Angry_Arguer
Feb. 2002 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.
Rezensionen448
Bewertung von Angry_Arguer
Ay caramba, if I had a dollar for every bad studio film I've seen I could retire in Florida. A nickel for every bad independent film and I could buy an island in Tahiti.
American cinema has aged and grown enough in the last forty years where we laud the underdog and secretly hate the "studio-meddling flicks." Sadly, if you've seen enough "indie" or student films, you know that they can be just as bad--if not worse--than their bigger comrades.
Make no mistake, I love Ridley Scott's expensive pains as much as David Lynch's. Money is no item when it's done right. But 'Elephant' is just a tremendous gaffe.
This movie got me further incensed at Cannes. I started wondering why this slow, non-linear film was so celebrated...when the smug 'MASH' won over the wonderfully similarly constructed 'Catch-22' some thirty years ago. I guess Cannes cares more for making grand statements than actual cinematic form, but sobeit. I'm just surprised they haven't given Oliver Stone an award yet.
Everything is all about the characters (and something about inevitability and fate), but it's been done better before. Do we need cheapskates like Van Sant to strut around like they are smarter than everyone else by pretending they are realistic? I'm giving up on films that try to be "realistic." This movie certainly isn't. Any "average" American high school has at least ten times more kids wandering the halls. There would be five times more profanity in the conversations. If a film is such a large, complicated endeavor (even "small" ones like this) with so many nuances, why waste it on characters? Why spend five minutes following someone around instead of exploring on your own?
Sorry, but Mike Nichols already did everything right in 'Catch-22:' same content, more intelligent form, and a big smiling budget.
American cinema has aged and grown enough in the last forty years where we laud the underdog and secretly hate the "studio-meddling flicks." Sadly, if you've seen enough "indie" or student films, you know that they can be just as bad--if not worse--than their bigger comrades.
Make no mistake, I love Ridley Scott's expensive pains as much as David Lynch's. Money is no item when it's done right. But 'Elephant' is just a tremendous gaffe.
This movie got me further incensed at Cannes. I started wondering why this slow, non-linear film was so celebrated...when the smug 'MASH' won over the wonderfully similarly constructed 'Catch-22' some thirty years ago. I guess Cannes cares more for making grand statements than actual cinematic form, but sobeit. I'm just surprised they haven't given Oliver Stone an award yet.
Everything is all about the characters (and something about inevitability and fate), but it's been done better before. Do we need cheapskates like Van Sant to strut around like they are smarter than everyone else by pretending they are realistic? I'm giving up on films that try to be "realistic." This movie certainly isn't. Any "average" American high school has at least ten times more kids wandering the halls. There would be five times more profanity in the conversations. If a film is such a large, complicated endeavor (even "small" ones like this) with so many nuances, why waste it on characters? Why spend five minutes following someone around instead of exploring on your own?
Sorry, but Mike Nichols already did everything right in 'Catch-22:' same content, more intelligent form, and a big smiling budget.
This movie challenged me in how to appreciate it.
The Good: When Boorman gets his visions right, he gets them right. From the first five minutes I could understand why Ridley Scott chose Alex Thomson as the photographer for 'Legend'. Any other weaknesses aside, those are enough for me. I also thought the animalistic armor designs were apt given how much Rome/Greek inspired stuff we've seen in the last five years.
The Bad: Watching this right after 'Monty Python' will wreck your appreciation. In 'Python', the fights are intentionally cheesy. Here they are just awful. Thankfully, I wasn't paying attention to the acting--I don't believe it's important in film--so I couldn't tell you how good/bad it was. Production values here also get hurt in the realm of scope and environment. Natural settings are gorgeous, but the manmade ones reek of artificiality. Also, the hippie 70s-style titles contradict the tone of the film.
The Quirky: Because the violence is so fake, the sex seems more outlandish.
Also remember that sex is one of the most underdeveloped elements in the sword-sorcery/sandal genre...so almost any entry that tries to be frank with it will get some noticing. Refer to the recent 'King Arthur' to see what happens when all the focus is put on fighting instead--instantly forgettable. Since 'Gladiator' (and even 'Braveheart') it's been a constant attempt to one-up all the predecessors in bloodshed, but nowhere else.
There's the Holy Grail for the next brood of filmmakers.
The Good: When Boorman gets his visions right, he gets them right. From the first five minutes I could understand why Ridley Scott chose Alex Thomson as the photographer for 'Legend'. Any other weaknesses aside, those are enough for me. I also thought the animalistic armor designs were apt given how much Rome/Greek inspired stuff we've seen in the last five years.
The Bad: Watching this right after 'Monty Python' will wreck your appreciation. In 'Python', the fights are intentionally cheesy. Here they are just awful. Thankfully, I wasn't paying attention to the acting--I don't believe it's important in film--so I couldn't tell you how good/bad it was. Production values here also get hurt in the realm of scope and environment. Natural settings are gorgeous, but the manmade ones reek of artificiality. Also, the hippie 70s-style titles contradict the tone of the film.
The Quirky: Because the violence is so fake, the sex seems more outlandish.
Also remember that sex is one of the most underdeveloped elements in the sword-sorcery/sandal genre...so almost any entry that tries to be frank with it will get some noticing. Refer to the recent 'King Arthur' to see what happens when all the focus is put on fighting instead--instantly forgettable. Since 'Gladiator' (and even 'Braveheart') it's been a constant attempt to one-up all the predecessors in bloodshed, but nowhere else.
There's the Holy Grail for the next brood of filmmakers.