gjw
A rejoint le juin 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.
Badges8
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Avis79
Note de gjw
The movie was just more of the same old, same old, only with an even dumber script than usual.
I judge a Marvel film based on whether or not I want to watch it again later, and I definitely don't want to see this one a second time.
It wasn't horrible, but it wasn't anything to write home about either.
Most of its many attempts at humor fell flat. The widow's Russian father is a pathetic attempt at comic relief that simply comes across as sad (in the worst sense of the word). And by the final reel, when they are trapped in yet another alternate dimension, this one filled with Freudian nonsense and neurosis, the movie is a lost cause.
Now I'm beginning to wonder whether the Marvel writers have lost their touch.
I judge a Marvel film based on whether or not I want to watch it again later, and I definitely don't want to see this one a second time.
It wasn't horrible, but it wasn't anything to write home about either.
Most of its many attempts at humor fell flat. The widow's Russian father is a pathetic attempt at comic relief that simply comes across as sad (in the worst sense of the word). And by the final reel, when they are trapped in yet another alternate dimension, this one filled with Freudian nonsense and neurosis, the movie is a lost cause.
Now I'm beginning to wonder whether the Marvel writers have lost their touch.
I liked this show, but I never understood why the writers of "The Real McCoys" chose to make the family structure so unconventional.
Walter Brennan was only 32 years older than Richard Crenna, old enough to be his father, but not old enough to be his grandfather.
So If you tuned into this show and just watched it without sound, you would probably assume that Luke was married to Kate, and that "Little Luke" was their son, Cassie was their daughter, and Amos was Luke's father.
That's a simple, straightforward family relationship that they could have easily gone with.
But instead, they made Amos Luke's grandfather, and to make matters more complicated, they made "Little Luke" Luke's brother rather than his son (despite a 20-year age gap between the two, and them having the same name), and made Hassie Luke's sister, rather than his daughter.
And if Amos is the grandfather of Luke and the two kids, what happened to their actual father and mother? Why aren't the two younger children living with their actual parents instead of with their brother and grandfather? Were they somehow orphaned?
(At one point, they even offered a lame explanation about why the boy would be named "Little Luke", when his brother is named Luke, claiming that the parents got so excited that they "forgot" that that had had Luke. It was just silly, and felt very much like a late-hour excuse.)
It feels as though the writers started out with the regular familiar structure, but then changed their minds and complicated things unnecessarily.
But why?
I can only think of two possible reasons why they might have done that:
One is that Walter Brennan always looked older than he actually was, and was accustomed to playing crotchety old men , so perhaps the writers were set on having everyone call him "Grandpa", even though, at age 64, Walter was actually too young to have 31-year-old Richard Crenna as a grandson.
The other reason might be that, for some reason, they were determined to make Luke & Kate newlyweds, which meant that they couldn't have "Little Luke" and Hassie as their children, so the writers would have had to say that they were Luke's children from a previous marriage.
Or perhaps they were troubled by the fact that Kathleen Nolan (Kate), at 24, couldn't have had a 13-year-old daughter, and were somehow averse to the idea that Luke had been previously married.
(That problem could have been easily solved by either casting someone a bit older as Kate, or someone a bit younger as Cassie.)
Unfortunately, by now the original writers are all dead, so we will probably never know what was going on in that writers room back in 1957.
Walter Brennan was only 32 years older than Richard Crenna, old enough to be his father, but not old enough to be his grandfather.
So If you tuned into this show and just watched it without sound, you would probably assume that Luke was married to Kate, and that "Little Luke" was their son, Cassie was their daughter, and Amos was Luke's father.
That's a simple, straightforward family relationship that they could have easily gone with.
But instead, they made Amos Luke's grandfather, and to make matters more complicated, they made "Little Luke" Luke's brother rather than his son (despite a 20-year age gap between the two, and them having the same name), and made Hassie Luke's sister, rather than his daughter.
And if Amos is the grandfather of Luke and the two kids, what happened to their actual father and mother? Why aren't the two younger children living with their actual parents instead of with their brother and grandfather? Were they somehow orphaned?
(At one point, they even offered a lame explanation about why the boy would be named "Little Luke", when his brother is named Luke, claiming that the parents got so excited that they "forgot" that that had had Luke. It was just silly, and felt very much like a late-hour excuse.)
It feels as though the writers started out with the regular familiar structure, but then changed their minds and complicated things unnecessarily.
But why?
I can only think of two possible reasons why they might have done that:
One is that Walter Brennan always looked older than he actually was, and was accustomed to playing crotchety old men , so perhaps the writers were set on having everyone call him "Grandpa", even though, at age 64, Walter was actually too young to have 31-year-old Richard Crenna as a grandson.
The other reason might be that, for some reason, they were determined to make Luke & Kate newlyweds, which meant that they couldn't have "Little Luke" and Hassie as their children, so the writers would have had to say that they were Luke's children from a previous marriage.
Or perhaps they were troubled by the fact that Kathleen Nolan (Kate), at 24, couldn't have had a 13-year-old daughter, and were somehow averse to the idea that Luke had been previously married.
(That problem could have been easily solved by either casting someone a bit older as Kate, or someone a bit younger as Cassie.)
Unfortunately, by now the original writers are all dead, so we will probably never know what was going on in that writers room back in 1957.
This movie definitely ha S some "Dexter" vibes, with the serial killer posing as a likable, average guy. Except he lacks Dexter's code, of course, and his maniacal side shows up every now and then.
This movie was pretty good as long as they stayed at the concert venue and the trap slowly closed around him. If they had brought the script to a climax there at the stadium, the movie would have been much more enjoyable.
Unfortunately, they allowed the serial killer to escape from the trap at the concert venue, and once outside, the movie went straight downhill from there, with some preposterous turns.
The final twist (if you can call it that) was particularly unrealistic, and seemed like a transparent effort to preserve the possibility of a sequel (since in today's Hollywood, every movie has to be a potential franchise).
I suppose it's worth a watch If you have nothing else to do, but they definitely dropped the ball in the second half.
This movie was pretty good as long as they stayed at the concert venue and the trap slowly closed around him. If they had brought the script to a climax there at the stadium, the movie would have been much more enjoyable.
Unfortunately, they allowed the serial killer to escape from the trap at the concert venue, and once outside, the movie went straight downhill from there, with some preposterous turns.
The final twist (if you can call it that) was particularly unrealistic, and seemed like a transparent effort to preserve the possibility of a sequel (since in today's Hollywood, every movie has to be a potential franchise).
I suppose it's worth a watch If you have nothing else to do, but they definitely dropped the ball in the second half.