Lechuguilla
may 2003 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.
Distintivos3
Para saber cómo ganar distintivos, ve a página de ayuda de distintivos.
Reseñas927
Clasificación de Lechuguilla
Early in the story, a loquacious Amanda (Katharine Hepburn) and her two twenty-something children, Tom (Sam Waterston) and Laura (Joanna Miles), are eating dinner in their dining room. In her long-winded, nervous chatter, Amanda abruptly notices that son Tom is eating too fast. "You must chew your food; animals have secretions
But human beings must chew their food; a well-cooked meal has many delicate flavors, so chew, chew, chew." To which an angry Tom shoots back: "Mother, I have not enjoyed one bite of this dinner because of your constant directions on how to eat it. It's you that makes me rush through meals with your hawk-like attention to every bite I take".
Later, Tom is sitting at a table writing. Amanda comes over and scolds him for his poor posture: "Now why can't you sit up straight I know what that position does to your internal organs. Now you sit up straight; here I'll show you. Your stomach pressed against your lungs, your lungs pressed against your heart, and that poor little heart gets discouraged 'cause it hasn't got any room left to go on beatin' for you".
But that's Amanda: an overbearing busybody who means well, but dominates those around her. She is so sure of herself and her moral values. Tom feels trapped, not only by his mother but also because of his mundane job at a warehouse. Daughter Laura is crippled and has a dreadful inferiority complex, which makes her shy. She identifies with her tiny glass animals, as fragile as she is.
Set almost entirely indoors in a drab little apartment in St. Louis, "The Glass Menagerie" is a play that conveys a lot of human feelings: anger, guilt, regret, dependency, and emotional damage. There's also a bit of humor. The story takes place during the WWII era of the 1940s. Eventually, Amanda imposes her wishes on Laura as well, as the mother badgers Tom to bring home a "gentleman caller" for Laura, in an effort to prevent Laura from being an old maid. What follows is both inspiring and heartrending.
The claustrophobic script is talky as one would expect for a play. The drab costumes are appropriate given the family's financial straits and the time period. Camera is largely static and functions mainly as a fly on the wall. Casting is very good. Acting is terrific. Hepburn does a wonderful job, except that she talks too fast for a Southern woman. The ending leaves viewers hanging.
With minor exceptions, the script and the performances are marvelous. Yet I'm not sure I would want to watch the film again; it is so depressing, especially toward the end.
Later, Tom is sitting at a table writing. Amanda comes over and scolds him for his poor posture: "Now why can't you sit up straight I know what that position does to your internal organs. Now you sit up straight; here I'll show you. Your stomach pressed against your lungs, your lungs pressed against your heart, and that poor little heart gets discouraged 'cause it hasn't got any room left to go on beatin' for you".
But that's Amanda: an overbearing busybody who means well, but dominates those around her. She is so sure of herself and her moral values. Tom feels trapped, not only by his mother but also because of his mundane job at a warehouse. Daughter Laura is crippled and has a dreadful inferiority complex, which makes her shy. She identifies with her tiny glass animals, as fragile as she is.
Set almost entirely indoors in a drab little apartment in St. Louis, "The Glass Menagerie" is a play that conveys a lot of human feelings: anger, guilt, regret, dependency, and emotional damage. There's also a bit of humor. The story takes place during the WWII era of the 1940s. Eventually, Amanda imposes her wishes on Laura as well, as the mother badgers Tom to bring home a "gentleman caller" for Laura, in an effort to prevent Laura from being an old maid. What follows is both inspiring and heartrending.
The claustrophobic script is talky as one would expect for a play. The drab costumes are appropriate given the family's financial straits and the time period. Camera is largely static and functions mainly as a fly on the wall. Casting is very good. Acting is terrific. Hepburn does a wonderful job, except that she talks too fast for a Southern woman. The ending leaves viewers hanging.
With minor exceptions, the script and the performances are marvelous. Yet I'm not sure I would want to watch the film again; it is so depressing, especially toward the end.
The film plots the response of the British royal family to the death of Princess Diana in a car accident in 1997. Tension focuses on the idea that, in contrast to the general public, the Royals didn't much care for Diana. In one scene, Prime Minister Blair (Michael Sheen), in tune with the public's mood, talks on the phone with the Queen; they're discussing how the monarchy should respond to Diana's death. After a tense and difficult conversation, Blair concludes by saying: "let's keep in touch". To which the Queen, in an icy voice, responds curtly: "Yes, let's", then hangs up. "The Queen" is a good movie.
In the film, the Queen (Helen Mirren) comes across as dignified, disciplined, confident, unemotional but brooding, perceptive, stoic, and fond of protocol and tradition. Blair comes across as informal, perceptive, jovial, and easy to relate to. Differences in their personalities are blatant and obvious.
In addition to a delicate script that zips along at a good clip, the film's production design is terrific. Though palace interiors are probably tacky in comparison to what the real British palaces must look like, the film crew does a fine job with the budget they had to work with. Ditto the credible costumes. Cinematography is fine. Casting is ideal.
A couple of concerns keep the film from being really great. There's a bit too much screen time spent on the "stag" hunt in the North. And in those scenes, I wouldn't have thought that the Queen actually drives a car herself, or wears a scarf. And second, and more important, you get the feeling that the film was made in direct response to the death of Diana; otherwise, the film would never have been made. If that's true, then it's Diana who is the real story here, and the title is thus a tad disingenuous.
Despite my problem with the film's reason for being, "The Queen" is a fascinating drama. Helen Mirren's understated performance is wonderful, and boosts the overall quality tremendously. It's a film well worth watching.
In the film, the Queen (Helen Mirren) comes across as dignified, disciplined, confident, unemotional but brooding, perceptive, stoic, and fond of protocol and tradition. Blair comes across as informal, perceptive, jovial, and easy to relate to. Differences in their personalities are blatant and obvious.
In addition to a delicate script that zips along at a good clip, the film's production design is terrific. Though palace interiors are probably tacky in comparison to what the real British palaces must look like, the film crew does a fine job with the budget they had to work with. Ditto the credible costumes. Cinematography is fine. Casting is ideal.
A couple of concerns keep the film from being really great. There's a bit too much screen time spent on the "stag" hunt in the North. And in those scenes, I wouldn't have thought that the Queen actually drives a car herself, or wears a scarf. And second, and more important, you get the feeling that the film was made in direct response to the death of Diana; otherwise, the film would never have been made. If that's true, then it's Diana who is the real story here, and the title is thus a tad disingenuous.
Despite my problem with the film's reason for being, "The Queen" is a fascinating drama. Helen Mirren's understated performance is wonderful, and boosts the overall quality tremendously. It's a film well worth watching.
It's San Miguel, in Mexico. The town's got two bosses; neither likes the other. Both bosses lord over a clan of bad guys. The town is not moral; it's a town of death. Into this gloom rides Joe the stranger (Clint Eastwood). The stranger may or may not be a good guy. But he's a sharpshooter with a .45 pistol, and he uses it, a lot. He sizes up things in San Miguel and formulates a clever plan. This stranger is smart.
Commonly referred to as the first spaghetti western, "A Fistful Of Dollars" evokes a new style: a script with grungy, mean characters; minimal dialogue; a hip protagonist vaguely similar to James Bond. Also, sets, costumes, and music are all highly stylized. I like the style.
The script is engineered for maximum entertainment. There are action climax sequences about every ten minutes. Sounds of gunshots are heightened. We never learn anything about Eastwood's character, which makes him mysterious, indeed.
Outdoor visuals were shot mostly in southern Spain. Cinematography makes use of long camera shots and extreme close-ups. Camera filters are poorly used in day for night shots. Production design is terrific. San Miguel looks pleasantly minimal with its whitewashed adobe dwellings and dirt streets.
The look of the film and the script convey a sense of isolation, mystery, and death. There are references to Easter: a crucifixion, resurrection, a last supper. Though I have never been an Eastwood fan, and would have preferred another actor in his role, the multi-national cast perform their parts well.
Aside from the casting of Eastwood, my main problem is the blurring of villains. With two evil gangs, it was hard to tell who was who, and which side each character was on. Overall, though, "A Fistful Of Dollars" is an entertaining western. I like its 1960s style much better than the stale, stereotypes of pre-1960 westerns. And that mournful, funereal dirge of Morricone's soundtrack adds enormously to the film's emotional tone.
Commonly referred to as the first spaghetti western, "A Fistful Of Dollars" evokes a new style: a script with grungy, mean characters; minimal dialogue; a hip protagonist vaguely similar to James Bond. Also, sets, costumes, and music are all highly stylized. I like the style.
The script is engineered for maximum entertainment. There are action climax sequences about every ten minutes. Sounds of gunshots are heightened. We never learn anything about Eastwood's character, which makes him mysterious, indeed.
Outdoor visuals were shot mostly in southern Spain. Cinematography makes use of long camera shots and extreme close-ups. Camera filters are poorly used in day for night shots. Production design is terrific. San Miguel looks pleasantly minimal with its whitewashed adobe dwellings and dirt streets.
The look of the film and the script convey a sense of isolation, mystery, and death. There are references to Easter: a crucifixion, resurrection, a last supper. Though I have never been an Eastwood fan, and would have preferred another actor in his role, the multi-national cast perform their parts well.
Aside from the casting of Eastwood, my main problem is the blurring of villains. With two evil gangs, it was hard to tell who was who, and which side each character was on. Overall, though, "A Fistful Of Dollars" is an entertaining western. I like its 1960s style much better than the stale, stereotypes of pre-1960 westerns. And that mournful, funereal dirge of Morricone's soundtrack adds enormously to the film's emotional tone.