brijess-2
A rejoint le avr. 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.
Badges2
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Avis40
Note de brijess-2
Coneheads is one of the best "Saturday Night Live" movies. I was expecting a light comedy but what I got was a whole lot more. Following a similar plot to the skit, Coneheads is the story about the Beldar Conehead family who crash on earth during a scouting mission for planet conquest. While here, they dodge the INS, have a child and discover that life on Earth is quite good.
This is where the movie shows its heart. It could have been a movie of comedy bits but by the end, it is about happiness in a stable family, which is quite refreshing in these days of depressing movies about divorces and unmarried couples. It is nice to see Beldar be a father figure to his daughter rather than the "Let Your Kids Be Who They Are" mentality of these days. The direction of the film in excellent, setting up many nice visual gags and shots that are very impressive for a comedy film. And at times, the film feels "epic" as you see the family on the run from the INS, to moving to the suburbs to returning to their planet.
There are great performances throughout the film and the many cameos are perfect. Look for funny scenes from Jan Hooks, Adam Sandler, Michael Richards, and Garrett Morris. Michelle Burke makes a nice debut as Connie Conehead and I expect to see more of her in the future.
On the surface, this seems like a dumb movie and it has received many poor reviews. But if you sit back and let it take you on an adventure (and if you can keep up with the way the Coneheads use different words for common items) you will be pleasantly surprised.
This is where the movie shows its heart. It could have been a movie of comedy bits but by the end, it is about happiness in a stable family, which is quite refreshing in these days of depressing movies about divorces and unmarried couples. It is nice to see Beldar be a father figure to his daughter rather than the "Let Your Kids Be Who They Are" mentality of these days. The direction of the film in excellent, setting up many nice visual gags and shots that are very impressive for a comedy film. And at times, the film feels "epic" as you see the family on the run from the INS, to moving to the suburbs to returning to their planet.
There are great performances throughout the film and the many cameos are perfect. Look for funny scenes from Jan Hooks, Adam Sandler, Michael Richards, and Garrett Morris. Michelle Burke makes a nice debut as Connie Conehead and I expect to see more of her in the future.
On the surface, this seems like a dumb movie and it has received many poor reviews. But if you sit back and let it take you on an adventure (and if you can keep up with the way the Coneheads use different words for common items) you will be pleasantly surprised.
I sat down to A.I. expecting a movie full of wonder and amazement. I got that at times. At other times, I wanted to turn it off. When it was finally over, I really wanted to like this film but I just felt like I was in a ship on stormy seas and was seasick from it all.
The movie starts out in a very somber tone. It explains how the earth is suffering the effects of global warming and the creation of robots, specifically one who can love. David, the loving Robot, is purchased by a family whose own son is on life support. Soon enough, the son improves and the mother decides she doesn't need David anymore. So she drops David and Teddy (the best and warmest character in the movie) in the woods and David goes on a journey to become a real boy and to earn the love of his mother.
This is a very sad way to start the film, but it is then that we start to see a little of a "quest" in the movie (a la Wizard of Oz) and it begins to feel magical. Then, we get depressed again as we are introduced to a "pleasure robot" and how a woman is afraid of his "functional abilities." This totally lurches the movie from a kind of magical quality to in your face smut. Then, we see a "flesh fair" in which defective robots are destroyed in an arena to the delight of the humans. Then, we are taken to a city which has buildings in the shapes of women in provocative poses. I knew this was a pet project of Kubrick but I didn't know a lot of his perverted imagery and characters would be included in the film.
Once we get past that, then we have a few more magical moments and then we are introduced to more dark images and finally, more magical moments. By the time it is all over, I was exhausted.
Did I like the movie? I liked the Spielberg "moments" but I disliked the Kubrick ones. This maybe what they had intended but to me, it made for a very uneven and overall unsatisfying film.
The movie starts out in a very somber tone. It explains how the earth is suffering the effects of global warming and the creation of robots, specifically one who can love. David, the loving Robot, is purchased by a family whose own son is on life support. Soon enough, the son improves and the mother decides she doesn't need David anymore. So she drops David and Teddy (the best and warmest character in the movie) in the woods and David goes on a journey to become a real boy and to earn the love of his mother.
This is a very sad way to start the film, but it is then that we start to see a little of a "quest" in the movie (a la Wizard of Oz) and it begins to feel magical. Then, we get depressed again as we are introduced to a "pleasure robot" and how a woman is afraid of his "functional abilities." This totally lurches the movie from a kind of magical quality to in your face smut. Then, we see a "flesh fair" in which defective robots are destroyed in an arena to the delight of the humans. Then, we are taken to a city which has buildings in the shapes of women in provocative poses. I knew this was a pet project of Kubrick but I didn't know a lot of his perverted imagery and characters would be included in the film.
Once we get past that, then we have a few more magical moments and then we are introduced to more dark images and finally, more magical moments. By the time it is all over, I was exhausted.
Did I like the movie? I liked the Spielberg "moments" but I disliked the Kubrick ones. This maybe what they had intended but to me, it made for a very uneven and overall unsatisfying film.
Poltergeist II is a good movie lost in a bad one. The back story to the original film is revealed and it quite good but the movie falls apart when it should deliver.
The film opens up with a Native American being given a "spirit" to help combat a strong presence located back on the property in which the house from the 1st film was located. He senses that the family is in trouble and goes on a search for them.
The movie eventually reveals the real reason behind the first haunting and why the Poltergeists are back again. The movies' main villain is "The Preacher" Kane. He will do anything to get Carol Anne back to lead him and his followers into the light.
All of this is quite interesting but the movie fails to deliver on its premise. For one, there are way too many false scares. Characters dream about being pulled underground by dead bodies. Dead bodies appear in a mirror. Dead bodies which turn out to be closet items appear. This really cheats the audience. Also, take the scene where about 50 ghosts are walking on the lawn. You look at that and get a chill but then, we never see them again. We hear some beating and stomping in the house and that is it. And another scene has a character in grave danger only for it to suddenly go away. Was he actually in trouble? When the ghosts come back, they do so through a plastic toy telephone and Heather O'Rourke delivers a weak "They're Back" line. No where near as chilling as "They're here."
The acting in this film is very good and keeps the movie from sinking. Once again, you really feel for these people. JoBeth Williams is effective but not as good as she was in the first film. Julian Beck is quite scary but he isn't given much to do and the film could have benefited from more scenes with him. And of course, I still think Zelda Rubinstein was born to play Tangina and her presence is always welcome.
There is a lot to like in this film, but you will walk away from it feeling empty, especially about the forced "funny" final moments. It is far superior to the 3rd film but the first one can't be beat.
The film opens up with a Native American being given a "spirit" to help combat a strong presence located back on the property in which the house from the 1st film was located. He senses that the family is in trouble and goes on a search for them.
The movie eventually reveals the real reason behind the first haunting and why the Poltergeists are back again. The movies' main villain is "The Preacher" Kane. He will do anything to get Carol Anne back to lead him and his followers into the light.
All of this is quite interesting but the movie fails to deliver on its premise. For one, there are way too many false scares. Characters dream about being pulled underground by dead bodies. Dead bodies appear in a mirror. Dead bodies which turn out to be closet items appear. This really cheats the audience. Also, take the scene where about 50 ghosts are walking on the lawn. You look at that and get a chill but then, we never see them again. We hear some beating and stomping in the house and that is it. And another scene has a character in grave danger only for it to suddenly go away. Was he actually in trouble? When the ghosts come back, they do so through a plastic toy telephone and Heather O'Rourke delivers a weak "They're Back" line. No where near as chilling as "They're here."
The acting in this film is very good and keeps the movie from sinking. Once again, you really feel for these people. JoBeth Williams is effective but not as good as she was in the first film. Julian Beck is quite scary but he isn't given much to do and the film could have benefited from more scenes with him. And of course, I still think Zelda Rubinstein was born to play Tangina and her presence is always welcome.
There is a lot to like in this film, but you will walk away from it feeling empty, especially about the forced "funny" final moments. It is far superior to the 3rd film but the first one can't be beat.