zarembazwoman
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.
Badges1
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Avis7
Note de zarembazwoman
Contrary to the opinion of the previous commentator, this film was an execrable mess. It was completely ahistorical, to begin with. In the year 1934, when three of the biggest strikes ever in the United States were called and the country was in ferment due to the Great Depression, this context didn't receive so much as a mention. Nor was it explained why the ordinary people were cheering John Dillinger as a hero. It was because he worked against the state and returned money that he took from the banks to the ordinary people who were being screwed out of their money, much as we all are today.
Depp, Christian Bale and the other actors should be ashamed of having participated in such a farcical rendering of the Great Depression and of the famous criminals that emerged from the financial devastation of the country.
The FBI and Hoover were rightly portrayed as the enforcers of capitalism and the police state, but this seems only to have been inserted into the film for violence value. There was no genuine analysis by the filmmaker of the true meaning of this American gestapo and the fact that it not only went after bank robbers and gangsters, but also union men, strikers, and ordinary citizens who dared to protest against government policy during the Depression.
What a shallow film. And the lengthy scenes of violence did not advance the story one bit. They seemed to be there to pad out the excessive length of this travesty.
What a piece of crap. I'm glad that I got a free ticket or I'd be even more disgusted. There are no filmmakers today creating anything meaningful about the history of this country or how it relates to the crisis we are living in today. I still await a legitimate treatment of the depredations of capitalism and the relation of what happened in the 1930s to the situation today.
Depp, Christian Bale and the other actors should be ashamed of having participated in such a farcical rendering of the Great Depression and of the famous criminals that emerged from the financial devastation of the country.
The FBI and Hoover were rightly portrayed as the enforcers of capitalism and the police state, but this seems only to have been inserted into the film for violence value. There was no genuine analysis by the filmmaker of the true meaning of this American gestapo and the fact that it not only went after bank robbers and gangsters, but also union men, strikers, and ordinary citizens who dared to protest against government policy during the Depression.
What a shallow film. And the lengthy scenes of violence did not advance the story one bit. They seemed to be there to pad out the excessive length of this travesty.
What a piece of crap. I'm glad that I got a free ticket or I'd be even more disgusted. There are no filmmakers today creating anything meaningful about the history of this country or how it relates to the crisis we are living in today. I still await a legitimate treatment of the depredations of capitalism and the relation of what happened in the 1930s to the situation today.
Below is a selection of comments on this film from the World Socialist Web Site, written by one of its German correspondents:
Regarding Stauffenberg:
"This depiction has little to do with the real Stauffenbergan opponent of democracy, an anti-Semite and an initial supporter of the war. Stauffenberg's political and ideological conceptions would fit badly into an epic about a hero, and are therefore excluded.
"In an article for the Süddeutsche Zeitung Magazin, historian Richard J. Evans, a specialist on the Third Reich, described the convictions of the Hitler assassin as follows: "Stauffenberg's moral outlook was a multi-layered assortment of Catholic teachings, an aristocratic code of ethics, the ethos of old Greece and German romantic poetry." Under the influence of the poet Stefan George, Stauffenberg aspired to "an idealized medieval empire" through which "Europe, under the leadership of Germany, would acquire a new measure of culture and civilization." "These conceptions were compatible with the goals of the Nazis. Although Stauffenberg never joined Hitler's party, whose plebeian character contradicted his own elitist proclivities, he supported Hitler in the 1932 elections for Reich president and celebrated his appointment as Reich chancellor in 1933. He saw in the Nazis a "movement of national renewal that would put an end to the shabby parliamentary compromises of Weimar." And he "believed that a policy of cleansing the German race and of eliminating Jewish influences from it had to form a crucial part of this renewal," writes Evans."
So much for the "historical accuracy" of the film!
Regarding Stauffenberg:
"This depiction has little to do with the real Stauffenbergan opponent of democracy, an anti-Semite and an initial supporter of the war. Stauffenberg's political and ideological conceptions would fit badly into an epic about a hero, and are therefore excluded.
"In an article for the Süddeutsche Zeitung Magazin, historian Richard J. Evans, a specialist on the Third Reich, described the convictions of the Hitler assassin as follows: "Stauffenberg's moral outlook was a multi-layered assortment of Catholic teachings, an aristocratic code of ethics, the ethos of old Greece and German romantic poetry." Under the influence of the poet Stefan George, Stauffenberg aspired to "an idealized medieval empire" through which "Europe, under the leadership of Germany, would acquire a new measure of culture and civilization." "These conceptions were compatible with the goals of the Nazis. Although Stauffenberg never joined Hitler's party, whose plebeian character contradicted his own elitist proclivities, he supported Hitler in the 1932 elections for Reich president and celebrated his appointment as Reich chancellor in 1933. He saw in the Nazis a "movement of national renewal that would put an end to the shabby parliamentary compromises of Weimar." And he "believed that a policy of cleansing the German race and of eliminating Jewish influences from it had to form a crucial part of this renewal," writes Evans."
So much for the "historical accuracy" of the film!
I'm shocked at the number of questions that readers of the books would know the answers to are asked on your "FAQ" board. Haven't any of you people read the books? The films are nice, but they are no way to really get the "Harry Potter Experience". There is so much more depth to the people and the stories in the books. "Order of the Phoenix" is my favorite of them all. I haven't yet seen the film of it and I may never see it, because I don't want it to ruin my favorite book. (I've read OOTP five times.) Also, nobody talks about how brilliantly Rowling has depicted the rise of fascism in her tale of the takeover of Hogwarts by the Ministry for Magic. I'll bet THAT doesn't come across in the film.
I think it is most important for young people to read the book and learn what rising fascism is like. After all, this is happening in the real world right now, and I believe J.K. Rowling has performed a real public service in addition to writing a terrific story of the world of magic.
I think it is most important for young people to read the book and learn what rising fascism is like. After all, this is happening in the real world right now, and I believe J.K. Rowling has performed a real public service in addition to writing a terrific story of the world of magic.