harold_harcourt
Sept. 2005 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.
Abzeichen2
Wie du dir Kennzeichnungen verdienen kannst, erfährst du unter Hilfeseite für Kennzeichnungen.
Rezensionen1
Bewertung von harold_harcourt
Judging by the comments here on IMDb, public opinion on this movie is divided into 2 distinct camps.
Firstly you have the salivating fans for whom the mere presence of Lundgren is enough to make any film a work of cinematic genius. If that's all it takes to please you, then no comment on here will change your mind. That's fine, enjoy your Dolf - try not to drool on him.
Then you have those who expect, nay DEMAND that any movie which features plot elements such as relics, temples and gunfights follow the big budget Hollywood formula of intricate death traps, load bearing treasure and near superhuman heroics which made the Indiana Jones movies, Mummy series and Tomb raider so successful.
This is where I begin to have a problem. The aforementioned films derive most of their entertainment value from witty one liners, flashy special effects and slick choreography. Diamond Dogs on the other hand goes in the opposite direction, moving the focus of the film away from elaborate action and adventure, on to the characters and their survival.
The majority of the film appears to have been shot on location and most of the characters (played well by a less than famous cast) lack the exaggerated personalities and convoluted motivations you'd find in a Hollywood blockbuster. The result of this shift is that the whole film feels more 'National Geographic' than 'National Treasure'. The sporadic action is fast and lethal, no fancy footwork and no coming back with multiple wounds for one last shot. The 'bad guys' are bad as opposed to villainous and the 'good guys' are played straight, behaving in a practical and decidedly un-heroic manner. I for one found the lack of comedy quipping a refreshing change. In fact the only thing that bothered me in the whole movie was William Shriver's portrayal of 'Chambers' which WAS admittedly slightly over the top toward the beginning of the film.
All the above waffle basically boils down to this; You want an action adventure romp, packed with booby traps, wisecracks and villains? Go watch something else. If however you think you could appreciate something a bit different, with beautiful scenery, an unusual soundtrack and a sizable (but rarely flashy) body count, then you could do an awful lot worse than Diamond Dogs.
Firstly you have the salivating fans for whom the mere presence of Lundgren is enough to make any film a work of cinematic genius. If that's all it takes to please you, then no comment on here will change your mind. That's fine, enjoy your Dolf - try not to drool on him.
Then you have those who expect, nay DEMAND that any movie which features plot elements such as relics, temples and gunfights follow the big budget Hollywood formula of intricate death traps, load bearing treasure and near superhuman heroics which made the Indiana Jones movies, Mummy series and Tomb raider so successful.
This is where I begin to have a problem. The aforementioned films derive most of their entertainment value from witty one liners, flashy special effects and slick choreography. Diamond Dogs on the other hand goes in the opposite direction, moving the focus of the film away from elaborate action and adventure, on to the characters and their survival.
The majority of the film appears to have been shot on location and most of the characters (played well by a less than famous cast) lack the exaggerated personalities and convoluted motivations you'd find in a Hollywood blockbuster. The result of this shift is that the whole film feels more 'National Geographic' than 'National Treasure'. The sporadic action is fast and lethal, no fancy footwork and no coming back with multiple wounds for one last shot. The 'bad guys' are bad as opposed to villainous and the 'good guys' are played straight, behaving in a practical and decidedly un-heroic manner. I for one found the lack of comedy quipping a refreshing change. In fact the only thing that bothered me in the whole movie was William Shriver's portrayal of 'Chambers' which WAS admittedly slightly over the top toward the beginning of the film.
All the above waffle basically boils down to this; You want an action adventure romp, packed with booby traps, wisecracks and villains? Go watch something else. If however you think you could appreciate something a bit different, with beautiful scenery, an unusual soundtrack and a sizable (but rarely flashy) body count, then you could do an awful lot worse than Diamond Dogs.