satterwh
A rejoint le déc. 1999
Bienvenue sur nouveau profil
Nos mises à jour sont toujours en cours de développement. Bien que la version précédente de le profil ne soit plus accessible, nous travaillons activement à des améliorations, et certaines fonctionnalités manquantes seront bientôt de retour ! Restez à l'écoute de leur retour. En attendant, l’analyse des évaluations est toujours disponible sur nos applications iOS et Android, qui se trouvent sur la page de profil. Pour consulter la répartition de vos évaluations par année et par genre, veuillez consulter notre nouveau Guide d'aide.
Badges4
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Avis22
Note de satterwh
OK, it wasn't the original series. *NOTHING* will be the original series. That said, it was a worthy followup.
Let's get the honesty part out of the way. I am a major fan of The Munsters. I thought the update "The Munsters Today" was horrible - because it violated the basic premise of the show. In "The Munsters Today", a good part of it had to do with the Munsters wanting to be "normal" - Eddie even changing his clothes and hairstyle. The main premise of The Munsters is that the family believed that they *WERE* "normal". That was it's charm.
In this version, the Munsters were what we knew and loved. They saw themselves as the average family. It gave us a bit of background to their being here. I *LOVED* Eddie actually changing into a werewolf - and Lilly biting someone on the neck.
I wish this had gone to series - it would have almost made up for "The Munsters Today". I wouldn't have had the chemistry of the original cast - but it did have a good one of it's own.
The Munsters aren't dead ... they're just waiting to rise again - and I can hardly wait.
Let's get the honesty part out of the way. I am a major fan of The Munsters. I thought the update "The Munsters Today" was horrible - because it violated the basic premise of the show. In "The Munsters Today", a good part of it had to do with the Munsters wanting to be "normal" - Eddie even changing his clothes and hairstyle. The main premise of The Munsters is that the family believed that they *WERE* "normal". That was it's charm.
In this version, the Munsters were what we knew and loved. They saw themselves as the average family. It gave us a bit of background to their being here. I *LOVED* Eddie actually changing into a werewolf - and Lilly biting someone on the neck.
I wish this had gone to series - it would have almost made up for "The Munsters Today". I wouldn't have had the chemistry of the original cast - but it did have a good one of it's own.
The Munsters aren't dead ... they're just waiting to rise again - and I can hardly wait.
First, I want to say that I really like historical dramas. This leads me to a bias, however. A good historical drama needs the feel of the period it represents.
Marie Antoinette completely fails at this. Costumes were good, but there was no real feel of the excesses of the French court that led to its downfall. The score was - in my opinion - an unmitigated disaster. It didn't know what it was trying to be. Ranging from anachronistically modern to occasional strains that *MIGHT* have been intended for a past period, it detracted rather than enhanced the experience.
Ms. Dunst is a good actress - but she wasn't allowed to show it here. She looked like she was sleep-walking through the film.
Not surprisingly, it took great liberties with history. Certainly not unusual in such a piece, but the inaccuracies seemed to be based in an attempt to show Louix XVI in a poor light. The sad part is that he *WAS* a poor king. It would have been better to properly portray him.
I give it a 3 out of 10.
Marie Antoinette completely fails at this. Costumes were good, but there was no real feel of the excesses of the French court that led to its downfall. The score was - in my opinion - an unmitigated disaster. It didn't know what it was trying to be. Ranging from anachronistically modern to occasional strains that *MIGHT* have been intended for a past period, it detracted rather than enhanced the experience.
Ms. Dunst is a good actress - but she wasn't allowed to show it here. She looked like she was sleep-walking through the film.
Not surprisingly, it took great liberties with history. Certainly not unusual in such a piece, but the inaccuracies seemed to be based in an attempt to show Louix XVI in a poor light. The sad part is that he *WAS* a poor king. It would have been better to properly portray him.
I give it a 3 out of 10.
