El Cine
jul 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.
Distintivos5
Para saber cómo ganar distintivos, ve a página de ayuda de distintivos.
Reseñas76
Clasificación de El Cine
An informative and entertaining documentary, but I can only recommend it to those who have seen most/all of Hitchcock's films, since the doc spoils many of them.
Because the doc is centered on an analysis of the movie Blackmail, I suppose one should expect the spoilers we get for it. But in the process, without warning, the program also gives major spoilers (including footage) from Sabotage, Psycho, Vertigo, Murder, and Stage Fright. (For the last two, it even gives away who the murderers are!)
From a critical standpoint, the spoilers do tie into the documentary's overall message. But it would've been a service to the audience if a warning had appeared at the beginning, especially about the last five films I mentioned.
If you've watched them and Blackmail first, you will probably enjoy coming back to see what Becoming Hitchcock (BH) has to say. Besides being a good film, Blackmail was historically important. Routinely held up as Britain's first sound film, it dramatically--and uniquely--marked Hitchcock's transition to sound, since he wound up making both the "talkie" and a silent version for older theaters.
BH compares how Hitchcock handled certain scenes differently in the two versions, based on the different technology he had available. Likewise, BH convincingly argues that Hitchcock, though highly accomplished at silent cinema, used the shift to sound to make even greater use of his genius.
In the process, BH observes how themes and techniques he used in Blackmail would resurface in his later films. E.g. The use of chases, and voyeurism. It results in a compelling case that Blackmail was formative to his career and more typical of his work than people might realize. (Blackmail was a big hit in its day and is still well-regarded by Hitchcockians. But even though it's not as obscure as the likes of The Skin Game or Mr. And Mrs. Smith, it's nonetheless overshadowed by fancier classics like Rear Window, North by Northwest, etc.) Hence the title of the documentary, and all the clips from other Hitchcock films.
Although it would benefit from a more professional narrator (film critic Elvis Mitchell doesn't sound like he's done a lot of these), BH was an enjoyable look back at our favorite Hitchcock movies, and educational about Blackmail and Hitchcock's career circa 1930. I'm glad I already watched the movies they spoiled, though!
Because the doc is centered on an analysis of the movie Blackmail, I suppose one should expect the spoilers we get for it. But in the process, without warning, the program also gives major spoilers (including footage) from Sabotage, Psycho, Vertigo, Murder, and Stage Fright. (For the last two, it even gives away who the murderers are!)
From a critical standpoint, the spoilers do tie into the documentary's overall message. But it would've been a service to the audience if a warning had appeared at the beginning, especially about the last five films I mentioned.
If you've watched them and Blackmail first, you will probably enjoy coming back to see what Becoming Hitchcock (BH) has to say. Besides being a good film, Blackmail was historically important. Routinely held up as Britain's first sound film, it dramatically--and uniquely--marked Hitchcock's transition to sound, since he wound up making both the "talkie" and a silent version for older theaters.
BH compares how Hitchcock handled certain scenes differently in the two versions, based on the different technology he had available. Likewise, BH convincingly argues that Hitchcock, though highly accomplished at silent cinema, used the shift to sound to make even greater use of his genius.
In the process, BH observes how themes and techniques he used in Blackmail would resurface in his later films. E.g. The use of chases, and voyeurism. It results in a compelling case that Blackmail was formative to his career and more typical of his work than people might realize. (Blackmail was a big hit in its day and is still well-regarded by Hitchcockians. But even though it's not as obscure as the likes of The Skin Game or Mr. And Mrs. Smith, it's nonetheless overshadowed by fancier classics like Rear Window, North by Northwest, etc.) Hence the title of the documentary, and all the clips from other Hitchcock films.
Although it would benefit from a more professional narrator (film critic Elvis Mitchell doesn't sound like he's done a lot of these), BH was an enjoyable look back at our favorite Hitchcock movies, and educational about Blackmail and Hitchcock's career circa 1930. I'm glad I already watched the movies they spoiled, though!
I've been watching this series out of order, and just now viewed this episode, "Good News". The detective Ellen Norgaard had been the 2nd lead for a few years by this point. Some episodes have shown her as a single mother of Jesper, who is about 2 years old in "Good News". They did not reveal what we're told now, however: that the boy's father is a newscaster named Jonas Gomez, and that Ellen chose not to inform him about Jesper until now.
Baltic Crimes (or whatever alternate title you're seeing it under) is passable homicide detective show fodder, with plots taking priority. I can't say Ellen or any of the other characters particularly interest me, except for the boss Dirk Brunner (because surprisingly he's comic relief). However, the other Ellen episodes never indicate she'd do something so harmful, selfish, and frankly evil as concealing a boy from his father for 2 years.
The reason given is some nonsense about her "not wanting that kind of life".
So, for 2 years, she not only denies her son a father, but denies his father the chance to be with his infant son at all!
What was going through the filmmakers' heads?
And why am I not surprised that Ellen and Jonas remain self-absorbed. As each seeks to go off and consider things, there is no suggestion that Jesper deserves to have both his parents nearby to raise him, let alone in the same household.
I haven't said much about the mystery, have I? Neither does the episode, really, focused so much on Ellen's melodrama. Actually, the suspense in this episode is less oriented around a usual murder plot; this plot is one of those "The Big Clock" plots where the hero strains to cover up her personal involvement with the crime or prime suspect.
Baltic Crimes (or whatever alternate title you're seeing it under) is passable homicide detective show fodder, with plots taking priority. I can't say Ellen or any of the other characters particularly interest me, except for the boss Dirk Brunner (because surprisingly he's comic relief). However, the other Ellen episodes never indicate she'd do something so harmful, selfish, and frankly evil as concealing a boy from his father for 2 years.
The reason given is some nonsense about her "not wanting that kind of life".
So, for 2 years, she not only denies her son a father, but denies his father the chance to be with his infant son at all!
What was going through the filmmakers' heads?
And why am I not surprised that Ellen and Jonas remain self-absorbed. As each seeks to go off and consider things, there is no suggestion that Jesper deserves to have both his parents nearby to raise him, let alone in the same household.
I haven't said much about the mystery, have I? Neither does the episode, really, focused so much on Ellen's melodrama. Actually, the suspense in this episode is less oriented around a usual murder plot; this plot is one of those "The Big Clock" plots where the hero strains to cover up her personal involvement with the crime or prime suspect.
(This review is based on the first 3 episodes.)
I thought that despite being entertaining in some ways, and well-made, "Reilly: Ace of Spies" is too morally unhinged, thanks to its protagonist. I've heard of antiheroes, but this is like watching a show where the villain is the main character.
Sam Neill stars as a Russian adventurer of sorts who makes money off of espionage. He emigrates to the UK and, through vague circumstances, comes into the employ of their intelligence service (as it was at the turn of the 20th century).
As a secret agent, Reilly proves smart and effective. His rationale for picking his alias is ingenious--i.e. That Irishmen are welcome in other countries but hated in Britain, and therefore no one would suspect an Irishman of being a British agent.
However, Reilly applies his skills ruthlessly. Values like patriotism, justice, and security play no role for him--in fact, he appears to have no values at all. The world of espionage he inhabits has more than a few characters as shady as he is, but this doesn't make it easier to root for him. He kills whoever gets in his way, throws his allies to the wolves if it benefits him, and even makes a habit of dragging innocent civilians into his schemes, exploiting or endangering them in the process.
The result of this is a series that (unintentionally?) puts intelligence agencies in a bad light, including "good guys" like the UK (which is where the filmmakers come from). Possibly this is the series' point.
In the third episode, for instance, "The Visiting Fireman", you might wonder who it's better to root for: the Germans who summarily execute British spies, or the British spies in question, who are even more murderous and, after all, trying to steal weapon plans they have no right to. (The series glosses over the whole issue of UK spies functioning as a band of criminals: they infiltrate a foreign country, steal plans, murder anyone who gets in their way, and exploit a couple civilians in the process. Aren't these peacetime acts of war? Why do the Germans accept it?)
The series isn't filmed like a comedy, but Episode 3's voiceover is practically satire, the way it goes against the events we've just witnessed. We are told they represented an increasing professionalization of espionage, but they seemed to represent the opposite. Reilly's actions were unprofessional, unethical, and destructive.
On top of the espionage crimes, he kills a watchman offscreen, and abuses his landlord's trust. He blatantly ignores his order to assist Goschen, instead deciding to go it alone, to the point where he doesn't even reveal his own identity to him. He intercepts Goschen's mail to keep him out of touch with HQ. When a superior visits Reilly, Reilly defies him to his face. Why Reilly's superiors are feckless enough to go along with all this is never explained.
Supposedly this series is based on a real spy from history, who went by Sidney Reilly. But between his murky background, the secrets of the political world, possible tall tales, and the question of how accurate the series' source material could've been, I didn't take it that seriously.
For the modest time I watched, I was more interested in the style and the strong guest stars. The style is slick for early 80s British TV, if a little intellectual. Leo McKern is welcome as a rich arms dealer, and John Rhys-Davies is well-cast as a foreign official who detains Reilly in the pilot, potentially both genteel and thuggish. There's even an early plum role for Bill Nighy as Goschen. David Suchet is sensitive as a detective and adversary to Reilly, but it's yellowface casting (probably one of the last examples of that, too).
But it's Reilly we're stuck with. He seems no more than a sociopath, and Sam Neill plays him as one, preening, leering, and self-absorbed. The series doesn't shy away from how lousy his behavior is, and how his German adversary von Jaegar seems more honorable than him. Still, it leaves me wondering why they decided to center a series around a person like Reilly.
But not curious enough to watch to the end. While the UK has made numerous short series that are basically miniseries of 6 episodes, interestingly "Reilly: Ace of Spies" resembles the "limited series" common today, with eleven 50-minute episodes following a longer opener. The idea of watching Reilly for *nine* more episodes didn't appeal to me.
I thought that despite being entertaining in some ways, and well-made, "Reilly: Ace of Spies" is too morally unhinged, thanks to its protagonist. I've heard of antiheroes, but this is like watching a show where the villain is the main character.
Sam Neill stars as a Russian adventurer of sorts who makes money off of espionage. He emigrates to the UK and, through vague circumstances, comes into the employ of their intelligence service (as it was at the turn of the 20th century).
As a secret agent, Reilly proves smart and effective. His rationale for picking his alias is ingenious--i.e. That Irishmen are welcome in other countries but hated in Britain, and therefore no one would suspect an Irishman of being a British agent.
However, Reilly applies his skills ruthlessly. Values like patriotism, justice, and security play no role for him--in fact, he appears to have no values at all. The world of espionage he inhabits has more than a few characters as shady as he is, but this doesn't make it easier to root for him. He kills whoever gets in his way, throws his allies to the wolves if it benefits him, and even makes a habit of dragging innocent civilians into his schemes, exploiting or endangering them in the process.
The result of this is a series that (unintentionally?) puts intelligence agencies in a bad light, including "good guys" like the UK (which is where the filmmakers come from). Possibly this is the series' point.
In the third episode, for instance, "The Visiting Fireman", you might wonder who it's better to root for: the Germans who summarily execute British spies, or the British spies in question, who are even more murderous and, after all, trying to steal weapon plans they have no right to. (The series glosses over the whole issue of UK spies functioning as a band of criminals: they infiltrate a foreign country, steal plans, murder anyone who gets in their way, and exploit a couple civilians in the process. Aren't these peacetime acts of war? Why do the Germans accept it?)
The series isn't filmed like a comedy, but Episode 3's voiceover is practically satire, the way it goes against the events we've just witnessed. We are told they represented an increasing professionalization of espionage, but they seemed to represent the opposite. Reilly's actions were unprofessional, unethical, and destructive.
On top of the espionage crimes, he kills a watchman offscreen, and abuses his landlord's trust. He blatantly ignores his order to assist Goschen, instead deciding to go it alone, to the point where he doesn't even reveal his own identity to him. He intercepts Goschen's mail to keep him out of touch with HQ. When a superior visits Reilly, Reilly defies him to his face. Why Reilly's superiors are feckless enough to go along with all this is never explained.
Supposedly this series is based on a real spy from history, who went by Sidney Reilly. But between his murky background, the secrets of the political world, possible tall tales, and the question of how accurate the series' source material could've been, I didn't take it that seriously.
For the modest time I watched, I was more interested in the style and the strong guest stars. The style is slick for early 80s British TV, if a little intellectual. Leo McKern is welcome as a rich arms dealer, and John Rhys-Davies is well-cast as a foreign official who detains Reilly in the pilot, potentially both genteel and thuggish. There's even an early plum role for Bill Nighy as Goschen. David Suchet is sensitive as a detective and adversary to Reilly, but it's yellowface casting (probably one of the last examples of that, too).
But it's Reilly we're stuck with. He seems no more than a sociopath, and Sam Neill plays him as one, preening, leering, and self-absorbed. The series doesn't shy away from how lousy his behavior is, and how his German adversary von Jaegar seems more honorable than him. Still, it leaves me wondering why they decided to center a series around a person like Reilly.
But not curious enough to watch to the end. While the UK has made numerous short series that are basically miniseries of 6 episodes, interestingly "Reilly: Ace of Spies" resembles the "limited series" common today, with eleven 50-minute episodes following a longer opener. The idea of watching Reilly for *nine* more episodes didn't appeal to me.