The_Sun_Toucher
may 2000 se unió
Te damos la bienvenida a nuevo perfil
Nuestras actualizaciones aún están en desarrollo. Si bien la versión anterior de el perfil ya no está disponible, estamos trabajando activamente en mejoras, ¡y algunas de las funciones que faltan regresarán pronto! Mantente al tanto para su regreso. Mientras tanto, el análisis de calificaciones sigue disponible en nuestras aplicaciones para iOS y Android, en la página de perfil. Para ver la distribución de tus calificaciones por año y género, consulta nuestra nueva Guía de ayuda.
Distintivos2
Para saber cómo ganar distintivos, ve a página de ayuda de distintivos.
Reseñas20
Clasificación de The_Sun_Toucher
It's finally here. Most of us hardcore fans have already seen it at least twice. We've spent the last two years visiting our favorite movie sites daily, devouring all of the latest "updates". We've debated even the most minute details in chat rooms and on message boards like these.
But after the credits roll, after we come down from the initial high of seeing our favorite web-slinger finally swing across the silver screen, How does "Spider-Man" measure up? Is it the great comic book adaption we've been waiting for?
"Spider-Man" is quite enjoyable, to be sure. One of the more enjoyable "summer blockbusters" I've seen in sometime. While it delivers quite well in terms of sheer entertainment value, it's not without it's flaws. I'm guessing it will be about as popular as the first "Batman" at the Box-office, and will probably inspire just as much debate.
In Sam Riami, we have a director who is not only Knowledgeable about the mythology of the title character, but who is more than suited for this type of material.
Sam directs from a script by David Keopp that is surprisingly faithful to the origins of the character. Sam and David make an interesting choice in that they don't take the subject matter deadly seriously, as Tim Burton did with Batman. They approach spidey with a sense of the absurd, allowing moments of slapstick to find their way into some of the films key action set-pieces (Peter's outrageous wrestling costume was a particularly nice touch). This is sometimes to the detriment of the fight scenes in terms of believability. Sam brings a 50's B-movie sensibility to the material that makes the proceedings a little more fun than they might have been, had Sam and company taken the ever-trendy "Dark" approach that is so prevelent with films of this type.
It is obvious that this is a film crafted by people who adore this character. During the scenes where spidey swings through the canyon's of Manhatten, the film itself seems almost in awe of him. If the films CGI effects weren't so obvious, maybe that feeling would've translated a little better, but no matter. The scenes are basically what they should be.
We also get a very sympathetic Peter Parker in Tobey Maguire. Could someone else have done better? Maybe, but I'm more than content with the version of Peter presented here. I only wish that Spidey himself were a little more interesting. We never get any insight as to the change Peter undergoes when he puts on the mask.
One of the more disappointing aspects of the film is that it has no distinct visual look of it's own. Compared to "Blade 2", "Spider-Man" feels rather subdued and generic. Even more so when you consider that this was directed by the same man who made "The Evil Dead" films.
As an adaption, Spider-Man gets an 8 out of 10. As a film, I give it a 7. Is it what we've been waiting for? Yes and no. Is it that best adaption ever? No. Richard Donner's Superman still holds that distinction, but's a damn sight better than any of the Batman films.
But after the credits roll, after we come down from the initial high of seeing our favorite web-slinger finally swing across the silver screen, How does "Spider-Man" measure up? Is it the great comic book adaption we've been waiting for?
"Spider-Man" is quite enjoyable, to be sure. One of the more enjoyable "summer blockbusters" I've seen in sometime. While it delivers quite well in terms of sheer entertainment value, it's not without it's flaws. I'm guessing it will be about as popular as the first "Batman" at the Box-office, and will probably inspire just as much debate.
In Sam Riami, we have a director who is not only Knowledgeable about the mythology of the title character, but who is more than suited for this type of material.
Sam directs from a script by David Keopp that is surprisingly faithful to the origins of the character. Sam and David make an interesting choice in that they don't take the subject matter deadly seriously, as Tim Burton did with Batman. They approach spidey with a sense of the absurd, allowing moments of slapstick to find their way into some of the films key action set-pieces (Peter's outrageous wrestling costume was a particularly nice touch). This is sometimes to the detriment of the fight scenes in terms of believability. Sam brings a 50's B-movie sensibility to the material that makes the proceedings a little more fun than they might have been, had Sam and company taken the ever-trendy "Dark" approach that is so prevelent with films of this type.
It is obvious that this is a film crafted by people who adore this character. During the scenes where spidey swings through the canyon's of Manhatten, the film itself seems almost in awe of him. If the films CGI effects weren't so obvious, maybe that feeling would've translated a little better, but no matter. The scenes are basically what they should be.
We also get a very sympathetic Peter Parker in Tobey Maguire. Could someone else have done better? Maybe, but I'm more than content with the version of Peter presented here. I only wish that Spidey himself were a little more interesting. We never get any insight as to the change Peter undergoes when he puts on the mask.
One of the more disappointing aspects of the film is that it has no distinct visual look of it's own. Compared to "Blade 2", "Spider-Man" feels rather subdued and generic. Even more so when you consider that this was directed by the same man who made "The Evil Dead" films.
As an adaption, Spider-Man gets an 8 out of 10. As a film, I give it a 7. Is it what we've been waiting for? Yes and no. Is it that best adaption ever? No. Richard Donner's Superman still holds that distinction, but's a damn sight better than any of the Batman films.
Although well made, LORD OF THE RINGS: FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING is by no means the greatest film of time. After seeing it twice, I find it to be an enjoyable, though uneven, movie-going experience.
First, the effects. They are well done, but the quality varies from scene to scene. The opening battle sequence suffers from a reliance on swooping cameras and blurry, dull visuals. The entire film seems awash in darkness, visually speaking. Peter Jackson uses Dark, moody lighting to enhance the CGI, and quite frankly, he over does it.
The battle sequences are adequetly coreographed but poorly filmed. There is nothing especially ground-breaking or impressive in the swordfights here. After seeing Braveheart in 1995 and Gladiator just last year, The sworplay in FELLOWSHIP seems standard by this point.
The Characters, save Gandalf, are uninvolving. Frodo comes of as one- note and spineless. As a protagnist he generates very little sympathy and left me feeling indifferent towards him.
The corrupting power of the ring is very much over-stated. Every few minutes we are subjected to an overdone scene where a character is tempted by it. A few scenes of this nature would do just fine in establishing the rings allure, but the overkill ruins the effect.
This is by no means the Greatest film of all time or even the best Fantasy/Adventure film ever made (That title still belongs to THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, sorry LOTR fans). expect that #1 ranking to go down about twnety or thirty places over the coming weeks, as more people see the film. It is passionate and well-made, but it lacks energy and a sense of wonder. In the end, it's a rather dull labor of love.
This will do well at the box office, but not as well as expected. Tolkien fanatics are expecting TITANIC size grosses, but that is wishful thinking in my opinion. The opening weekend will be surprisingly huge, of that there is no doubt. But I think word of mouth will be quite different among average movie goers than it will be among RINGS fans. This thing is so tailer made for fans I think that the ordinary layman will be somewhat underwhelmed. I predict a gross of about $250 million at the most.
First, the effects. They are well done, but the quality varies from scene to scene. The opening battle sequence suffers from a reliance on swooping cameras and blurry, dull visuals. The entire film seems awash in darkness, visually speaking. Peter Jackson uses Dark, moody lighting to enhance the CGI, and quite frankly, he over does it.
The battle sequences are adequetly coreographed but poorly filmed. There is nothing especially ground-breaking or impressive in the swordfights here. After seeing Braveheart in 1995 and Gladiator just last year, The sworplay in FELLOWSHIP seems standard by this point.
The Characters, save Gandalf, are uninvolving. Frodo comes of as one- note and spineless. As a protagnist he generates very little sympathy and left me feeling indifferent towards him.
The corrupting power of the ring is very much over-stated. Every few minutes we are subjected to an overdone scene where a character is tempted by it. A few scenes of this nature would do just fine in establishing the rings allure, but the overkill ruins the effect.
This is by no means the Greatest film of all time or even the best Fantasy/Adventure film ever made (That title still belongs to THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, sorry LOTR fans). expect that #1 ranking to go down about twnety or thirty places over the coming weeks, as more people see the film. It is passionate and well-made, but it lacks energy and a sense of wonder. In the end, it's a rather dull labor of love.
This will do well at the box office, but not as well as expected. Tolkien fanatics are expecting TITANIC size grosses, but that is wishful thinking in my opinion. The opening weekend will be surprisingly huge, of that there is no doubt. But I think word of mouth will be quite different among average movie goers than it will be among RINGS fans. This thing is so tailer made for fans I think that the ordinary layman will be somewhat underwhelmed. I predict a gross of about $250 million at the most.
Solid acting and writing rescue this film from director Antione Fuqua's glossy approach to the material (the Hughes Brothers would have made a much better choice)and a weak ending. The film is anchored by a strong central performance by Denzel and a well written screenplay, but the overall execution lacks the grit this type of subject matter demands.