SozeTheKeyser
Apr. 2001 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.
Abzeichen3
Wie du dir Kennzeichnungen verdienen kannst, erfährst du unter Hilfeseite für Kennzeichnungen.
Rezensionen15
Bewertung von SozeTheKeyser
Mitt Romney seems like a nice man, and that pretty much sums up what I got out of this documentary. But apart from that, I didn't feel like I really learned anything.
If the object was to make Mitt seem human, it does do a good job of this, but as far as providing an insightful look behind the curtain it falls short. There is a sort of a discrepancy between the use of "one cameraman/interviewer with his hand-held camera" signifying bare honesty and how often the scenes seem set-up and "for the camera". Ultimately; this means that it often comes off as a bit disingenuous, and that you're only scratching the surface, rather than getting to know the deeper truth about a man and his political life.
If the object was to make Mitt seem human, it does do a good job of this, but as far as providing an insightful look behind the curtain it falls short. There is a sort of a discrepancy between the use of "one cameraman/interviewer with his hand-held camera" signifying bare honesty and how often the scenes seem set-up and "for the camera". Ultimately; this means that it often comes off as a bit disingenuous, and that you're only scratching the surface, rather than getting to know the deeper truth about a man and his political life.
The tagline is A Cut Above, and having seen the first one, I will disclose right now that it certainly is a lot better than the first. Yet being lengths better than Nora's Hair Salon, still doesn't make for a genuinely good movie, but fast approaching the acceptable. I say, if they keep improving the quality like this, then by Nora's Hair Salon 3 I might actually have an upside down frown ... too positive? Better make that Nora's Hair Salon 13.
But good and bad things, well let's start with the good.
If IMDb was so superficial as to make a list of combined hotness in a movie, no doubt this would get a very high ranking. There is a plethora of sexy in this movie, due to the level of attractiveness spearheaded by Tatyana Ali and Stacy Dash, but also kickers in Christine Carlo and Brandi Burnside (god daughter of Bobby Brown... I wonder how she got the part?). Too bad acting isn't determined via attractiveness, but it has to be said that neither Tatyana Ali nor Stacy Dash suffer from bad acting. Actually... it's not that bad.
I think to genuinely appreciate this movie, you have to have seen the first. If you have, you will automatically become delighted how much better this is in comparison. The first was by all means one of the worst movies ever made, whereas this one steps everything up a notch in a positive direction. Let's not get carried away, it's not good no doubt about that, but I didn't hate it. I felt it was bearable to watch, and there was even two times I almost chuckled.
Now the bad things, brace yourselves.
Bobby Brown ... oh, Bobby Brown. Bobby Brown is portrayed as the man in the business, with the fame and money. I suppose the most pimp thing he is on record as having done, is turning Whitney Houston into a crack addict and deleting her career. So that would be the bad kind of pimp, and not the Jay-Z "brush that dirt of your shoulders" kind of pimp. He has some unnecessary rapping, which he sucks at, and then there are the times he has screen time for acting, which he also sucks at. In conclusion Bobby Brown sucks in this movie. To tell you the truth, I wasn't a fan of Bobby Brown before, and this movie didn't give me even the slightest reason to become one.
As mentioned before, the acting in general isn't going to win any awards soon, yet doesn't mean that it's not rare to see worse acting, and as usual light years better than the first.
I suppose a movie needs to be categorized in a genre, this is why this is labeled a comedy. Some may argue that struggling to be funny even once, let alone twice, it's a gross case of mislabeling. Then again, what else would you call it? I'm sure no label would actually make it better. Another thing, which is in fact funny, is that for a movie using the word "drama" ever so often, it surprisingly lacks any itself. It's predictable and the various attempts of story lining some drama and adding a little suspense, proves a miserable failure. You could walk out on this movie from the the first second to the 80th minute and 24th second, and not feel you are somehow missing out or wanting to see how it ends.
Having seen the first two Nora's Hairsalon, and complaining about them - you bet I'll see the third too, when it comes out. Heck, this is so much fun, maybe I'll even fund it, just to have something to complain about. May I suggest calling it: Nora's Hairsalon 3: The Extension (now wasn't that a clever pun?)
But good and bad things, well let's start with the good.
If IMDb was so superficial as to make a list of combined hotness in a movie, no doubt this would get a very high ranking. There is a plethora of sexy in this movie, due to the level of attractiveness spearheaded by Tatyana Ali and Stacy Dash, but also kickers in Christine Carlo and Brandi Burnside (god daughter of Bobby Brown... I wonder how she got the part?). Too bad acting isn't determined via attractiveness, but it has to be said that neither Tatyana Ali nor Stacy Dash suffer from bad acting. Actually... it's not that bad.
I think to genuinely appreciate this movie, you have to have seen the first. If you have, you will automatically become delighted how much better this is in comparison. The first was by all means one of the worst movies ever made, whereas this one steps everything up a notch in a positive direction. Let's not get carried away, it's not good no doubt about that, but I didn't hate it. I felt it was bearable to watch, and there was even two times I almost chuckled.
Now the bad things, brace yourselves.
Bobby Brown ... oh, Bobby Brown. Bobby Brown is portrayed as the man in the business, with the fame and money. I suppose the most pimp thing he is on record as having done, is turning Whitney Houston into a crack addict and deleting her career. So that would be the bad kind of pimp, and not the Jay-Z "brush that dirt of your shoulders" kind of pimp. He has some unnecessary rapping, which he sucks at, and then there are the times he has screen time for acting, which he also sucks at. In conclusion Bobby Brown sucks in this movie. To tell you the truth, I wasn't a fan of Bobby Brown before, and this movie didn't give me even the slightest reason to become one.
As mentioned before, the acting in general isn't going to win any awards soon, yet doesn't mean that it's not rare to see worse acting, and as usual light years better than the first.
I suppose a movie needs to be categorized in a genre, this is why this is labeled a comedy. Some may argue that struggling to be funny even once, let alone twice, it's a gross case of mislabeling. Then again, what else would you call it? I'm sure no label would actually make it better. Another thing, which is in fact funny, is that for a movie using the word "drama" ever so often, it surprisingly lacks any itself. It's predictable and the various attempts of story lining some drama and adding a little suspense, proves a miserable failure. You could walk out on this movie from the the first second to the 80th minute and 24th second, and not feel you are somehow missing out or wanting to see how it ends.
Having seen the first two Nora's Hairsalon, and complaining about them - you bet I'll see the third too, when it comes out. Heck, this is so much fun, maybe I'll even fund it, just to have something to complain about. May I suggest calling it: Nora's Hairsalon 3: The Extension (now wasn't that a clever pun?)
The Die Hard dynasty is the definition of the heroic anti-hero. John McClane is a hero by accident. He is forced to be a hero, not because he is inclined to be one.
This is why I, and others, distinguish between Die Har 1&3 and Die Hard 2. And without telling to much, I now put number 4 in the series in the latter category.
I'll tell you why.... John McTiernan had the right take on it, and you see it in both the 1 and 3. He doesn't treat John McClane as a hero, he treats him as an ordinary guy, albeit a bad-ass type of ordinary guy. This is what makes Die Hard ultra cool. - Bruce Willis kicking ass and cracking jokes. If you hit him he falls over, bleeds, but gets up again, retaliates ending in fatality, and a snide remark.
Number 2 made him too much of a generic hero, and Live Free or Die Hard aka Die Hard 4.0 has a bit of the same problem. John McTiernan made a balanced gourmet (action)meal, in the proper serving size. 4.0 struggles with the same as you do, when you try to recreate the meal you just had. You liked it, so you make a double portion, and because you liked certain elements, you add extra of that. And the result of that is always the same, it's OK, but not as good as you had, because it's out of proportion and after gorging on it, you suddenly feel you've had too much, spoiling it all a bit.
Although John McClane in 4.0, is very vocally underlined as not being the heroes hero. The rest of the movie portrays him as such. Everything is a little bit extra, and little big bigger, and a bit more explosive. Sometimes you wonder if the director was thinking, "and then here it would be nice with another explosion, maybe John bleeding a bit more".
Live Free or Die Hard goes a long way with the template and the pedigree, but because of it's eager to give a little bit more of everything, it stops short of giving the same cool feel as the John McTiernans.
As an action flick though, it's exciting and keeps you entertained most of the time. It does get a little long towards the end, and some of the mushy elements, gets well... a little too mushy
All in all, it's worth seeing, and you should take a hide during the summer to do just that. Because Bruce Willis is good company. Even if you do miss the John McClane of the past millennium.
This is why I, and others, distinguish between Die Har 1&3 and Die Hard 2. And without telling to much, I now put number 4 in the series in the latter category.
I'll tell you why.... John McTiernan had the right take on it, and you see it in both the 1 and 3. He doesn't treat John McClane as a hero, he treats him as an ordinary guy, albeit a bad-ass type of ordinary guy. This is what makes Die Hard ultra cool. - Bruce Willis kicking ass and cracking jokes. If you hit him he falls over, bleeds, but gets up again, retaliates ending in fatality, and a snide remark.
Number 2 made him too much of a generic hero, and Live Free or Die Hard aka Die Hard 4.0 has a bit of the same problem. John McTiernan made a balanced gourmet (action)meal, in the proper serving size. 4.0 struggles with the same as you do, when you try to recreate the meal you just had. You liked it, so you make a double portion, and because you liked certain elements, you add extra of that. And the result of that is always the same, it's OK, but not as good as you had, because it's out of proportion and after gorging on it, you suddenly feel you've had too much, spoiling it all a bit.
Although John McClane in 4.0, is very vocally underlined as not being the heroes hero. The rest of the movie portrays him as such. Everything is a little bit extra, and little big bigger, and a bit more explosive. Sometimes you wonder if the director was thinking, "and then here it would be nice with another explosion, maybe John bleeding a bit more".
Live Free or Die Hard goes a long way with the template and the pedigree, but because of it's eager to give a little bit more of everything, it stops short of giving the same cool feel as the John McTiernans.
As an action flick though, it's exciting and keeps you entertained most of the time. It does get a little long towards the end, and some of the mushy elements, gets well... a little too mushy
All in all, it's worth seeing, and you should take a hide during the summer to do just that. Because Bruce Willis is good company. Even if you do miss the John McClane of the past millennium.