush your mind of preconceptions and give this Chilean quirkfest a try. It is worth it! Come on! There are MUCH worse Hollywood crapbusters that don't get slammed this way... watch this movie, then come back here and let's raise this puppy up. It's just so unfair otherwise.

The most expensive movie ever done in Chile is also - and by far - one of the very worst in the history of Chilean cinema. A box-office flop both in Chile and Spain (the co-producer country), this confusing, silly and awfully boring movie rises a simple question: How could international producers risk money in such a mess? It pretends to be an original science fiction flick but it merely emulates movies that would deserve better respect. A ridiculous story line leading nowhere and becomes more and more puzzling, poor acting and a dreadful direction make this an experience similar to the one you may have with an Ed Wood movie. A waste of money both for the producers and for the very few people who had the bad idea to see it in a movie house or still plans to see it in video. A disgraceful step back in the increasingly interesting development of Chilean cinema.

Harmless fun that should be commended for its untrammeled imagination and interesting panoply of ideas, cheaply implemented, that don't quite fulfill their potential but entertain you along their way for their sense of invention.

The fire scene at start of film is... embarrassingly shot and edited. But this may well, nay, hopefully, be the directors intention. Haphazard and as cheesy as any sequence shot on a set not on a gimbal, it's either a masterful nod to low budget invention or an object lesson in lazy film-making. The mix-and-match-in-Post attitude to VFX indicates, again another run at the Is-It-BMovie-Masterpiece-Or-Isn't-It fence, either a self-referential commentary on how bad some cheap, generic suite effects can be, or it's the work of some graduates mucking about in Strata3D.

Before they pass a current through this fence I'm sitting on, I'll say there are a lot worse films out there. A lot. Sharktopus anyone?

I totally agree with Julio Lopez. This is the worst Chilean film I have ever seen and practically the worst film I have ever seen at all. Moreover it was like a bad joke and a double irony as I went to the cinema on the day of the "Santos Innocentes", the Chilean equivalent of April Fool's day and indeed felt a fool when I came out. Strangely enough, I also got stuck on "Ed Wood" and with both films came out with the feeling of frustration that I had wasted both time and money by going to see this film. There are some disgusting scenes of one of the comic characters, a fly, eating excrement, reminding me of Pasolini's 120 days of Sodom, the only film I have ever walked out of. I should have done the same here. When I got back, I entered the IMDb and saw Julio's comments and decided that however much the local TV may plug a film, I will check the user rating in IMDb first!