age2.1
A rejoint le janv. 2001
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.
Avis12
Note de age2.1
The first minutes i watched this, felt like okay, there is an interesting story that could have some nice twists (like a good balance between doubt and belief) and then i had the impression that Michael Keaton is heavily over-casted, like too talented for this movie. And then it struck me, the editing is so bad, whoever did this is absolutely talentless. And the Music is so extremely generic, it ruins everything. If this was recut, properly edited and had a fitting score, this could be a true cult gem. But like this, it is just generic forget about it and avoid. I wouldn't bother watching, it did barely make the 15 minute mark. So many incredibly bad editing choices.
Please revisit the original material and make a completely new edit of this.
Please revisit the original material and make a completely new edit of this.
I saw this by recommendation from a buddy in 1993 and was like seriously? Jason Priestley? In the first Minutes i really had a strong Beverly Hills 90210 prejudice, but for some reason, the story derailed quickly in such an excitingly unconventional way... Everytime i watch it again, like, after recommending it to friends in need of ... guidance where to point their gun at, i feel the same astonishing and pleasant disorientation that i felt when i watched it for the first time. How was this movie even approved to be made? It has nothing that Hollywood audiences would ask for. It doesn't even appeal on an obvious intellectual level. It just vibes, the same way Men At Work vibes. I was really surprised not seeing Emilio Estevez involved in the making of this. And the Soundtrack sounds so much like Stewart Copeland, but it is by Steve Bartek. One of my favourties in the top 10 of "Misc, but must have seen".
First of all, i wouldn't cast Carly Brooke anymore. She breaks camera all the time. Possibly too much Instagram. Secondly mostly everybodys hair and makeup is all wrong and people behave unauthentic all of the time. The 80s have a very easy to grasp and strict set of rules. Camerawork is terrible to say the least. Script is leading nowhere, like streetside stream. People don't relate and don't connect, emotional arc is sub-par. This movie has like one good, but useless actor and a few potentially nice shots that were just wasted. Props look like stuff from a scrapyard. Actors have no idea how to handle them, producers have no idea how to feature them. Choice of music screams "we had no budget". This movie should not have been made and you should not watch it. It is boring, adds nothing to the 80s legacy and leads nowhere. 1 of 10. Please don't try again.
Sondages effectués récemment
Total de 3 sondages effectués