clayj
may 1999 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.
Distintivos4
Para saber cómo ganar distintivos, ve a página de ayuda de distintivos.
Calificaciones422
Clasificación de clayj
Reseñas3
Clasificación de clayj
So Amazon Studios spent about a billion dollars buying material from the Tolkien estate. What did they get?:
* Names of characters * Names of places * A tiny bit of backstory
What DIDN'T they get?:
* Any actual character-driven stories * Any actual dialog * Any in-depth material describing character motivations * ANY access to ANYTHING from "The Lord of the Rings" (the books) or "The Hobbit"
No, everything they didn't get, they had to make up, along with a bunch of brand-new characters -- and clearly the writers are not actual fans of Tolkien or his work.
So you have characters doing things they shouldn't and saying things they shouldn't and interacting with other characters who weren't even alive at the same time, all within a just decent-looking setup that doesn't even look as nice as the original movies, 20 years ago.
This was a dumb mistake, Amazon. I hope you come to realize that.
* Names of characters * Names of places * A tiny bit of backstory
What DIDN'T they get?:
* Any actual character-driven stories * Any actual dialog * Any in-depth material describing character motivations * ANY access to ANYTHING from "The Lord of the Rings" (the books) or "The Hobbit"
No, everything they didn't get, they had to make up, along with a bunch of brand-new characters -- and clearly the writers are not actual fans of Tolkien or his work.
So you have characters doing things they shouldn't and saying things they shouldn't and interacting with other characters who weren't even alive at the same time, all within a just decent-looking setup that doesn't even look as nice as the original movies, 20 years ago.
This was a dumb mistake, Amazon. I hope you come to realize that.
Gone are the days when Britain produced quality SF TV shows - OG "Doctor Who", "Blake's 7", "Space: 1999", etc. I watched 30 minutes of this and will never get it back. How in the heck did this ever get greenlit?
Wow.
I mean, WOW.
"Gravity" is -- without a doubt -- the most mind-blowing film I've ever seen. Storywise, it's pretty simple -- a routine Hubble-servicing mission turns into a fight for survival when a destroyed satellite floods LEO with 17,000 MPH debris -- and George Clooney and especially Sandra Bullock both do a great job in their respective roles. But the real genius of this film lies in its special effects, INCREDIBLY long and complicated shots (which totally generate a "you are there" feeling), and PERFECT attention to detail. Cuarón has taken Kubrick's "2001: a space odyssey" to the next level, and then some. I dare say this puts even "Blade Runner" to shame in the "amaze your eyeballs" department (although that movie is and always will be the pinnacle of pre-CGI film). The 3D is perfectly used, especially in the spacesuit scenes.
If you can't actually GO to space, this is the absolute next best thing.
I give "Gravity" a 10+ out of 10. Go see it.
I mean, WOW.
"Gravity" is -- without a doubt -- the most mind-blowing film I've ever seen. Storywise, it's pretty simple -- a routine Hubble-servicing mission turns into a fight for survival when a destroyed satellite floods LEO with 17,000 MPH debris -- and George Clooney and especially Sandra Bullock both do a great job in their respective roles. But the real genius of this film lies in its special effects, INCREDIBLY long and complicated shots (which totally generate a "you are there" feeling), and PERFECT attention to detail. Cuarón has taken Kubrick's "2001: a space odyssey" to the next level, and then some. I dare say this puts even "Blade Runner" to shame in the "amaze your eyeballs" department (although that movie is and always will be the pinnacle of pre-CGI film). The 3D is perfectly used, especially in the spacesuit scenes.
If you can't actually GO to space, this is the absolute next best thing.
I give "Gravity" a 10+ out of 10. Go see it.
Encuestas realizadas recientemente
7 en total de las encuestas realizadas
