bearcat-7
Jan. 2006 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.
Abzeichen5
Wie du dir Kennzeichnungen verdienen kannst, erfährst du unter Hilfeseite für Kennzeichnungen.
Rezensionen13
Bewertung von bearcat-7
I like the concept, but at least through the first six episodes, find the execution lacking.
Meester is.outstanding.
From there, the rest is uneven.
I don't know if it's the writing, directing or acting, but Cook as her brother is just terrible.
His character is flat, one dimensional. He comes across as emotionally challenged, not eccentric or nerdy. Unlike Jim Parson's Sheldon in The Big Bang Theory (the gold standard for nerdy characters) Cook's brother has no redeeming qualities, quirks or personality.
In its defense, I will say it's better than Monk, but that is not saying much.
As I said, this is based on early episodes, so Cook...or his character...may find his footing.
The rest of the supporting cast range from just okay to very good. Like many of the Australians in Deadloch, I get the feeling they're fresh from community theater.
All in all, it seems to be trying too hard to be a Wes Anderson film, when it might be better shooting for a more subtle Northern Exposure vibe. It created a quirky small town and genuine characters, without resorting to "look at me" histrionics.
If you've never seen NE, I'd recommend using your time to watch that 30 year old series instead of this.
Meester is.outstanding.
From there, the rest is uneven.
I don't know if it's the writing, directing or acting, but Cook as her brother is just terrible.
His character is flat, one dimensional. He comes across as emotionally challenged, not eccentric or nerdy. Unlike Jim Parson's Sheldon in The Big Bang Theory (the gold standard for nerdy characters) Cook's brother has no redeeming qualities, quirks or personality.
In its defense, I will say it's better than Monk, but that is not saying much.
As I said, this is based on early episodes, so Cook...or his character...may find his footing.
The rest of the supporting cast range from just okay to very good. Like many of the Australians in Deadloch, I get the feeling they're fresh from community theater.
All in all, it seems to be trying too hard to be a Wes Anderson film, when it might be better shooting for a more subtle Northern Exposure vibe. It created a quirky small town and genuine characters, without resorting to "look at me" histrionics.
If you've never seen NE, I'd recommend using your time to watch that 30 year old series instead of this.
Every so often we need a good epic western.
This could have been one if it didn't try so hard.
From the opening shot and the soaring Copland-esque music that screams "Watch me this is IMPORTANT", You get the feeling you're watching this not because you want to, but because you're expected to.
Its too long length and well known stars in minor roles ("Pay attention, we gave Gene Hackman a lot of money and star billing for his three scenes!") reinforce the idea this is more of a Kasdan/Costner ego trip than a bit of fun.
Subtle it is not...Wyatt, a new found gun fighter, brandishing his weapon during a fireworks display is supposed to be symbolic, instead it comes across as simply overwrought.
There are some great performances here, and after reading a biography of Earp, the stoic (or just stiff?) Costner probably is closer to portraying the real man than Kurt Russell did in Tombstone.
One noticeable failure is Going's Josie doesn't have the spark of Dana Delaney's character in the other film. With Delaney, you can see why Wyatt would fall for her. Here, not so much.
But at the end if the day, watching his, with Kasdan and Costner trying to impress you, it not as much fun as Tombstone.
Finally, after reading a well regarded Earp biography, this film isn't as historically accurate as it wants you to think it is.
Much like Kasdan's Eldorado, the film doesn't live up to its potential.
This could have been one if it didn't try so hard.
From the opening shot and the soaring Copland-esque music that screams "Watch me this is IMPORTANT", You get the feeling you're watching this not because you want to, but because you're expected to.
Its too long length and well known stars in minor roles ("Pay attention, we gave Gene Hackman a lot of money and star billing for his three scenes!") reinforce the idea this is more of a Kasdan/Costner ego trip than a bit of fun.
Subtle it is not...Wyatt, a new found gun fighter, brandishing his weapon during a fireworks display is supposed to be symbolic, instead it comes across as simply overwrought.
There are some great performances here, and after reading a biography of Earp, the stoic (or just stiff?) Costner probably is closer to portraying the real man than Kurt Russell did in Tombstone.
One noticeable failure is Going's Josie doesn't have the spark of Dana Delaney's character in the other film. With Delaney, you can see why Wyatt would fall for her. Here, not so much.
But at the end if the day, watching his, with Kasdan and Costner trying to impress you, it not as much fun as Tombstone.
Finally, after reading a well regarded Earp biography, this film isn't as historically accurate as it wants you to think it is.
Much like Kasdan's Eldorado, the film doesn't live up to its potential.
The premise is pure Hallmark: Theme park princess meet handsome real life prince.
However, there are some very un-Hallmark issues here; the Princess is worried about aging out of her job and is frustrated by her unfinished educational goals, the prince's young daughter has emotional issues due to the death of her mother.
So, it's not perfect in this tale of fairy land meets real life fairy land.
The problem is how the Prince is portrayed. He talks in formal complete sentences and acts like his shorts are too small. A bad parody of what Americans think "Royals" are like.
Cardboard antagonists (the icy Queen and "Privy Council" head) are there to create roadblocks.
In private conversations the Prince acts and sounds entirely artificial. How about having him have two personas...one stuffy and "official" when acting in a official capacity and another where he talks and acts like a regular guy when talking to his daughter and the young woman trying to help her? The script DOES have him talk with the child and princess, but the actor uses the same tone all the time.
Do the Hallmark execs think a character with two facets (personas) is too subtle for audiences?
I hate to say it, but you have to blame the director here. A bit of subtle characterization would have done wonders here. I'm no Scorsese, but after watching a few takes I would if had the actor do the scene both ways...the traditional stilted Hallmark method, and one where the prince is acting less stereotypically "royal" when he needs to. When talking privately, make him a real person, not a stuffy stereotype.
Sakura does a wonderful job given her constraints, Moseley given his experience playing a modern prince in "The Royals" soap should have pushed his character to make him more realistic and relatable.
I hope to see more of Sakura, she comes across as much more real and worldly than the usual Hallmark lead female.
The basics were there to make it a much warmer, more dramatic and touching (but still HEA) film.
Hopefully Hallmark will let writers, directors and actors expand from their (admittedly successful) approach.
However, there are some very un-Hallmark issues here; the Princess is worried about aging out of her job and is frustrated by her unfinished educational goals, the prince's young daughter has emotional issues due to the death of her mother.
So, it's not perfect in this tale of fairy land meets real life fairy land.
The problem is how the Prince is portrayed. He talks in formal complete sentences and acts like his shorts are too small. A bad parody of what Americans think "Royals" are like.
Cardboard antagonists (the icy Queen and "Privy Council" head) are there to create roadblocks.
In private conversations the Prince acts and sounds entirely artificial. How about having him have two personas...one stuffy and "official" when acting in a official capacity and another where he talks and acts like a regular guy when talking to his daughter and the young woman trying to help her? The script DOES have him talk with the child and princess, but the actor uses the same tone all the time.
Do the Hallmark execs think a character with two facets (personas) is too subtle for audiences?
I hate to say it, but you have to blame the director here. A bit of subtle characterization would have done wonders here. I'm no Scorsese, but after watching a few takes I would if had the actor do the scene both ways...the traditional stilted Hallmark method, and one where the prince is acting less stereotypically "royal" when he needs to. When talking privately, make him a real person, not a stuffy stereotype.
Sakura does a wonderful job given her constraints, Moseley given his experience playing a modern prince in "The Royals" soap should have pushed his character to make him more realistic and relatable.
I hope to see more of Sakura, she comes across as much more real and worldly than the usual Hallmark lead female.
The basics were there to make it a much warmer, more dramatic and touching (but still HEA) film.
Hopefully Hallmark will let writers, directors and actors expand from their (admittedly successful) approach.