lesimparfaits
A rejoint le avr. 2002
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.
Badges3
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Avis5
Note de lesimparfaits
"Ask the Storybots" was an exceptional show that explained often-complex topics through accessible but not dumbed-down stories, with the occasional humorous aside. "Answer Time" is an okay show in which the humorous asides have become the main course and the deep-dive explanations are now relegated to a supporting role.
Case in point: The electricity episode of the original show was one of the series' best. Instead of stopping at the power plant - which would have been a logical place to stop to satiate the curiosity of a child - they spent the whole C-block of the episode explaining electricity on the atomic level. No other show would have taken that step, least of all "Answer Time." This show would have spent those last 7 minutes bouncing frenetically among three unrelated songs.
This "Answer" reboot isn't bad; most of the voice talent is still there and the celebrity cameos pull their weight. But I don't get why they shifted the format away from what made it great. Answering a hard question in 20 minutes for the benefit of a 6-year-old (and the occasional adult...) was unique and really fun. "Answer Time" is an ADHD version of its predecessor that jumps around too much instead of just answering the question.
"Answer Time" is still better than most of what's out there, but man, why experiment when you already caught lightning in a bottle? It's like someone doing a decent impression of a really good show; it's worth watching, but it makes you long for the original.
My kids. I mean it makes my kids long for the original.
Case in point: The electricity episode of the original show was one of the series' best. Instead of stopping at the power plant - which would have been a logical place to stop to satiate the curiosity of a child - they spent the whole C-block of the episode explaining electricity on the atomic level. No other show would have taken that step, least of all "Answer Time." This show would have spent those last 7 minutes bouncing frenetically among three unrelated songs.
This "Answer" reboot isn't bad; most of the voice talent is still there and the celebrity cameos pull their weight. But I don't get why they shifted the format away from what made it great. Answering a hard question in 20 minutes for the benefit of a 6-year-old (and the occasional adult...) was unique and really fun. "Answer Time" is an ADHD version of its predecessor that jumps around too much instead of just answering the question.
"Answer Time" is still better than most of what's out there, but man, why experiment when you already caught lightning in a bottle? It's like someone doing a decent impression of a really good show; it's worth watching, but it makes you long for the original.
My kids. I mean it makes my kids long for the original.
Only in Hollywood could they take the life of Hugh Glass - a man whose story needs no embellishment to rate as "astonishing" - and subvert it to the point of disgrace. Using the rough outline of the Glass arc, this movie adds absurd and, more vitally, totally unnecessary plot lines about sex slave Indian daughters and martyred, fictional sons and all manner of other rote plot devices in order to - I guess? - try and dramatize a story about a guy who *literally* crawled 200 miles without skin on his back in order to save his own life. As if Hugh needed the posthumous help.
Hardy might win an Oscar for his excellent performance as foil and I'm sure Leo will get plenty of hype for grunting his way through 150 minutes. But man, they're both just shadows cast behind a movie that could have been great.
The writers could have fictionalized a plot loosely based on Glass's life and rightly called it fiction. Or they could have made a great movie about what actually happened and sold it as truth. Instead, they manage go wrong in both directions. "The Revenant" dishonors Hugh Glass, disrespects its audience, and desecrates a tale worth being told much better than this. Your time would be better spent sleeping inside a dead horse.
Hardy might win an Oscar for his excellent performance as foil and I'm sure Leo will get plenty of hype for grunting his way through 150 minutes. But man, they're both just shadows cast behind a movie that could have been great.
The writers could have fictionalized a plot loosely based on Glass's life and rightly called it fiction. Or they could have made a great movie about what actually happened and sold it as truth. Instead, they manage go wrong in both directions. "The Revenant" dishonors Hugh Glass, disrespects its audience, and desecrates a tale worth being told much better than this. Your time would be better spent sleeping inside a dead horse.
Four times in as many movies, Blue Sky Studios has proved itself a distant third when it comes to CGI film-making. Like the Ice Age movies before it, Horton Hears a Who coasted on the big-name talent behind the mic, ignoring the clever styling and over-their-heads adult humor that have made Pixar -- and, to a lesser extent, Dreamworks -- so successful. All in all, your kids will probably be entertained for 90 minutes, but Horton really is nothing more than cinematic cotton candy: empty calories and completely forgettable.
As for the cast, Carell shows a real flair for voice-over work, while Carrey's performance left something to be desired. One doesn't realize how much of his shtick involves facial expressions, which don't come through very well on an elephant's computerized visage. The lesser players -- notably Isla Fisher -- turn in some very good work.
The animation was fair, but nowhere near the quality or detail of a Pixar pic. But the real problem with Horton was the dialog. It just wasn't funny. Even the small children in the audience laughed only occasionally, and I chuckled only once during the movie's thankfully short run-time. Perhaps the writers felt compelled to remain true to Seuss's original work, as they seemed to add very little originality and a whole lot of benign filler.
So unless you're dying to get the kids out of the house and don't mind dropping $10 a head at your local AMC, wait for Horton to hit the bargain bin and save for you money for WALL-E this summer.
As for the cast, Carell shows a real flair for voice-over work, while Carrey's performance left something to be desired. One doesn't realize how much of his shtick involves facial expressions, which don't come through very well on an elephant's computerized visage. The lesser players -- notably Isla Fisher -- turn in some very good work.
The animation was fair, but nowhere near the quality or detail of a Pixar pic. But the real problem with Horton was the dialog. It just wasn't funny. Even the small children in the audience laughed only occasionally, and I chuckled only once during the movie's thankfully short run-time. Perhaps the writers felt compelled to remain true to Seuss's original work, as they seemed to add very little originality and a whole lot of benign filler.
So unless you're dying to get the kids out of the house and don't mind dropping $10 a head at your local AMC, wait for Horton to hit the bargain bin and save for you money for WALL-E this summer.