boily
A rejoint le juin 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.
Badges2
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Avis2
Note de boily
This movie sticks close to the book in terms of screenplay and script, probably in part because author Hunter S. Thompson demanded it. But whereas the book is brilliant and laugh-out-loud hilarious, the movie falls far short. Part of the reason is that although we get almost-verbatim dialogue lifted from the book, we don't get much of the introspection and narration that made it a coherent whole. This makes the storyline of the movie come across as a hard-to-follow mess. The actors mis-emphasize their lines and often speak too quickly, mumbling and/or screaming much of the time, making it even more difficult to follow unless you know the book inside-out. And if you know the book well, there really isn't much new here that makes this half-cocked film version worthwhile.
Some of the visual aspects of the film are clever and well crafted, but in the absence of a sensible plot or purpose, it all seems rather hollow. Also, Johnny Depp (an actor I usually enjoy) plays the main character almost as a bumbling, perplexed moron, rather than as the witty, sharp-tongued dynamo that makes the book so enjoyable. The final verdict: a noble effort to translate an excellent story to for the screen, but ultimately a failed one. Read the book instead.
Some of the visual aspects of the film are clever and well crafted, but in the absence of a sensible plot or purpose, it all seems rather hollow. Also, Johnny Depp (an actor I usually enjoy) plays the main character almost as a bumbling, perplexed moron, rather than as the witty, sharp-tongued dynamo that makes the book so enjoyable. The final verdict: a noble effort to translate an excellent story to for the screen, but ultimately a failed one. Read the book instead.
This movie will be of interest to anyone curious about the mores, attitudes, fashions, and lifestyles of the those involved in the radical student movement of the late 1960s. It presents a compelling portrait of the times. Personally I was left with the impression that the students were largely naive, spoiled idiots, and I found it difficult to sympathize with their agenda and methods. Nevertheless, I did feel for the duration of the movie that I was immersed in a reasonable, realistic representation of those times. The movie presents a more reality-based view of the late 60s than hippy freakout pieces like "Easy rider," for example, so you the viewer is advised to look at it as a kind of window into an era gone by.