Jamie-58
A rejoint le juin 2000
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.
Avis44
Note de Jamie-58
When I first saw this telemovie back in the late 1980s, I found myself wondering if the film makers actually believed the theory they were peddling. The DVD commentary makes it clear that they take it very seriously indeed, which somehow reduces the impact of the piece.
Taken as a blood and thunder melodrama, this is good fun. But as a recreation of London's East End in the 1880s, it leaves a great deal deal to be desired. The depiction of prostitution is particularly inaccurate. The Ripper's victims were not, on the whole, the good hearted floozies depicted here. They were alcoholic, washed out drabs, homeless and aimless. And the depiction of George Lusk as a left wing agitator is way off base.
No matter, its diverting entertainment. But its only real historical value lies in its depiction of the hysteria that the Ripper murders engendered in the population. If you believe the denouement, and the explanation of the Ripper's identity, drop me a line. I'd like to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
Taken as a blood and thunder melodrama, this is good fun. But as a recreation of London's East End in the 1880s, it leaves a great deal deal to be desired. The depiction of prostitution is particularly inaccurate. The Ripper's victims were not, on the whole, the good hearted floozies depicted here. They were alcoholic, washed out drabs, homeless and aimless. And the depiction of George Lusk as a left wing agitator is way off base.
No matter, its diverting entertainment. But its only real historical value lies in its depiction of the hysteria that the Ripper murders engendered in the population. If you believe the denouement, and the explanation of the Ripper's identity, drop me a line. I'd like to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
The original version of The Stepford Wives may have been no masterpiece, but it was Citizen Kane compared with this drek!
Unsure of whether to play it safe or go out on a limb, to play up the anachronisms of a badly outdated concept or bring it into line with the 21st century, director Frank Oz has fumbled around incoherently. And he actually manages to include something to offend everyone - not in a Michael Moore, politically pointed way, but in a monstrously inept display of sheer excess.
The film is ugly, pointless, humourless and in the final washup, completely worthless. There is something seriously wrong with your movie when Bette Midler is your most restrained cast member. Indeed, Nicole Kidman offers what may very well be the most appalling performance she has ever offered in a (to say the least) bumpy career. She makes no attempt at all to find a recognisably human foundation for her character, playing it instead as a broad caricature.
And since the film's thesis is that the loss of humanity for a 'perfect society' the film virtually crumples into dust amidst Kidman's embarrassing mugging. I know there are people out there who maintain she is some sort of goddess, but sorry guys, you are worshipping the wrong diva.
Bette Midler provides a few smiles along the way, but she is way below par. At least she seems to know how wretched the material is, which is more than we can say for Glenn Close. She actually makes Kidman look subdued.
The film's finale is muddled and unclear. Are the Stepford Wives robots or women with computer chips in their brains? Do men in America really desire overdressed zombies for wives? Do men even think about repressing women any more? Undoubtedly some do, but the notion that an entire community would launch itself into this bizarre scheme is ridiculous, even by this film's modest standards.
There must be some virtue in this film. How about a triumph of style over content. Alas no. The film rambles along in sub-par Tim Burton style. How about making a few bucks at the box office? Alas yes, though at least the public has belatedly seen the light.
Awful film making. I don't mind if I never see anybody connected with it ever again - Midler excepted.
Unsure of whether to play it safe or go out on a limb, to play up the anachronisms of a badly outdated concept or bring it into line with the 21st century, director Frank Oz has fumbled around incoherently. And he actually manages to include something to offend everyone - not in a Michael Moore, politically pointed way, but in a monstrously inept display of sheer excess.
The film is ugly, pointless, humourless and in the final washup, completely worthless. There is something seriously wrong with your movie when Bette Midler is your most restrained cast member. Indeed, Nicole Kidman offers what may very well be the most appalling performance she has ever offered in a (to say the least) bumpy career. She makes no attempt at all to find a recognisably human foundation for her character, playing it instead as a broad caricature.
And since the film's thesis is that the loss of humanity for a 'perfect society' the film virtually crumples into dust amidst Kidman's embarrassing mugging. I know there are people out there who maintain she is some sort of goddess, but sorry guys, you are worshipping the wrong diva.
Bette Midler provides a few smiles along the way, but she is way below par. At least she seems to know how wretched the material is, which is more than we can say for Glenn Close. She actually makes Kidman look subdued.
The film's finale is muddled and unclear. Are the Stepford Wives robots or women with computer chips in their brains? Do men in America really desire overdressed zombies for wives? Do men even think about repressing women any more? Undoubtedly some do, but the notion that an entire community would launch itself into this bizarre scheme is ridiculous, even by this film's modest standards.
There must be some virtue in this film. How about a triumph of style over content. Alas no. The film rambles along in sub-par Tim Burton style. How about making a few bucks at the box office? Alas yes, though at least the public has belatedly seen the light.
Awful film making. I don't mind if I never see anybody connected with it ever again - Midler excepted.
Two words best sum up this resplendent bore of a movie - "Oscar Bait." Everything about it seems to be a conspicuous grab for prestige and Academy Award consideration. But more often than not things go horribly awry.
Its a splendid looking film, but the design more correctly evokes Trannsylvania than the Old South. More than once I awaited gypsy caravans and torch bearing villagers.
In homage we have Jude Law dressing up as the Wolf Man for much of the running time, stumbling through thickets in search of Nicole Kidman. He has the good sense to keep his mouth shut most of the time - his accent being so studied that it lacks all credibility - adopting a generally pained expression that suffices for most emotions.
Nicole Kidman is simply woeful. Much too old for the part, she lapses between Australian twang and Southern drawl to basically nil effect. We simply don't care about Ada as portrayed by the now familiar Kidman twitches.
Renee Zellweger makes amends for Kidman stealing the Oscar that should have been hers for Chicago by stealing Kidman's film from under her. Its not much of an achievement, given that La Kidman seems to be asleep for most of the film.
Amongst the mugging supporting cast, Giovanni Ribisi stands out, incomprehensibly decked out as Theda Bara with a beard.
It may go on to triumph at the Oscars, but that will be small consolation to people suckered into seeing a sterile, boring film.
Its a splendid looking film, but the design more correctly evokes Trannsylvania than the Old South. More than once I awaited gypsy caravans and torch bearing villagers.
In homage we have Jude Law dressing up as the Wolf Man for much of the running time, stumbling through thickets in search of Nicole Kidman. He has the good sense to keep his mouth shut most of the time - his accent being so studied that it lacks all credibility - adopting a generally pained expression that suffices for most emotions.
Nicole Kidman is simply woeful. Much too old for the part, she lapses between Australian twang and Southern drawl to basically nil effect. We simply don't care about Ada as portrayed by the now familiar Kidman twitches.
Renee Zellweger makes amends for Kidman stealing the Oscar that should have been hers for Chicago by stealing Kidman's film from under her. Its not much of an achievement, given that La Kidman seems to be asleep for most of the film.
Amongst the mugging supporting cast, Giovanni Ribisi stands out, incomprehensibly decked out as Theda Bara with a beard.
It may go on to triumph at the Oscars, but that will be small consolation to people suckered into seeing a sterile, boring film.