Trelloskilos
mar 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.
Distintivos2
Para saber cómo ganar distintivos, ve a página de ayuda de distintivos.
Reseñas16
Clasificación de Trelloskilos
Many people know that the most common children's' tales, especially those from the likes of the brothers Grimm, started out as scary, violent, and unpleasant, but have evolved over time, being toned down with each generation, until they are just a shadow of what they used to be, no teeth, no claws, just innocent & sugary sweet stories with little heart and too much nostalgia.
Considering this, you'd have thought writing a good script for any movie based on a fairytale would be a piece of cake. Just do a bit of historical research, find an old version of the tale, flesh it out, and hey presto! Great storyline!
Red Riding Hood shows us how not to do it! For a start, they stripped the story down to the raw ingredients: (Pretty girl with a red cloak, a wolf, a grandmother, a forest), stuck in a whole load of other characters that serve little purpose to the storyline, added a love triangle and a baddie, then suddenly remembered that this was supposed to be a horror film, so they made the wolf into a WEREwolf.
OK, so it's difficult to spin the tale out to a 100 minute long storyline, but it would have been more entertaining to have just seen Valerie walk in the woods for 80 minutes, and the remaining 20 minutes to be filled with the encounter etc. - All things considered, because the cinematography was absolutely beautiful, this would have been a vast improvement on this film!
Trying to follow the story, the love triangles, the family trysts and deceptions, the "Who desired who, and who has an unrequieted love for..." was more akin to a really bad soap opera than a Gothic horror. This comparison is all the easier considering some of the trite lines and deadpan expressions from some of the actors.
A few moments made this film more bearable for me. It was very stylishly shot, and Gary Oldman's presence made the movie slightly more entertaining, but not enough to rescue this movie.
Unfortunately, it is one for the Twilight generation - a bunch of very pretty boy & girl actors who affect unfocused glassy-eyed expressions to try to convey 'Wisdom beyond their years', and a storyline that was borrowed from a Mills & Boon novella & forced into a mould that didn't quite fit.
Considering this, you'd have thought writing a good script for any movie based on a fairytale would be a piece of cake. Just do a bit of historical research, find an old version of the tale, flesh it out, and hey presto! Great storyline!
Red Riding Hood shows us how not to do it! For a start, they stripped the story down to the raw ingredients: (Pretty girl with a red cloak, a wolf, a grandmother, a forest), stuck in a whole load of other characters that serve little purpose to the storyline, added a love triangle and a baddie, then suddenly remembered that this was supposed to be a horror film, so they made the wolf into a WEREwolf.
OK, so it's difficult to spin the tale out to a 100 minute long storyline, but it would have been more entertaining to have just seen Valerie walk in the woods for 80 minutes, and the remaining 20 minutes to be filled with the encounter etc. - All things considered, because the cinematography was absolutely beautiful, this would have been a vast improvement on this film!
Trying to follow the story, the love triangles, the family trysts and deceptions, the "Who desired who, and who has an unrequieted love for..." was more akin to a really bad soap opera than a Gothic horror. This comparison is all the easier considering some of the trite lines and deadpan expressions from some of the actors.
A few moments made this film more bearable for me. It was very stylishly shot, and Gary Oldman's presence made the movie slightly more entertaining, but not enough to rescue this movie.
Unfortunately, it is one for the Twilight generation - a bunch of very pretty boy & girl actors who affect unfocused glassy-eyed expressions to try to convey 'Wisdom beyond their years', and a storyline that was borrowed from a Mills & Boon novella & forced into a mould that didn't quite fit.
What is it with CGI animators? I realise that things have come a long way from Toy Story, and we will always have the Dreamworks/Disney Pixar rivalries, but CGI animation is becoming more & more depressing. I'm not sure who he target audience of this film would be, and that is the big problem.
The majority of CGI movies nowadays seem to know it's target audience pretty well. Young kids, and parents who have to watch the movie with kids. Take a look at any successful CGI movie, and the formula is the same. Colourful characters, snappy dialogue, and a few risqué jokes that adults will chuckle at, and kids won't get. 9 has absolutely none of that.
I do not think it is a kid's movie by any stretch of the imagination. OK, it's CGI, there are a lot of cutesy characters (mostly borrowing from a narrow range of stereotypes), but the movie is colourless, the subject matter (post-apocalyptic survival, loss of humanity over technology etc.), not to mention several death scenes, scary adversaries, and very little by way of humorous dialogue, would alienate most kids.
I can't see it working as an adult's film either. It's too formulaic. You almost know exactly what is going to happen, and which of the group of 'Little Big Planet' rejects will not make it to the end.
As with most big budget animations, the artwork & rendering are top-notch, but the premise is too bleak to allow for any development. All the locations look pretty much the same, (and unfortunately, so do many of the characters). The story takes a back seat to action scenes, and overlong periods of overt displays of CGI mastery until about half-way through the film, but by then it's too late, and the explanations for the existence of the sack-boys, and of the world is dealt with all in 30 seconds, before we are back to more action scenes and doe eyed puppets.
OK, I will grant that I am presuming all CGI movies must be aimed at kids. I understand this shouldn't be the case. After all, Watership Down, & Animal Farm were examples of animation which were not really that child-friendly, but at least there was an elememt of morality with the tales they told. '9' doesn't really resolve itself that well, and it does end with a very nasty cliché.
Nice try, but there are better CGI movies that both adults AND kids can enjoy out there.
The majority of CGI movies nowadays seem to know it's target audience pretty well. Young kids, and parents who have to watch the movie with kids. Take a look at any successful CGI movie, and the formula is the same. Colourful characters, snappy dialogue, and a few risqué jokes that adults will chuckle at, and kids won't get. 9 has absolutely none of that.
I do not think it is a kid's movie by any stretch of the imagination. OK, it's CGI, there are a lot of cutesy characters (mostly borrowing from a narrow range of stereotypes), but the movie is colourless, the subject matter (post-apocalyptic survival, loss of humanity over technology etc.), not to mention several death scenes, scary adversaries, and very little by way of humorous dialogue, would alienate most kids.
I can't see it working as an adult's film either. It's too formulaic. You almost know exactly what is going to happen, and which of the group of 'Little Big Planet' rejects will not make it to the end.
As with most big budget animations, the artwork & rendering are top-notch, but the premise is too bleak to allow for any development. All the locations look pretty much the same, (and unfortunately, so do many of the characters). The story takes a back seat to action scenes, and overlong periods of overt displays of CGI mastery until about half-way through the film, but by then it's too late, and the explanations for the existence of the sack-boys, and of the world is dealt with all in 30 seconds, before we are back to more action scenes and doe eyed puppets.
OK, I will grant that I am presuming all CGI movies must be aimed at kids. I understand this shouldn't be the case. After all, Watership Down, & Animal Farm were examples of animation which were not really that child-friendly, but at least there was an elememt of morality with the tales they told. '9' doesn't really resolve itself that well, and it does end with a very nasty cliché.
Nice try, but there are better CGI movies that both adults AND kids can enjoy out there.