André-3
ene 2001 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.
Reseñas19
Clasificación de André-3
How can I describe the awfulness of this movie? Cliché-ridden? Yes. Dull? Yes. Unimaginative? Yes. Predictable? Yes. Unfunny? Yes.
But it is even worse than that. After about 40 minutes of this inane story, I looked at my watch, and we were only about 10 minutes in this dragging film. After about 30 minutes, my wife said to me "I am so relieved that YOU picked it!"
What else is awful about it? The music! A pale, pale, pale, pale attempt at imitating a 1950's musical. Sorry, I was around when the 1950 musicals came out, and they were nothing like this uninspired version. Who would want to listen again to ANY of the boring lyrics of ANY of the songs in this movie! Pity the poor sound editor of this movie who had to listen to them again and again.
What else is awful? Well, many things. The chipmunk scenes, for instance. Who wants to spend any part of his or her time on Earth watching a chipmunk do a charade ? And then later in the film, do ANOTHER one!
A critic wrote that Walt Disney would be proud of this film. This is what made me suggest to my wife that we should see it as our Friday-night-at-the-movies selection. Au contraire, there is nothing of the genius of the original Disney films in this very limp version of a fairy tale. I think he would be appalled.
Incompetence must not be rewarded. Don't go and see it.
André
But it is even worse than that. After about 40 minutes of this inane story, I looked at my watch, and we were only about 10 minutes in this dragging film. After about 30 minutes, my wife said to me "I am so relieved that YOU picked it!"
What else is awful about it? The music! A pale, pale, pale, pale attempt at imitating a 1950's musical. Sorry, I was around when the 1950 musicals came out, and they were nothing like this uninspired version. Who would want to listen again to ANY of the boring lyrics of ANY of the songs in this movie! Pity the poor sound editor of this movie who had to listen to them again and again.
What else is awful? Well, many things. The chipmunk scenes, for instance. Who wants to spend any part of his or her time on Earth watching a chipmunk do a charade ? And then later in the film, do ANOTHER one!
A critic wrote that Walt Disney would be proud of this film. This is what made me suggest to my wife that we should see it as our Friday-night-at-the-movies selection. Au contraire, there is nothing of the genius of the original Disney films in this very limp version of a fairy tale. I think he would be appalled.
Incompetence must not be rewarded. Don't go and see it.
André
Because the overly intrusive sound effects keep everyone awake.
What a boring,fastidious, stupid, predictable, cliché-ridden, poorly-casted and acted film.
I went to see the film a bit out of curiosity because I wondered how someone could make an interesting movie out of such an implausible character. After all, it had been done with Batman.
Well, they couldn't,it turns out. They did not even try.
I was also misled by the positive ratings the film received from reviewers. Whose judgement can one trust these days...?
The film is a sequence of one ridiculous scene after another with no attempt at all to create any kind of internal logic. I am ready to suspend disbelief and go along with certain outlandish topics but only on the condition that there is some effort to establish a bit of logic between the elements of the storyline.
Add to this the fact that the characters are nothing more than cardboard cut-outs reciting their lines.
It is to be feared that the availability of computer software to create "dazzling" images of crashing planes and earth-moving tremors may spell the end of good cinema. Why bother with intelligent story lines and well-crafted screen plays when all you need to entertain are a few buttons to create monstrous scenes of destruction or pandemonium?
It seems that movie goers are at the mercy of studios directed by people whose purpose in life is to collect as much money as possible from 12 year-olds !
What a boring,fastidious, stupid, predictable, cliché-ridden, poorly-casted and acted film.
I went to see the film a bit out of curiosity because I wondered how someone could make an interesting movie out of such an implausible character. After all, it had been done with Batman.
Well, they couldn't,it turns out. They did not even try.
I was also misled by the positive ratings the film received from reviewers. Whose judgement can one trust these days...?
The film is a sequence of one ridiculous scene after another with no attempt at all to create any kind of internal logic. I am ready to suspend disbelief and go along with certain outlandish topics but only on the condition that there is some effort to establish a bit of logic between the elements of the storyline.
Add to this the fact that the characters are nothing more than cardboard cut-outs reciting their lines.
It is to be feared that the availability of computer software to create "dazzling" images of crashing planes and earth-moving tremors may spell the end of good cinema. Why bother with intelligent story lines and well-crafted screen plays when all you need to entertain are a few buttons to create monstrous scenes of destruction or pandemonium?
It seems that movie goers are at the mercy of studios directed by people whose purpose in life is to collect as much money as possible from 12 year-olds !
While my wife and I found the film interesting and worth the time and expense to view it, we also found it to be lacking in an important way.
Whether this was the intent or not, this film will be viewed by many as an insight into what the war in the Persian Gulf was. By focusing exclusively on the impact of the war on the lives of American soldiers, we are again presented with an incomplete view of a real event. A view that reiterates the hopefully false impression that the importance of any event is the impact that it has on the United States or its citizens.
One of the major impacts of the war in Iraq is the calamity that it has brought to the Iraqui population (whether or not it was for their own good is not the point). This essential dimension is totally absent from the film. In fact, I recollect less than 10 Arabs portrayed in that film (unless you count the corpses). If the impact of the war on the general population was not an important consideration in the soldiers' reaction to their war experience, this in itself is a highly revealing fact that needs to be presented.
In order to understand my concern about this film, imagine that someone made a film about the bombing of Germany and focused nearly exclusively on the experiences of the bomber pilots without covering in any way the impact of this bombing on the general population. Such a film would quite rightly be considered deeply flawed, no matter your opinion on the culpability of the German populace with respect to Nazi crimes. If the pilots had not been concerned about the negative side effects of their actions (they were), that is an important dimension that would have needed to be presented.
Whether this was the intent or not, this film will be viewed by many as an insight into what the war in the Persian Gulf was. By focusing exclusively on the impact of the war on the lives of American soldiers, we are again presented with an incomplete view of a real event. A view that reiterates the hopefully false impression that the importance of any event is the impact that it has on the United States or its citizens.
One of the major impacts of the war in Iraq is the calamity that it has brought to the Iraqui population (whether or not it was for their own good is not the point). This essential dimension is totally absent from the film. In fact, I recollect less than 10 Arabs portrayed in that film (unless you count the corpses). If the impact of the war on the general population was not an important consideration in the soldiers' reaction to their war experience, this in itself is a highly revealing fact that needs to be presented.
In order to understand my concern about this film, imagine that someone made a film about the bombing of Germany and focused nearly exclusively on the experiences of the bomber pilots without covering in any way the impact of this bombing on the general population. Such a film would quite rightly be considered deeply flawed, no matter your opinion on the culpability of the German populace with respect to Nazi crimes. If the pilots had not been concerned about the negative side effects of their actions (they were), that is an important dimension that would have needed to be presented.