blakndn
Iscritto in data feb 2000
Ti diamo il benvenuto nel nuovo profilo
I nostri aggiornamenti sono ancora in fase di sviluppo. Sebbene la versione precedente del profilo non sia più accessibile, stiamo lavorando attivamente ai miglioramenti e alcune delle funzionalità mancanti torneranno presto! Non perderti il loro ritorno. Nel frattempo, l’analisi delle valutazioni è ancora disponibile sulle nostre app iOS e Android, che si trovano nella pagina del profilo. Per visualizzare la tua distribuzione delle valutazioni per anno e genere, fai riferimento alla nostra nuova Guida di aiuto.
Distintivi2
Per sapere come ottenere i badge, vai a pagina di aiuto per i badge.
Recensioni15
Valutazione di blakndn
Everyone else who has commented negatively about this film have done excellent analysis as to why this film is so bloody awful. I wasn't going to comment, but the film just bugs me so much, and the writer/director in particular. So I must toss in my hat to join the naysayers.
I saw the original "Wicker Man" and really loved the cornucopia of music, sensuality, paganism in a modern world, and the clash of theological beliefs. This said, I am not part of the crowd that thinks remakes of great movies shouldn't be done. For example, I liked the original 1950's "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", but equally enjoyed the 1978 remake. Both films can stand on their own. Another example is "The Thing". The original, as campy as it looks compared to today's standards, has a lot to be proud of in the 1982 remake with Kurt Russell (my all time favorite horror movie). So that small minority of people who like "The Wicker Man" re-make can not accuse me of dissing this piece of crap just because it's a re-make.
This film solidified for me Neil LaBute's sexism and misogynistic tendencies. It also made me wonder how executives, wanting to make a serious thriller, would green light a product that is so anti-female. There are too many scenes of Cage hitting women just because he's frustrated with them thwarting his investigation of a missing girl. would he react like this off the island in other cases where suspects aren't forthcoming? The original created a society in which men and women are equal participants in a Goddess based religion. The threat to the main character came from everyone, male and female. There was no sexual hierarchy.
The metaphor of bees, drones etc was a bit heavy handed and convenient ("The drone must die!"), especially when Cage's character has bee allergies. I kept wondering why the men on the island didn't fight back and use mere physicality to stop these women from treating them like grunts. These were not women with special supernatural powers, and half of them seemed to be pregnant, the other half old and fat, and the rest girls and thin blonde waifs, so if the men really wanted to escape they could do what most men do when they hate women. Physically dominate them. There didn't seem to be any guns or weapons beyond cutting tools to hold them if they were unhappy. But if they were content being drones, why make them unable to speak? They could be used as a threat to Cage because they will defend the community. They are drones because Neil LaBute seems to believe that a society ran by women would leave men castrated. (That movie was made already. "The Stepford Wives" anyone?) Classic symptoms from men who are afraid of what may happen if women got their sh*t together and were truly equal citizens.
The problem with the man-hating female society is that it makes uninteresting movie viewing and creates unintentional humor when Cage starts knocking women out. I belief LaBute should've left the society an egalitarian one, kept the sexuality and uninhibited lasciviousness, and pushed buttons of discomfort in regards to the children on that island. No one likes pedophiles or children to be sexually exploited. So how would a cop react if he saw lewd acts performed by adults with children around? There would be a logical mental leap that these children are abused, thus, an urgency created to save the missing child and get help for all the children. LaBute has said he created the fiancé and daughter story thread to give Cage's character an incentive to search. I don't think you need that. Any child abused will make an adult react to save them. The irony of course would be that the child Cage "saves" ultimately brings him death.
The dialogue was contrived and campy. The whole third act was hilarious. The audience I saw it with guffawed (and later booed at the end). I just thought the movie started off wrong when the letter arrived written in the fancy handwriting and all the flashbacks cutting into to show how wounded Cage is. We don't need that. Just show him arriving on the island for an investigation of a missing child. Most of us in America have seen "Law & Order" and other cop procedurals. We come into the movie as if we are Cage's partner solving a mystery.
So much potential...wasted. Neil LaBute, stick to talking head pictures for people who enjoy your male angst-ridden plays and flicks of that sort. Stay with your own company of men. Leave the thrillers for people who understand thrillers. Here is your jar of honey. I'll watch that.
I saw the original "Wicker Man" and really loved the cornucopia of music, sensuality, paganism in a modern world, and the clash of theological beliefs. This said, I am not part of the crowd that thinks remakes of great movies shouldn't be done. For example, I liked the original 1950's "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", but equally enjoyed the 1978 remake. Both films can stand on their own. Another example is "The Thing". The original, as campy as it looks compared to today's standards, has a lot to be proud of in the 1982 remake with Kurt Russell (my all time favorite horror movie). So that small minority of people who like "The Wicker Man" re-make can not accuse me of dissing this piece of crap just because it's a re-make.
This film solidified for me Neil LaBute's sexism and misogynistic tendencies. It also made me wonder how executives, wanting to make a serious thriller, would green light a product that is so anti-female. There are too many scenes of Cage hitting women just because he's frustrated with them thwarting his investigation of a missing girl. would he react like this off the island in other cases where suspects aren't forthcoming? The original created a society in which men and women are equal participants in a Goddess based religion. The threat to the main character came from everyone, male and female. There was no sexual hierarchy.
The metaphor of bees, drones etc was a bit heavy handed and convenient ("The drone must die!"), especially when Cage's character has bee allergies. I kept wondering why the men on the island didn't fight back and use mere physicality to stop these women from treating them like grunts. These were not women with special supernatural powers, and half of them seemed to be pregnant, the other half old and fat, and the rest girls and thin blonde waifs, so if the men really wanted to escape they could do what most men do when they hate women. Physically dominate them. There didn't seem to be any guns or weapons beyond cutting tools to hold them if they were unhappy. But if they were content being drones, why make them unable to speak? They could be used as a threat to Cage because they will defend the community. They are drones because Neil LaBute seems to believe that a society ran by women would leave men castrated. (That movie was made already. "The Stepford Wives" anyone?) Classic symptoms from men who are afraid of what may happen if women got their sh*t together and were truly equal citizens.
The problem with the man-hating female society is that it makes uninteresting movie viewing and creates unintentional humor when Cage starts knocking women out. I belief LaBute should've left the society an egalitarian one, kept the sexuality and uninhibited lasciviousness, and pushed buttons of discomfort in regards to the children on that island. No one likes pedophiles or children to be sexually exploited. So how would a cop react if he saw lewd acts performed by adults with children around? There would be a logical mental leap that these children are abused, thus, an urgency created to save the missing child and get help for all the children. LaBute has said he created the fiancé and daughter story thread to give Cage's character an incentive to search. I don't think you need that. Any child abused will make an adult react to save them. The irony of course would be that the child Cage "saves" ultimately brings him death.
The dialogue was contrived and campy. The whole third act was hilarious. The audience I saw it with guffawed (and later booed at the end). I just thought the movie started off wrong when the letter arrived written in the fancy handwriting and all the flashbacks cutting into to show how wounded Cage is. We don't need that. Just show him arriving on the island for an investigation of a missing child. Most of us in America have seen "Law & Order" and other cop procedurals. We come into the movie as if we are Cage's partner solving a mystery.
So much potential...wasted. Neil LaBute, stick to talking head pictures for people who enjoy your male angst-ridden plays and flicks of that sort. Stay with your own company of men. Leave the thrillers for people who understand thrillers. Here is your jar of honey. I'll watch that.
Despite the fact that the message boards for this movie are all negative from people WHO HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE, I have decided that the Wayans' brothers have found a successful formula to make money. I cringed when I saw the trailer for "White Chicks" awhile back, and thought there was no way that thing would make money. I rented "White Chicks" and the movie was funny, as in stupid funny. There are scenes in there that are so outrageous that I had to replay them because they were funny in the aforementioned "stupid funny" way.
"Little Man" follows the same formula. After spoofing "hood" movies years ago, these guys take a silly premise, and surround their cartoon world with non-expensive white actors with talent, plenty of potty humor and attractive women to keep the interest of the 18-24 year-old males who enjoy this stuff.
The graphics are not great. Transposing Marlon's head onto a little person is not seamless, but fifteen minutes into the story, you accept how it looks. Their homage to "Baby Buggy Bunny" is pretty much scene by scene, but they always add a little sentimental note by having the titular bad guy (Marlon, aka Little Man)) go through a true character arc. He is a little one note with his exaggerated facial expressions, but this is a Bugs bunny world.
There are surprise cameos by well known comedic actors who also do these types of movie, but don't receive the same harsh criticisms the Wayan's get. One never hears of non-white people bagging on Adam Sandler et al, because they don't like the plot of a film, but nearly all films made by black actors are techno-lynched without being viewed. And the votes are skewered beyond belief. But I digress.
"Little Man" is a movie you see for the same reason one goes to see silly comedies. Cheap laughs, silly sight gags, and free air conditioning. I give it a 7-10 because I know it will get slammed on here, but the fact is, they will make a lot of money off the DVD. "White Chicks" made ahem....$117 million. Prepare to see more from the Wayans with that kinda dough rolling in.
"Little Man" follows the same formula. After spoofing "hood" movies years ago, these guys take a silly premise, and surround their cartoon world with non-expensive white actors with talent, plenty of potty humor and attractive women to keep the interest of the 18-24 year-old males who enjoy this stuff.
The graphics are not great. Transposing Marlon's head onto a little person is not seamless, but fifteen minutes into the story, you accept how it looks. Their homage to "Baby Buggy Bunny" is pretty much scene by scene, but they always add a little sentimental note by having the titular bad guy (Marlon, aka Little Man)) go through a true character arc. He is a little one note with his exaggerated facial expressions, but this is a Bugs bunny world.
There are surprise cameos by well known comedic actors who also do these types of movie, but don't receive the same harsh criticisms the Wayan's get. One never hears of non-white people bagging on Adam Sandler et al, because they don't like the plot of a film, but nearly all films made by black actors are techno-lynched without being viewed. And the votes are skewered beyond belief. But I digress.
"Little Man" is a movie you see for the same reason one goes to see silly comedies. Cheap laughs, silly sight gags, and free air conditioning. I give it a 7-10 because I know it will get slammed on here, but the fact is, they will make a lot of money off the DVD. "White Chicks" made ahem....$117 million. Prepare to see more from the Wayans with that kinda dough rolling in.