The Man Who Killed Hitler and then the Bigfoot

SnarkAI Score: 40/100

tldr:

The review suggests that it is not a good film and not bad enough to be enjoyable. The plot seems nonsensical, and the attempted seriousness of the movie clashes with its absurd premise. The review also notes the American glorification of the hunter/hero archetype, which may detract from the film's overall quality.

Our Scores are generated by SnarkAI's analysis of our reviewer's writing. The tldr sumary is drafted by SnarkAI based on that review. All Images are AI generated based on the reviewers descriptions of scenes.

Its not really like this at all

---

It's not a good film and it's not bad enough to be fun.

First of what? Second of all, it has Sam Elliot and a bunch of 'oh, I know that guy actors in it. The plot is exactly what it sounds like. And makes just as much sense. There's a whole bit about a super plague that's not in the title but I guess "The Man Who Killed Hitler and then the Bigfoot and Stopped a Plague" is a bit wordy.

Oh, Sam's immune to the deadly plague for some reason. But they still figure he's best to send to fight the Bigfoot hand to hand rather than, you know, do some tests on to find a cure. The Bigfoot is very silly looking, being more like a mummy or a ghoul than an animal.

The attempted cremation scene is unintentionally hilarious. There's projectile vomiting too. This is one of those films that takes itself way too seriously for the incredibly daft concept and execution.

It suffers from the American adoration of the long hunter/hero and the nobility of hunting as an activity.