AKIRA-24
A rejoint le févr. 2001
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.
Badges6
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Avis5
Note de AKIRA-24
Well, another unnecessary prequel.
Unfortunately for the producers, Hannibal Lecter was not the main character in the original book, But they were trying very hard to make this happen. In my opinion this is the first mistake for this movie. They got a great character: Francis Dolarhyde "The dragon". And a formidable actor: Ralph Fiennes. But no! The audience will come to see Lecter so give the audience what they want. BIG MISTAKE!!!
Hopkins character is not as natural as in the other two. In Silence of the lambs we see a Hannibal well delineated, and in the right place. A very twisted man, perverse, manipulator and with a very deep weakness: Clarice Starling.In fact the main character of this great Thriller. And gratefully in Hannibal we see a Dr. Lecter liberated, in his own arena, showing us the "Psychotic-gory-gentleman" he presumed to be since SOTL. And deeply in love. This last thing shows a very sad part of the character. In my personal point of view this is the best Hannibal Lecter in the trilogy. At least the one I enjoy the most.
But in Red Dragon Hopkins felt so pretty self sure of the character that he forgot to propose something new. To me it looks like a bad imitation of the first interpretation in SOTL. An is it clear to me that Ratner never decided if he wants to make a prequel or a complete different movie from the other two. Well, maybe to much Laurentis pressure.
What separates a great Film director from a common one? Well the difference between Ridley Scott and Brett Ratner is that the first one dares to make a complete different sequel movie from a very successful first part. And the second just try to make the homework without propose something new. Bret Ratner risk anything!
Great cast don't make great movies. And this one is a great example. Edward Norton is good but just that. Hopkins is not as good as before. Harvey Keitel is a great actor but I think this one was Scott Glenn Character. Ralph Fiennes and Emily Watson are the best interpretations in this movie. And precisely here is when I note the worst Ratner's mistakes to tell this story. This is the "story" that needs focus. Is it a great one. But it hasn't the necessary attention because: O God! we need to see Hannibal!
Is it clear to me with the opening sequence, and the ridiculous closing one with that obvious and unnecessary reference to SOTL, they were forcing a situation the book never gave to. Pretty sad but true.
And of course. They needed to make this movie before Hopkins get old or noticed the big mistake. An just a Director like Ratner (famous for the Rush Our movies and Family man) can accept to make a movie with a pressure of time like this one. Come on! Hannibal was in theaters just a year and a months ago.
Unfortunately for the producers, Hannibal Lecter was not the main character in the original book, But they were trying very hard to make this happen. In my opinion this is the first mistake for this movie. They got a great character: Francis Dolarhyde "The dragon". And a formidable actor: Ralph Fiennes. But no! The audience will come to see Lecter so give the audience what they want. BIG MISTAKE!!!
Hopkins character is not as natural as in the other two. In Silence of the lambs we see a Hannibal well delineated, and in the right place. A very twisted man, perverse, manipulator and with a very deep weakness: Clarice Starling.In fact the main character of this great Thriller. And gratefully in Hannibal we see a Dr. Lecter liberated, in his own arena, showing us the "Psychotic-gory-gentleman" he presumed to be since SOTL. And deeply in love. This last thing shows a very sad part of the character. In my personal point of view this is the best Hannibal Lecter in the trilogy. At least the one I enjoy the most.
But in Red Dragon Hopkins felt so pretty self sure of the character that he forgot to propose something new. To me it looks like a bad imitation of the first interpretation in SOTL. An is it clear to me that Ratner never decided if he wants to make a prequel or a complete different movie from the other two. Well, maybe to much Laurentis pressure.
What separates a great Film director from a common one? Well the difference between Ridley Scott and Brett Ratner is that the first one dares to make a complete different sequel movie from a very successful first part. And the second just try to make the homework without propose something new. Bret Ratner risk anything!
Great cast don't make great movies. And this one is a great example. Edward Norton is good but just that. Hopkins is not as good as before. Harvey Keitel is a great actor but I think this one was Scott Glenn Character. Ralph Fiennes and Emily Watson are the best interpretations in this movie. And precisely here is when I note the worst Ratner's mistakes to tell this story. This is the "story" that needs focus. Is it a great one. But it hasn't the necessary attention because: O God! we need to see Hannibal!
Is it clear to me with the opening sequence, and the ridiculous closing one with that obvious and unnecessary reference to SOTL, they were forcing a situation the book never gave to. Pretty sad but true.
And of course. They needed to make this movie before Hopkins get old or noticed the big mistake. An just a Director like Ratner (famous for the Rush Our movies and Family man) can accept to make a movie with a pressure of time like this one. Come on! Hannibal was in theaters just a year and a months ago.
Well, what a game. I recently buy this VG and it's maybe one of the best I ever played. It is a heavy violent game with a very complex a innovate structure. The main character (you) is a mercenary of everyone that could pay good money just for dirty jobs like stole, kill, destruct, extortion, protect and plenty of things that your bosses need to. Of course it's not a kid's game.
One of the biggest points of this VG it's the non-linear structure. You just decide where and when to pick up a mission. You can even be a cop, a paramedic, a fire man or a "Taxi Driver" just to make a little more money. The city in where you play is such big that it will take you a lot of time to know every place. And maybe you never totally finished.
The title say it: Grand theft auto. And that is what you are. You go walking on the street, you need a car, it's occupied? just take off the driver and accelerate as fast as you can. police? they just care about themselves so if you want them to p*** off, Shot em! they will follow you, but who cares? you are a great criminal. And if you want to feel more alive take a woman to the back sit of the car for just a few bucks.
Really if you like complicated action and strategic games this is the one. Of course you must remember that it is a VG about maffia and everything that is normally around in this world - explicit violence, prostitution, corrupted cops, drugs, etc... - and you need to take it like the thing it is: Just a game, a mature one.
One of the biggest points of this VG it's the non-linear structure. You just decide where and when to pick up a mission. You can even be a cop, a paramedic, a fire man or a "Taxi Driver" just to make a little more money. The city in where you play is such big that it will take you a lot of time to know every place. And maybe you never totally finished.
The title say it: Grand theft auto. And that is what you are. You go walking on the street, you need a car, it's occupied? just take off the driver and accelerate as fast as you can. police? they just care about themselves so if you want them to p*** off, Shot em! they will follow you, but who cares? you are a great criminal. And if you want to feel more alive take a woman to the back sit of the car for just a few bucks.
Really if you like complicated action and strategic games this is the one. Of course you must remember that it is a VG about maffia and everything that is normally around in this world - explicit violence, prostitution, corrupted cops, drugs, etc... - and you need to take it like the thing it is: Just a game, a mature one.
A great and very funny script with a really low budget production that ends in a unforgettable movie you've really got to see.
In a dinner organized by Andres, a young dreamer boy, with the girl of his dreams; he discovers that his new video camera has the power of a traveller time machine. So, he corrects all the wrong moments of that night with the natural consequences of his acts.
This fresh comedy shows originality in the narrative structure and at the same time lets us see something that is not Almodovar.
In a dinner organized by Andres, a young dreamer boy, with the girl of his dreams; he discovers that his new video camera has the power of a traveller time machine. So, he corrects all the wrong moments of that night with the natural consequences of his acts.
This fresh comedy shows originality in the narrative structure and at the same time lets us see something that is not Almodovar.
Sondages effectués récemment
Total de 1 sondage effectué Total de
