davidh-15
Jan. 2000 ist beigetreten
Willkommen auf neuen Profil
Unsere Aktualisierungen befinden sich noch in der Entwicklung. Die vorherige Version Profils ist zwar nicht mehr zugänglich, aber wir arbeiten aktiv an Verbesserungen und einige der fehlenden Funktionen werden bald wieder verfügbar sein! Bleibe dran, bis sie wieder verfügbar sind. In der Zwischenzeit ist Bewertungsanalyse weiterhin in unseren iOS- und Android-Apps verfügbar, die auf deiner Profilseite findest. Damit deine Bewertungsverteilung nach Jahr und Genre angezeigt wird, beziehe dich bitte auf unsere neue Hilfeleitfaden.
Abzeichen4
Wie du dir Kennzeichnungen verdienen kannst, erfährst du unter Hilfeseite für Kennzeichnungen.
Rezensionen9
Bewertung von davidh-15
It is hard to imagine anyone making a Tom Cruise film look good; hard indeed, but this one makes him look good. Very good. Actually, it makes him look like Sir John Gielgud celebrating Very Good Acting Day with a bravura performance.
The acting from the entire ensemble struggled to rise above the risible and failed. The fault was, in part let us be fair, that the plot bore as much resemblance to the HG Wells original as did the butchered carcasses of the human victims in the film to their living predecessors: both were bloodied and violated remnants of more attractive predecessor. But to describe a plot such as this to be a bit holy is to say of the Colander "My, this kitchen utensil has a remarkable lot of holes", unless, that is, holes are your bag; in which case this film will commend itself to you.
The fault in the other part was that these were demotivated, jobbing, DVD actors who knew full well, one assumes, that this was their exhibition that would wind up on the $5 DVD shelf. And overpriced at that.
So should you watch it? Why yes, of course, you should. You are a miserable sinner and deserve punishment.
The acting from the entire ensemble struggled to rise above the risible and failed. The fault was, in part let us be fair, that the plot bore as much resemblance to the HG Wells original as did the butchered carcasses of the human victims in the film to their living predecessors: both were bloodied and violated remnants of more attractive predecessor. But to describe a plot such as this to be a bit holy is to say of the Colander "My, this kitchen utensil has a remarkable lot of holes", unless, that is, holes are your bag; in which case this film will commend itself to you.
The fault in the other part was that these were demotivated, jobbing, DVD actors who knew full well, one assumes, that this was their exhibition that would wind up on the $5 DVD shelf. And overpriced at that.
So should you watch it? Why yes, of course, you should. You are a miserable sinner and deserve punishment.
So appalling I nearly stopped watching. I only continued when I realised that only once or twice in a lifetime would one be privileged with the opportunity to see a film quite this bad. It was so stunningly bad I felt compelled to watch it all.
The cast comprised no-name actors and a couple of b-movie actors who one can only assume had very large tax bills to pay that year. To describe the acting as wooden would be only partly accurate it was rotten wooden acting. The dialogue was poorly conceived badly delivered and delivered with the comic timing and deftness only available to those suffering from autism.
It was intended to be funny and tongue in-cheek and had the script not been written by the directors 9 year old it may have succeeded. The cinematography looks like it was done by the 5 year old's elder brother playing with a cheap camcorder he was given for Christmas.
So, then, bad acting, dire script, ludicrous production values. Should you watch it. Yes but remember the eye bleach.
The cast comprised no-name actors and a couple of b-movie actors who one can only assume had very large tax bills to pay that year. To describe the acting as wooden would be only partly accurate it was rotten wooden acting. The dialogue was poorly conceived badly delivered and delivered with the comic timing and deftness only available to those suffering from autism.
It was intended to be funny and tongue in-cheek and had the script not been written by the directors 9 year old it may have succeeded. The cinematography looks like it was done by the 5 year old's elder brother playing with a cheap camcorder he was given for Christmas.
So, then, bad acting, dire script, ludicrous production values. Should you watch it. Yes but remember the eye bleach.
I went to a viewing of this in Brighton, UK at which the director, Barney Platts-Mills, and one actor, Roy Haywood, was present. tidbits regarding the film: it cost £18k (at 1969 prices) under budget of £20k.
All the actors were untrained and this was their first piece of acting.
Some of the actors were tearaway kids who engaged in theft in real life. They stole filming equipment from the set not realising its value, and that by doing so they threatened the films production.
Martin Scorsese has a 16mm print of the film in his private collection and regards it highly. The original negative was nearly thrown away when the film company went bankrupt but it was recovered from a rubbish pile by an attentive employee.
The director said that he preferred untrained actors to trained ones because they didn't ad-lib or interpret their roles: they played it straight from the script and that this was the reason for the extreme minimalism of the performances. For them it wasn't an exciting filmic opportunity it was, Roy Haywood said, "just a job - not exciting - just a way to earn money". The director said that that made their performances special.
Platts-Mills said that the main theme of the film, which most critics missed, was "why shouldn't a 15 year old girl sleep with those who she wishes to?"
-----
The film's title "Bronco Bullfrog" refers to the thief who escaped from borstal and had to make his way in the world whilst on the run by engaging in theft. He does not play the major role in the film however. That goes to Del and Anne a young couple who meet in the deprived environment of Stratford in East London where there is little for kids to do and where they have no money. Their relationship strengthens and they attempt to escape their limiting environment by running away to the coast.
The films has its comic moments often driven by the utterly spartan & anorexic dialog. Conversations that would occupy tens of minutes of naff method-overacting in a Hollywood film are dispatched in two or three words: for example when the couple meet for the first time and agree to date the entire conversation is: "Del:do you want to go out? Anne:Yea, OK".
These are kids who are adrift and going nowhere. The plot is an engaging slice into their life and a unique fusion of drama and social documentary: unlike anything else made.
All the actors were untrained and this was their first piece of acting.
Some of the actors were tearaway kids who engaged in theft in real life. They stole filming equipment from the set not realising its value, and that by doing so they threatened the films production.
Martin Scorsese has a 16mm print of the film in his private collection and regards it highly. The original negative was nearly thrown away when the film company went bankrupt but it was recovered from a rubbish pile by an attentive employee.
The director said that he preferred untrained actors to trained ones because they didn't ad-lib or interpret their roles: they played it straight from the script and that this was the reason for the extreme minimalism of the performances. For them it wasn't an exciting filmic opportunity it was, Roy Haywood said, "just a job - not exciting - just a way to earn money". The director said that that made their performances special.
Platts-Mills said that the main theme of the film, which most critics missed, was "why shouldn't a 15 year old girl sleep with those who she wishes to?"
-----
The film's title "Bronco Bullfrog" refers to the thief who escaped from borstal and had to make his way in the world whilst on the run by engaging in theft. He does not play the major role in the film however. That goes to Del and Anne a young couple who meet in the deprived environment of Stratford in East London where there is little for kids to do and where they have no money. Their relationship strengthens and they attempt to escape their limiting environment by running away to the coast.
The films has its comic moments often driven by the utterly spartan & anorexic dialog. Conversations that would occupy tens of minutes of naff method-overacting in a Hollywood film are dispatched in two or three words: for example when the couple meet for the first time and agree to date the entire conversation is: "Del:do you want to go out? Anne:Yea, OK".
These are kids who are adrift and going nowhere. The plot is an engaging slice into their life and a unique fusion of drama and social documentary: unlike anything else made.