Coventry
नव॰ 2002 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.
बैज6
बैज कमाने का तरीका जानने के लिए, यहां बैज सहायता पेज जाएं.
रेटिंग5.6 हज़ार
Coventryकी रेटिंग
समीक्षाएं5.6 हज़ार
Coventryकी रेटिंग
To the person(s) who almost immediately rates my user-comments as "non-useful" as soon as they are published: why? Are you so sad and miserable that only diminishing the work of others brings you joy? Try contributing something yourself, first.
One could certainly state that, around the time "Batman Returns" went into production in 1991/1992, Tim Burton was quite powerful, and he could set his own demands. The original 1989 Batman became a crazy box office hit, and his more personal films that came just before and after - "Beetlejuice" and "Edward Scissorhands" respectively - were also hugely successful. So, for "Batman Returns" he could do whatever he wanted, and he did! It became a very dark film with no less than three important villains (yes, Catwoman is a villain), and it revolves mainly around them while the returning Batman seems to be just a side character.
Penguin/Oswald Cobblepot is a freak who grew up in a sewer (but was able to build an evil empire there) and wants to take revenge on the Gotham where his parents lived. The beautiful Selina struggles with schizophrenia and only feels self-confident as the destructive Catwoman. Max Schrek is simply a ruthless businessman and philanthropist who wants to bend Gotham to his will to become even richer. The plot lines are actually not that well developed, but it all looks very sinister and gloomy... Especially all the scenes with the great Danny DeVito as Penguin and his circus full of terrorists and bandits (including the phenomenal Vincent Schiavelli). For fans of traditional superhero movies, this may be a disappointment, but for fans of dark fantasy, it's a feast; - and perhaps Burton's best film along with "Sleepy Hollow" and "Sweeney Todd".
One could certainly state that, around the time "Batman Returns" went into production in 1991/1992, Tim Burton was quite powerful, and he could set his own demands. The original 1989 Batman became a crazy box office hit, and his more personal films that came just before and after - "Beetlejuice" and "Edward Scissorhands" respectively - were also hugely successful. So, for "Batman Returns" he could do whatever he wanted, and he did! It became a very dark film with no less than three important villains (yes, Catwoman is a villain), and it revolves mainly around them while the returning Batman seems to be just a side character.
Penguin/Oswald Cobblepot is a freak who grew up in a sewer (but was able to build an evil empire there) and wants to take revenge on the Gotham where his parents lived. The beautiful Selina struggles with schizophrenia and only feels self-confident as the destructive Catwoman. Max Schrek is simply a ruthless businessman and philanthropist who wants to bend Gotham to his will to become even richer. The plot lines are actually not that well developed, but it all looks very sinister and gloomy... Especially all the scenes with the great Danny DeVito as Penguin and his circus full of terrorists and bandits (including the phenomenal Vincent Schiavelli). For fans of traditional superhero movies, this may be a disappointment, but for fans of dark fantasy, it's a feast; - and perhaps Burton's best film along with "Sleepy Hollow" and "Sweeney Todd".
"Beast" reminded me very much of another creature-feature I saw recently, and which came out just one year earlier. I'm referring to "Endangered Species" by MJ Bassett, with Rebecca Romijn and Jerry O'Connell.
Admittedly, "Beast" is set in South Africa, and the danger comes from one lion, while "Endangered Species" is situated in Kenya and the danger comes from different animal species (rhinos, hyenas, cheetahs...), but the themes are the same. In both films, a family with all kinds of relational problems goes on safari and each time illegal poaching is at the origin of the animals. This film may have a bit more commercial appeal, because it comes from the acclaimed Icelandic director Baltasar Kormákur ("101 Reykjavik") and superstar Idris Elba ("Luther", "The Suicide Squad") stars in it, but in essence "Beast" remains an ordinary B-movie. And not even a very good one.
Elba plays the role of a single father who is estranged from his two teenage daughters and comes with the great idea of taking them on safari in South Africa, together with an old friend who knows the region like the back of his hand. There in the savannah, however, a lone male lion wanders around and he's out for blood vengeance, because ruthless poachers mutilated him and massacred his entire troop. He doesn't really care who he will maul, as long as they are people.
The computer-generated lion seems to be inspired by Scar from "The Lion King", and his temper is ten times worse. The action, the acting, the effects, and the plot developments are all standard and unimpressive. I may (or definitely) be an old whiner but give me the lion action from old-fashioned movies like "Savage Harvest", "Roar", or "The Ghost and the Darkness".
Admittedly, "Beast" is set in South Africa, and the danger comes from one lion, while "Endangered Species" is situated in Kenya and the danger comes from different animal species (rhinos, hyenas, cheetahs...), but the themes are the same. In both films, a family with all kinds of relational problems goes on safari and each time illegal poaching is at the origin of the animals. This film may have a bit more commercial appeal, because it comes from the acclaimed Icelandic director Baltasar Kormákur ("101 Reykjavik") and superstar Idris Elba ("Luther", "The Suicide Squad") stars in it, but in essence "Beast" remains an ordinary B-movie. And not even a very good one.
Elba plays the role of a single father who is estranged from his two teenage daughters and comes with the great idea of taking them on safari in South Africa, together with an old friend who knows the region like the back of his hand. There in the savannah, however, a lone male lion wanders around and he's out for blood vengeance, because ruthless poachers mutilated him and massacred his entire troop. He doesn't really care who he will maul, as long as they are people.
The computer-generated lion seems to be inspired by Scar from "The Lion King", and his temper is ten times worse. The action, the acting, the effects, and the plot developments are all standard and unimpressive. I may (or definitely) be an old whiner but give me the lion action from old-fashioned movies like "Savage Harvest", "Roar", or "The Ghost and the Darkness".
The movies from my childhood that defined the taste and preferences I still have today were mostly dark fantasies & child-friendly horror movies. Not so much the energetic Science-Fiction movies, though. Between 7 and 12 years old, I non-stop watched titles like "Something Wicked This Way Comes", "Dark Crystal", "Return to Oz", "Watcher in the Woods", and "Escape to Witch Mountain", but I wasn't really interested in films like "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" or "Explorers".
Now I wished I did watch "Explorers" when I was 10 year's old, simply because it doesn't make much sense to watch it as a 40-year-old. It's a movie for children, and that's simultaneously its biggest default. Unlike other but similar movies, like "E. T." or Dante's own "Innerspace", there isn't a lot of entertainment here for adults. The plot of three outcast kids building a spaceship based on the recurring dreams of one of them, and then subsequently heading into the stratosphere and meeting up with the whackiest aliens in history, has very little to offer if you're over 12. True, the film never degenerates into sentimentality, and it is mildly fun to spot all the homages & references towards old Sci-Fi movies (Joe Dante's hobbyhorse), but irritation rapidly comes peeping.
Now I wished I did watch "Explorers" when I was 10 year's old, simply because it doesn't make much sense to watch it as a 40-year-old. It's a movie for children, and that's simultaneously its biggest default. Unlike other but similar movies, like "E. T." or Dante's own "Innerspace", there isn't a lot of entertainment here for adults. The plot of three outcast kids building a spaceship based on the recurring dreams of one of them, and then subsequently heading into the stratosphere and meeting up with the whackiest aliens in history, has very little to offer if you're over 12. True, the film never degenerates into sentimentality, and it is mildly fun to spot all the homages & references towards old Sci-Fi movies (Joe Dante's hobbyhorse), but irritation rapidly comes peeping.
हाल ही में लिए गए पोल
148 कुल पोल लिए गए
