Dard Divorce (2007)

Sadly Over-hyped

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

My this is bad. So bad. Really I think some of these directors who make this kind of garbage need to go and watch a few movies to get a sense of how a film should be. It honestly looks as if this guy Olaf has never seen a decent movie in his life Maybe he thought it cool to have ten gallons of fake blood a bit of a latex, and to then throw out any old crap and call it horror, but he's sadly mistaken. Dard Divorce is one of the most amateurish pieces of wasted celluloid I've ever seen, with the word dard apparently meaning pain. Well it truly was a pain to watch this nonsense and I laughed out loud when the word first appears with a policeman saying they'll have to send it to the lab to find out what it means. Yes, it's really that good. The leading "actress" here should go back to working at a fast food joint or something because I hope I never have to suffer her on my screen again. A low budget movie does not have to mean low quality acting. That's been proved many times in this genre. Horror fans are much more forgiving however when it comes to acting if there's some decent pay off in the end, Dard Divorce unfortunately didn't have any though. I can at least say I got to the end of this tripe which I surely want a medal for. There's far too many idiots out there with a camera now thinking buckets of blood makes a good horror film. But what makes a good film is great acting and a bit of intelligence. At the end of the movie they couldn't even spell the name of the dead dog correctly on it's cross at the grave. Spelling Bonny (maybe Bonnie) as Bony lol. What a bloody mess indeed. Goodbye Dard Divorce forever.

I signed up to IMDb solely so I could write a review on this hideous movie.My friend and I hired this movie because we were in the mood for something gory along the lines of Saw or Hostel.What we got was the most ridiculous steaming turd movie I've ever seen.We should have seen it coming, the director cast his wife who speaks ridiculously broken English as the lead actress. Off to a bad start.It wasn't until I went through and read some other reviews that some of the ridiculous, and pointless scenes in this movie came flooding back to haunt me... The cutting in half of a child from head to toe, the nude man dismembering a carcass that went for about 5 minutes, I seem to remember a man hacking off someone's head with a shovel and then saying something along the lines of "don't lose your head".I even remember some sort of sexual assault of a woman who had been punched in the face by a detective.The worst part about this movie is that my friend forgot to take it back, and as a result we got charged 50 dollars.It's like paying someone 50 dollars and getting them to belt your head against a wall for 90 minutes.Does that sound like a sensible financial decision? No? Neither is paying to watch Dark Divorce.

For starters this movie to me, seemed like it was shot by a twelve year old. The actors (if you can call them actors) were very ameturist, illogical and entirely unbelievable. The story dragged on, it was strange and a lot of the parts should have really been cut.However... I think on some level, the director's idea was idealistic and original, he could have done this film brilliantly if he had a well prepared and experienced cast. Now for what I actually saw the movie for, the gore... It was terrific, I was disgusted by every minute of it. Blood, limbs and protruding intestines, brilliant!

Well, what the hell... Why don't I be the first guy to comment on Olaf Ittenbach's latest outburst of cinematographic violence? First off, in order to make this comment a bit more useful to anyone who might read it (or just to give you an idea where I'm coming from), let me say that I've only seen one Andreas Schnaas movie (VIOLENT SH!T 2), and I simply loathed it. Couldn't even laugh with it, and I'm not interested in seeing anything more by this guy. I've only seen one Jörg Buttgereit movie so far (NEKROMANTIK), and I basically fast-forwarded my way through that one (sorry guys). Just couldn't get into it, I guess. And when it comes to director Uwe Boll, I'll just let other people comment on his work. Now, regarding Olaf Ittenbach: I have a lot more appreciation for the man's work (as a director and especially as a special effects artist), because he managed to entertain me quite a bit with the two movies I've seen from him so far, LEGION OF THE DEAD and HOUSE OF BLOOD (aka CHAIN REACTION). So, I guess I can safely say that if anybody throws a random Ittenbach movie at me, I'll catch and watch it.Now that we have that out of the way, we can get to... DARD DIVORCE. Basically, it's Ittenbach's take on the vastly growing and ever so popular "Torture Horror" genre. And let me tell you right away that there's good and bad news (I'll let you figure out yourself what falls in which category exactly). It really feels like an Ittenbach movie. The thin, muddled mystery plot, with all its lies and false truths, was kind of fun to behold, but - let's face it - was merely an excuse to present us three long and exquisitely gruesome torture sequences. And besides that, there's even quite a bit of random acts of violence and bloodshed in a couple of other scenes (handgun-splatters, head blown off by shotgun, knife-stabbings, head-bashings,...). The plot itself, is both extremely simplistic but yet still rather unpredictable (or maybe I was just being distracted too much by the excessive amount of torture and gore). Nevermind the weird word "dard" in the title, as its meaning isn't really as profound or mysterious as it might sound, and it even gets explained in an utmost banal, quite stupid and somewhat laughable manner pretty early in the movie.Now, I'm not the biggest fan of this "torture" genre (not by far), and actually, by now, there's torture movies and there's... torture movies and then some (if you know what I mean). As much as the next guy, I loved the first SAW (I still have to see the other installments though). I can even dig a lot - and I do mean a *lot* - worse movies like Lamberto Bava's THE TORTURER. I also appreciate raw and gritty efforts like Boyes & Mason's BROKEN. But then there's abominable flicks like Ulli Lommel's THE TOMB and I pretty much hated the pretentious and irresponsible MURDER-SET-PIECES. So where exactly do I place Ittenbach's DARD DIVORCE between all this? Hard to say, really, but it's definitely amongst the stuff I can enjoy (granted, not always for the right reasons, like, try: unintentionally funny sometimes).We've gotten used to the fact that Ittenbach's cinematography & photography at least is above the level of what we regularly get to see in some of these low-budget companion efforts. The man simply has a bit more style than some of his fellow contemporary directors working in the same genre. But right from the moment the first member of the cast starts to speak - no offense Martina Ittenbach - you just can't ignore the fact that you're watching extremely poor acting and hearing lousy dialogues (and yes, this continues until the very end of the movie). During the first 20 minutes or so, Ittenbach even ventures into sheer cringing soap-opera territory, by introducing us a married couple in the middle of a divorce, with all the necessary quibbling over who's gonna get the two kids and all the money and stuff (accompanied by a soft melo-dramatic score even). Plain bad, really, and the two kids (little boy & and a 14-year-old girl) naturally have none acting abilities whatsoever - (luckily they have limited screen time). So yeah, after 20 minutes I already was thinking "Man, I'm gonna flunk this flick severely". But then, the first torture-scene came on. And some more random craziness. And another torture-scene. More shoot-bam-splat-boom mayhem. And another torture-scene. And before I realized it, this movie got me going. Boy, really, those torture-scenes are *nasty*! And Ittenbach's make-up effects are pretty damn excellent at times. One of my favorite gore-bits in the movie was where one guy's lower-jaw gets completely rammed away by a hammer with a couple of firm strokes. Awesome, and I literally uttered "Aw!" in the theater. And the good old needle-in-the-eye trick always gets to me too.And then we get a couple more of Ittenbach trademarks, like the (inexcusable?) portrayal of full frontal male nudity (sorry, but to me it always looks goofy when a man just undresses - for no apparent reason at first - and then walks naked and ding-donging towards the camera), as well as the mutilation of male genitals ("Ouch!", I went again). In the end, after all the madness, the mystery also neatly gets explained in the most easy (and silly) way possible in a movie, by having a character just explain it. And then there's the little epilogue-scene, et voilà, another Ittenbach effort for the records that somewhat satisfies, but barely passes the test. I'm pretty sure that there's folks that will rate this a lot higher than me, but it's just that I love my Ittenbach flicks more when they're spiced up with a bit of demonic/supernatural stuff. Oh well, one can't always have it his way, right?