RachelLone
अक्टू॰ 2000 को शामिल हुए
नई प्रोफ़ाइल में आपका स्वागत है
हमारे अपडेट अभी भी डेवलप हो रहे हैं. हालांकि प्रोफ़ाइलका पिछला संस्करण अब उपलब्ध नहीं है, हम सक्रिय रूप से सुधारों पर काम कर रहे हैं, और कुछ अनुपलब्ध सुविधाएं जल्द ही वापस आ जाएंगी! उनकी वापसी के लिए हमारे साथ बने रहें। इस बीच, रेटिंग विश्लेषण अभी भी हमारे iOS और Android ऐप्स पर उपलब्ध है, जो प्रोफ़ाइल पेज पर पाया जाता है. वर्ष और शैली के अनुसार अपने रेटिंग वितरण (ओं) को देखने के लिए, कृपया हमारा नया हेल्प गाइड देखें.
बैज3
बैज कमाने का तरीका जानने के लिए, यहां बैज सहायता पेज जाएं.
समीक्षाएं85
RachelLoneकी रेटिंग
An utterly compassionate music teacher arrives at a boys' reform school to teach a class with difficult pupils and he eventually wins their trust and respect with his kindness and undying love. Meanwhile he has to deal with the brutal principal who uses inhumane means to punish students and he also does he utmost to keep his pupils away from trouble. He forms the class as a choir and discovers one of the boy's amazing potential, transforms him from a trouble-maker into a gifted singer and a more disciplined child. Now the boy is a renowned orchestra conductor. As he reads Mr Mathieu, the teacher's diary written fifty years ago with a then classmate, the memories slowly flow back...
Prepare a handkerchief before you see this film. This is a deeply moving story. A little sentimental, maybe, but in a good way, which let us see the bright side of the human spirit. Mr Mathieu is portrayed as a saint, almost too good to be true, but perhaps such loving and dedicated educators do exist. All in all, this is a must see, because the movie touches your very soul.
Prepare a handkerchief before you see this film. This is a deeply moving story. A little sentimental, maybe, but in a good way, which let us see the bright side of the human spirit. Mr Mathieu is portrayed as a saint, almost too good to be true, but perhaps such loving and dedicated educators do exist. All in all, this is a must see, because the movie touches your very soul.
Despite the trend of violence depicted in this film which serves entertainment value, 'Kill Bill Vol. 1' is a pathetic joke. There is no comparison between this and Quentin Tarantino's previous work 'The Reservoir Dogs' and 'Pulp Fiction'. This flick is utterly hollow.
The story is about a heavily pregnant bride and assassin (Uma Thurman) who is severely tortured by her fellow assassins and gunned down by her boss and the child's father Bill (David Carradine). She survives the massacre (all the wedding guests are killed), falls into a coma and wakes up four years later (the assassination squad originally decides to murder her while she is in a coma, but the mission is later aborted because Bill wants to maintain their reputation) and begins her bloody revenge- killing her one-time co-workers, one by one.
Here are some of the numerous loopholes in the film:
The bride awakes from her coma, looks at her body in disbelief and murmurs 'four years...four years!'. How on earth is she aware that it has been four years since she falls into a coma?
She lies on the floor, behind the medical staff member who has been repeatedly raping her while she is in a coma and pulls out a knife and attacks the man. How on earth does she still have a knife with her when she has been hospitalised for four years? She is supposed to have nothing on her.
She leaves the hospital in her patient's gown with the car of the attacked man while she is in a coma, and later she arrives at the neighbourhood where Vivica A. Fox's character lives with normal clothes. How does she get them? She then travels light (EXTREMELY light, with only a bag) and buys a single ticket to Okinawa. Where does she get the money? After four years of being isolated from the outside world, is her bank account still valid? Could she really have the money for a plane ticket to Okinawa and another one to Tokyo?
There are scenes in which she is on the aeroplane with her sword. Is it ever possible that she is ALLOWED to carry a sword onto a plane?
You may find the action bit dazzling, but this is what I call 'pulp fiction'. You may find this movie experimental, but I find it a failed attempt of Tarantino's. The flashbacks is nothing new. I don't see any original, creative or profound meaning in this film.
The story is about a heavily pregnant bride and assassin (Uma Thurman) who is severely tortured by her fellow assassins and gunned down by her boss and the child's father Bill (David Carradine). She survives the massacre (all the wedding guests are killed), falls into a coma and wakes up four years later (the assassination squad originally decides to murder her while she is in a coma, but the mission is later aborted because Bill wants to maintain their reputation) and begins her bloody revenge- killing her one-time co-workers, one by one.
Here are some of the numerous loopholes in the film:
The bride awakes from her coma, looks at her body in disbelief and murmurs 'four years...four years!'. How on earth is she aware that it has been four years since she falls into a coma?
She lies on the floor, behind the medical staff member who has been repeatedly raping her while she is in a coma and pulls out a knife and attacks the man. How on earth does she still have a knife with her when she has been hospitalised for four years? She is supposed to have nothing on her.
She leaves the hospital in her patient's gown with the car of the attacked man while she is in a coma, and later she arrives at the neighbourhood where Vivica A. Fox's character lives with normal clothes. How does she get them? She then travels light (EXTREMELY light, with only a bag) and buys a single ticket to Okinawa. Where does she get the money? After four years of being isolated from the outside world, is her bank account still valid? Could she really have the money for a plane ticket to Okinawa and another one to Tokyo?
There are scenes in which she is on the aeroplane with her sword. Is it ever possible that she is ALLOWED to carry a sword onto a plane?
You may find the action bit dazzling, but this is what I call 'pulp fiction'. You may find this movie experimental, but I find it a failed attempt of Tarantino's. The flashbacks is nothing new. I don't see any original, creative or profound meaning in this film.