matt-194
जन॰ 2001 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.
बैज2
बैज कमाने का तरीका जानने के लिए, यहां बैज सहायता पेज जाएं.
समीक्षाएं13
matt-194की रेटिंग
First off, the film is flawed; no doubt about it. Very beautifully shot and a wonderful score, but the storyline left most people shaking their heads. But what fascinates me is how it polarizes reviewers and commentators (even on this site.) Check 'em out. There's something about flawed, character-driven movies that bring out the biases in viewers.
Those that hated the movie for all of its flaws (and there are many) seem willing to say anything to make you avoid this movie. Even claiming Wesleyan as a good Christian school (shoring up arguments about a homophobic subtext). Have they been on that campus? I cannot imagine anyone espousing hard-core Christian values being comfortable in the music program at Wesleyan.
Those that love the movie ignore the tiring, film-school glee with which the directors devise as many ways as possible to put water between the camera and the actors. Enough with the symbolism already; I get it!
My advice, see the movie (for free if possible, it may not be worth $8) and then read the reviews. Some of them will sound nothing like the film you saw.
Those that hated the movie for all of its flaws (and there are many) seem willing to say anything to make you avoid this movie. Even claiming Wesleyan as a good Christian school (shoring up arguments about a homophobic subtext). Have they been on that campus? I cannot imagine anyone espousing hard-core Christian values being comfortable in the music program at Wesleyan.
Those that love the movie ignore the tiring, film-school glee with which the directors devise as many ways as possible to put water between the camera and the actors. Enough with the symbolism already; I get it!
My advice, see the movie (for free if possible, it may not be worth $8) and then read the reviews. Some of them will sound nothing like the film you saw.
Robert De Niro is a brilliant actor. Martin Scorsese is a brilliant director. This much is clear. 'nuff said.
I am deeply troubled by what, to my eyes, is an attempt to find beauty and redemption in a flawed boxer. Some men manage to be flawed without hitting their wives. But I often find moral failings in Scorsese--this movie just fits his flawed guys thing.
But the most impressive part of the movie is La Motta quoting "On the Waterfront" to himself in the mirror. He is truly the one who should have looked out for himself a little bit. He is the reason he was not a contender.
I am deeply troubled by what, to my eyes, is an attempt to find beauty and redemption in a flawed boxer. Some men manage to be flawed without hitting their wives. But I often find moral failings in Scorsese--this movie just fits his flawed guys thing.
But the most impressive part of the movie is La Motta quoting "On the Waterfront" to himself in the mirror. He is truly the one who should have looked out for himself a little bit. He is the reason he was not a contender.
Several times during the movie I wanted to turn to the person next to me and ask, "Why are we watching these people?" There seemed to be other, more interesting people around, why not them?
And I have never seen a bigger waste of Eugene Levy than this movie. That man can be funny. (In the interest of full disclosure I have seen none of the American Pie series; Levy may be bad in that too.)
And I have never seen a bigger waste of Eugene Levy than this movie. That man can be funny. (In the interest of full disclosure I have seen none of the American Pie series; Levy may be bad in that too.)