VALUTAZIONE IMDb
6,0/10
19.462
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Nel 1914 un giovane arriva su un'isola remota vicina al circolo polare Antartico per lavorare come osservatore meteorologico, ma si ritroverà assediato da letali creature che vivono sull'iso... Leggi tuttoNel 1914 un giovane arriva su un'isola remota vicina al circolo polare Antartico per lavorare come osservatore meteorologico, ma si ritroverà assediato da letali creature che vivono sull'isola.Nel 1914 un giovane arriva su un'isola remota vicina al circolo polare Antartico per lavorare come osservatore meteorologico, ma si ritroverà assediato da letali creature che vivono sull'isola.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 1 candidatura in totale
Roberto Rincón Sánchez
- Ship Crew Member #2
- (as Roberto Rincón)
Sussan Deyhim
- Aneris
- (voce)
Recensioni in evidenza
This film will not be for everyone (hence the disappointing low rating). For starters, it's almost an exact adaptation from the Spanish (Barcelona, Spain) award wining debut novel (translated to 37 languages) by Albert Sánchez Piñol, and directed almost perfectly by Frenchman Xavier Gens.
It is not your typical big-screen huge budget Hollywood action blockbuster with A-list actors, and thus should not be compared (as other reviews have) to The Shape of Water. Instead, it's an artistic piece shot extremely well that was written by a Spaniard and presented by a Frenchman - definitely no Hollywood here.
The directing, cinematography, landscape, vfx/sfx and score where outstanding - near perfect. The actors (never heard of either) performed exceptionally well and were very convincing.
Yes, there were some avoidable obvious plot issues, which was disappointing considering how great the rest of the production was. However I'm thinking that it was an editing issue and cutting scenes to get the length down to 108 mins, of which considering the slow pace, I'd be complaining on the length, yet it didn't feel that long. It could also be a screenplay adaptation issue from the two novice writers - they did squeeze in as much as they could from the novel, but maybe should have cut certain scenes shorter to fill in the blanks.
I've read some reviewers had questions about certain things that happened. Some of those issue are answered if you stop and think why this happened and/or dig a little deeper into the meaning. Others, you will need to read the book. I did, and have nothing to question, but do understand how others who didn't read the book would have questions.
A very impressive film, unlike any other I have seen, and needs to be appreciated for what it is, and how is was shown. Would I recommend it or see it again? Absolutely. Had better screenwriters adapted the novel, this would have been a perfect 10/10. But still is a well deserved 8.5 rounded up to a 9/10 from me.
It is not your typical big-screen huge budget Hollywood action blockbuster with A-list actors, and thus should not be compared (as other reviews have) to The Shape of Water. Instead, it's an artistic piece shot extremely well that was written by a Spaniard and presented by a Frenchman - definitely no Hollywood here.
The directing, cinematography, landscape, vfx/sfx and score where outstanding - near perfect. The actors (never heard of either) performed exceptionally well and were very convincing.
Yes, there were some avoidable obvious plot issues, which was disappointing considering how great the rest of the production was. However I'm thinking that it was an editing issue and cutting scenes to get the length down to 108 mins, of which considering the slow pace, I'd be complaining on the length, yet it didn't feel that long. It could also be a screenplay adaptation issue from the two novice writers - they did squeeze in as much as they could from the novel, but maybe should have cut certain scenes shorter to fill in the blanks.
I've read some reviewers had questions about certain things that happened. Some of those issue are answered if you stop and think why this happened and/or dig a little deeper into the meaning. Others, you will need to read the book. I did, and have nothing to question, but do understand how others who didn't read the book would have questions.
A very impressive film, unlike any other I have seen, and needs to be appreciated for what it is, and how is was shown. Would I recommend it or see it again? Absolutely. Had better screenwriters adapted the novel, this would have been a perfect 10/10. But still is a well deserved 8.5 rounded up to a 9/10 from me.
Cold Skin is quite the original unique little tale, but ultimately it fails to deliver on its promises.
It tells the story of a military intelligence man set to do a scientific study on a remote island for a year replacing an existing gentleman. There is nobody on the island bar one, a disgruntled insane from isolation man named Gruner. As night falls he learns that the island holds a terrible secret.
Arguably a "Creature feature" this horror stars the excellent British veteran Ray Stevenson and was made by French/Spanish studios. I'm very glad I came across it because despite its flaws it's quite remarkable, it was nice to find a movie this original and visually pleasing considering that it's not a mega budget film.
The concept is outstanding, the delivery however is very mixed. They manage to make it all look good and Stevenson is on form as usual however the writing is really messy and the film simply should have flowed better.
When the credits rolled I was saddened by the wasted potential here, on paper it had the makings of a fantastic feature but the end result here is something that loses steam at around the 2/3 mark and hits you with a very uninspired ending.
Well worth a watch simply to marvel over what it does have to offer but it's a fine example of a ball being dropped by all involved.
The Good:
Solid concept
Looks great
Ray Stevenson
The Bad:
Loses steam
Wasted potential
Weak finale
It tells the story of a military intelligence man set to do a scientific study on a remote island for a year replacing an existing gentleman. There is nobody on the island bar one, a disgruntled insane from isolation man named Gruner. As night falls he learns that the island holds a terrible secret.
Arguably a "Creature feature" this horror stars the excellent British veteran Ray Stevenson and was made by French/Spanish studios. I'm very glad I came across it because despite its flaws it's quite remarkable, it was nice to find a movie this original and visually pleasing considering that it's not a mega budget film.
The concept is outstanding, the delivery however is very mixed. They manage to make it all look good and Stevenson is on form as usual however the writing is really messy and the film simply should have flowed better.
When the credits rolled I was saddened by the wasted potential here, on paper it had the makings of a fantastic feature but the end result here is something that loses steam at around the 2/3 mark and hits you with a very uninspired ending.
Well worth a watch simply to marvel over what it does have to offer but it's a fine example of a ball being dropped by all involved.
The Good:
Solid concept
Looks great
Ray Stevenson
The Bad:
Loses steam
Wasted potential
Weak finale
The story is somewhat interesting and keeps one's attention. But the strongest attribute of this film is the casting of two very capable British actors, David Oakes and Ray Stevenson, in the main roles. I had only seen Oakes play unlikable characters before, while Stevenson has usually been in more positive roles.
The cinematography, which features picturesque scenes of the isolated island and the surrounding ocean, is also quite good.
The cinematography, which features picturesque scenes of the isolated island and the surrounding ocean, is also quite good.
As an audience we feel lonely and fragile just like the main character. The movie begins as a horror but slowly turns more action orientated. Early action scenes are very good and unfortunately the get abit repetitive and aren't as good later on. I love all the question this film poses. Set in the back drop of WW1 it does't seem to have connection intill you peice it together. As there aren't many characters in the film you get to know them intimately. Character development is handled well. The CGI looks natural and effects are gratifying. This movie had me hooked and as a result I have ordered the novel it was based upon.
A dark story of what colonialism might have been to the indigenous habitats of a newly discovered land. Wonderfully shot cinematography followed by brilliant musical score and unforgettable story. Very enjoyable.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizIt took three to eight hours per day to apply all the prosthetic make-up on Aura Garrido for her role as Aneris.
- BlooperWhen the island is first seen through the spyglass, after his conversation with Friend, the captain orders to prepare to weigh anchor. As the ship is already moving, the order is wrong, as weighing anchor means to raise the anchor from the sea floor and hoist it on board. The correct order would be "prepare to anchor", but even then, the ship is too far away for the order to make sense.
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Cold Skin?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
Botteghino
- Budget
- 8.500.000 € (previsto)
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 737.478 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 48min(108 min)
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti