dien
Mai 2004 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.
Rezensionen44
Bewertung von dien
This documentary provides an easy-to-understand introduction to Giallo, to its origins, where it came from and how it developed, up to its decline in the late 90s / early 2000s. If you'd like to know more about the genre, just listen to the great Giallo directors giving some background information and sharing their memories of the times gone by. Giallo came a long way from its beginnings, and these directors and movie historians shed some light on that journey. If I was to name one negative thing about it, it would be too much time devoted to Dario Argento. Sure, he is the father of Giallo movies, but others deserved a bit more screen time, especially considering the information they provided. Still, it's well worth your time.
I was lured to this movie by an intriguing trailer and it also somewhat reminded me of a movie called "Altitude" (2005), which, despite it being utterly stupid, I kind of liked. But this movie, oh boy ....
First of all, this movie is a collection of all imaginable horror cliches - cell phones don't work, red herrings are a plenty, dumb characters are suddenly brilliant, etc. The plot, while interesting, has been done to death and better. The characters are generic (which is something I can forgive) and unlikeable - in the first 5 minutes we learn that the main female character is a blackmailing bitch who only dates rich guys (and she doesn't care they are brother). The black believes Odin is the name of an African god. How likely is that? And the always-right smarter brother gives an emotional motivational speech about how they need to work this out together as a family. Oh yeah, and the dumb blond turns out to be a smart-ass mathematician.
But the interior of the plane was nice. I mean, real nice. If you are into that kind of stuff. The movie, on the other hand, was jaw-droppingly bad with no saving grace at all. Avoid.
First of all, this movie is a collection of all imaginable horror cliches - cell phones don't work, red herrings are a plenty, dumb characters are suddenly brilliant, etc. The plot, while interesting, has been done to death and better. The characters are generic (which is something I can forgive) and unlikeable - in the first 5 minutes we learn that the main female character is a blackmailing bitch who only dates rich guys (and she doesn't care they are brother). The black believes Odin is the name of an African god. How likely is that? And the always-right smarter brother gives an emotional motivational speech about how they need to work this out together as a family. Oh yeah, and the dumb blond turns out to be a smart-ass mathematician.
But the interior of the plane was nice. I mean, real nice. If you are into that kind of stuff. The movie, on the other hand, was jaw-droppingly bad with no saving grace at all. Avoid.
I'm currently on a trip to watch older TV shows I find interesting (sci-fi, horror, mystery, etc.) which I couldn't watch back in the day. I came across VR.5 and found the premise interesting. The whole "entering someone's unconscious by the means of telephone and virtual reality" got my interest peaked.
Pretty much every 90s cliché you can think of is presented here - the main character has a mysterious past where the relatives may or may not be dead. The memories may or may not be fake. The main character lives in a loft. She has a childhood friend/neighbour who is all-alternative, reads books, knows the wisdom of many wise men, doesn't work but can still afford an apartment and a car. There is a shadowy organisation that may or may not be the enemy, but who the main character works for. She has a "keeper", who brings her new assignments but who also has a tragic/troubled past of his own. You name it, it's there.
The acting is, well, mediocre at best. Lori Singer is sleepwalking through the show and is hardly someone you will care for. Michael Easton mumbles some barely audible words (I wonder if his character was written this way or if he is always like this), Anthony Head, Louise Fletcher and David McCallum are utterly wasted in this.
For me the worst part is the writing. You see, in the mid-90s many people didn't even know what Internet (called Cyberspace then) is, and here's a show throwing terms and ideas at an audience not prepared for it. The technology needed a bit more explaining to make it more convincing or at least help to suspend the disbelief. A couple of rewrites from more competent writers could have saved the show.
There was a good show here with some good ideas buried under pretentious and cliché-filled writing and un-engaging characters. Still, I am glad I watched it and if it ever comes out on a DVD, I would grab a copy just as a time capsule of 90s sci-fi VR show.
Pretty much every 90s cliché you can think of is presented here - the main character has a mysterious past where the relatives may or may not be dead. The memories may or may not be fake. The main character lives in a loft. She has a childhood friend/neighbour who is all-alternative, reads books, knows the wisdom of many wise men, doesn't work but can still afford an apartment and a car. There is a shadowy organisation that may or may not be the enemy, but who the main character works for. She has a "keeper", who brings her new assignments but who also has a tragic/troubled past of his own. You name it, it's there.
The acting is, well, mediocre at best. Lori Singer is sleepwalking through the show and is hardly someone you will care for. Michael Easton mumbles some barely audible words (I wonder if his character was written this way or if he is always like this), Anthony Head, Louise Fletcher and David McCallum are utterly wasted in this.
For me the worst part is the writing. You see, in the mid-90s many people didn't even know what Internet (called Cyberspace then) is, and here's a show throwing terms and ideas at an audience not prepared for it. The technology needed a bit more explaining to make it more convincing or at least help to suspend the disbelief. A couple of rewrites from more competent writers could have saved the show.
There was a good show here with some good ideas buried under pretentious and cliché-filled writing and un-engaging characters. Still, I am glad I watched it and if it ever comes out on a DVD, I would grab a copy just as a time capsule of 90s sci-fi VR show.