<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Terrible, but…]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><em>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Lumberjack Man</em></p>
<hr />
<p dir="auto"><strong>tubthumpin</strong> — <em>10 years ago(October 24, 2015 04:15 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">I thought it was a terrible movie, but it knew it was terrible and didn't take itself too seriously, which almost made it redeemable.<br />
Lots of prurient content too.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/260473/terrible-but</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 13:12:28 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/260473.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 14:42:43 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Terrible, but… on Thu, 07 May 2026 14:42:44 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>plutomani</strong> — <em>10 years ago(November 02, 2015 04:12 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">Felt a lot like a Troma movie on a decent budget. I was entertained, that's for sure.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2212527</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2212527</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 14:42:44 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>