Robin-97
Iscritto in data nov 1999
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.
Recensioni21
Valutazione di Robin-97
As an aspiring screenwriter myself, there is no element of a screenplay that bugs me more than a plot twist that exists for the sole purpose of being a twist. Ehren Kruger is a screenwriter who is currently one of the hottest commodities on the market right now, but his work seems to rely on an approach that may have been successful in his initial efforts, but nearly leads to the self-destruction of "Reindeer Games". His "Arlington Road" was a solid, underrated little thriller and contained a twist ending so jarring and effective that one could easily overlook how contrived it really was due to its reliance on one character predicting EXACTLY what another character would do. "Scream 3" was another Kruger-penned script that contained a villain whose master plan hinged on their ability to predict the characters' actions. Alas, Kruger takes this approach to ludicrous lengths in "Reindeer Games". The story may revolve around the robbery of a casino, but it soon becomes apparent that the villains would be better off just abandoning their task and making twice as much money by starting up their own psychic network.
Not that the script's deficiencies make "Reindeer Games" unwatchable. Overall, the film is a fairly passable way to kill 100 minutes and would probably have come across better as a direct-to-video quickie. The entire project just seems rather lackluster, considering the talent involved, as the first-rate cast fails to rise above the material and John Frankenheimer's direction is unspectacular at best. The action fails to generate much in the way of excitement, due mainly to the contrived fashion through which much of it is set up (Ben Affleck's hero pours alcohol into a water pistol because he just KNOWS that the bad guy will stop to light up a cigarette before shooting him). Indeed, most of the fun comes from trying to pick apart the absurdities in Kruger's script.
One of the liabilities of loading a story with many surprise twists is that they have to be adequately explained in order for them to make sense. Unfortunately, this has a negative effect on the film's pacing as the characters are constantly forced to stop and talk about the twist that has just occurred so that everything will hold together. Its reminiscent of the classic James Bond moment where the villain explains his grand scheme to the audience, except that it is repeated FIVE OR SIX TIMES throughout "Reindeer Games". This all leads us to our twist ending, which like Kruger's previous works, relies on a psychic villain predicting exactly what the hero will do. However, it doesn't take much to realize that the villain's whole scheme is ridiculously convoluted and more trouble than it's worth, especially since the hero's participation is not exactly vital to its success. It does not evolve out of the logic of the plot or the characters. As stated in the opening paragraph, it is twist that exists for the sole purpose of being a twist. However, it is a twist that succeeds at giving yours truly a rather "twisted" viewpoint. While "Reindeer Games" is strictly a mediocre piece of work, it can still be fun viewing for those of us who love sitting back and poking fun at the lunacy of screenplays such as this. You know that's an activity that I find that hard to resist...
Not that the script's deficiencies make "Reindeer Games" unwatchable. Overall, the film is a fairly passable way to kill 100 minutes and would probably have come across better as a direct-to-video quickie. The entire project just seems rather lackluster, considering the talent involved, as the first-rate cast fails to rise above the material and John Frankenheimer's direction is unspectacular at best. The action fails to generate much in the way of excitement, due mainly to the contrived fashion through which much of it is set up (Ben Affleck's hero pours alcohol into a water pistol because he just KNOWS that the bad guy will stop to light up a cigarette before shooting him). Indeed, most of the fun comes from trying to pick apart the absurdities in Kruger's script.
One of the liabilities of loading a story with many surprise twists is that they have to be adequately explained in order for them to make sense. Unfortunately, this has a negative effect on the film's pacing as the characters are constantly forced to stop and talk about the twist that has just occurred so that everything will hold together. Its reminiscent of the classic James Bond moment where the villain explains his grand scheme to the audience, except that it is repeated FIVE OR SIX TIMES throughout "Reindeer Games". This all leads us to our twist ending, which like Kruger's previous works, relies on a psychic villain predicting exactly what the hero will do. However, it doesn't take much to realize that the villain's whole scheme is ridiculously convoluted and more trouble than it's worth, especially since the hero's participation is not exactly vital to its success. It does not evolve out of the logic of the plot or the characters. As stated in the opening paragraph, it is twist that exists for the sole purpose of being a twist. However, it is a twist that succeeds at giving yours truly a rather "twisted" viewpoint. While "Reindeer Games" is strictly a mediocre piece of work, it can still be fun viewing for those of us who love sitting back and poking fun at the lunacy of screenplays such as this. You know that's an activity that I find that hard to resist...
I don't think I'll ever be able to explain the appeal of Italian slasher/giallo films. I often enjoy the hell out of them, but it's safe to say that I don't have a prayer in hell of ever getting anyone I know to ever share my sentiments. Their negative reactions often stem from the bad acting, laughable writing and slow pacing that plague these works and the scary part is that I have a hard time disagreeing with any of their complaints. Sergio Martino's "Torso" is definitely a film for which all these negative detractors apply to, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't provide its fair share of entertainment.
It would be best to classify "Torso" as a middle-of-the-road entry in the popular slasher/giallo genre. It is certainly watchable, but is not particularly invigorating and pales in comparison to the best works of Dario Argento. While Argento's films were often plagued with more than their fair share of deficiencies when it came to script and pacing, the director had a gift for drawing one so deeply into his visual nightmares that any need to apply logic to the proceedings was non-existent. Films of this genre have to deliver truly startling sequences in order for the viewer to look past their shortcomings. While "Torso" does contain a few sequences like that (the last third's cat-and-mouse game between the heroine and the killer is especially effective), its pacing is too slack for it to be truly involving and certain elements of the film are just plain laughable. In particular, a flashback sequence to a traumatic childhood event makes for the silliest, most ludicrously funny explanation for a serial killer's behaviour that I have ever seen. But as I stated, hilarious moments like that can also be contributing factors to my enjoyment of these films. So when all is said and done, "Torso" is worthy viewing for fans of the Italian slasher genre. Enjoy it if you can, but do not worry too much if neither you nor anyone else you know understands why.
It would be best to classify "Torso" as a middle-of-the-road entry in the popular slasher/giallo genre. It is certainly watchable, but is not particularly invigorating and pales in comparison to the best works of Dario Argento. While Argento's films were often plagued with more than their fair share of deficiencies when it came to script and pacing, the director had a gift for drawing one so deeply into his visual nightmares that any need to apply logic to the proceedings was non-existent. Films of this genre have to deliver truly startling sequences in order for the viewer to look past their shortcomings. While "Torso" does contain a few sequences like that (the last third's cat-and-mouse game between the heroine and the killer is especially effective), its pacing is too slack for it to be truly involving and certain elements of the film are just plain laughable. In particular, a flashback sequence to a traumatic childhood event makes for the silliest, most ludicrously funny explanation for a serial killer's behaviour that I have ever seen. But as I stated, hilarious moments like that can also be contributing factors to my enjoyment of these films. So when all is said and done, "Torso" is worthy viewing for fans of the Italian slasher genre. Enjoy it if you can, but do not worry too much if neither you nor anyone else you know understands why.
"Moonraker" is far from a boring film, but I can think of few action pictures that have ever been more frustrating. What we have here is the opportunity for a tight, exciting, gloriously spectacular 007 adventure, but due to the filmmakers' decision to substitute juvenile humour for thrills at every opportunity, the final result is sporadically enjoyable at best, placing this overblown entry on the very bottom rung of the Bond ladder (well, the official Bond ladder anyway - at least it's still miles ahead of "Never Say Never Again"). Keen observers may notice that the end credits of "The Spy Who Loved Me" stated "James Bond Will Return in 'For Your Eyes Only'". And if you'll pardon the pun, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the success of a little film called "Star Wars" inspired the producers to send 007 to outer space instead.
Needless to say, that decision was a far cry from Ian Fleming's original vision. His original novelization of "Moonraker" was a solid page-turner about an megalomaniacal villain's scheme to fire a nuclear rocket into the heart of London and even contained a scene where Bond almost makes the shocking decision to sacrifice his own life to save the city. This time, the villain wants to wipe out all life on earth and start his own utopia of perfect human specimens. Of course, ludicrous storylines like this are what make the Bond franchise what it is, but this is probably the only entry in the series that actually manages to be MORE silly than the "Austin Powers" films that spoof it. The first half hour gives an indication of how much better the film might have been had it played things more straight. Things start off dynamically with a breathtaking sky-diving sequence that is undoubtedly one of the best teasers in the series and also earns high marks later on for a scene in which Bond is trapped helplessly on a G-force simulator. It is one of the very few instances in the series where 007 is left too shaken up to even utter a one-liner, but unfortunately, this is the ONLY moment in the film where an action setpiece is not completely obliterated by an overuse of low, cornball humour and juvenile sight gags.
By the time "Moonraker" has reached its outer space finale, all suspense has been drained away and the flashy battle sequence, while undoubtedly expensive, is pretty underwhelming, especially when compared to the climactic setpieces in "The Spy Who Loved Me". The supporting cast also does little to enhance the proceedings. Lois Chiles is awfully wooden as the aptly-named heroine, Dr. Holly Goodhead, and Michel Lonsdale, despite having a great deal of witty dialogue ("Take good care of Mr. Bond. See that some harm comes to him"), is one of the more dull Bond villains, mainly because he speaks in monotone throughout the entire film and doesn't even seem to truly relish his evil schemes. And then there's the character of Jaws, who was arguably the most memorable Bond villain of them all in "TSWLM", but has his credibility completely shattered here. The character is now portrayed as an inane buffoon who could never stop 007 if his life depended on it, and a scene midway through in which he suddenly falls head-over-heels in love has got to be the most embarrasing moment in the entire series, bar none! As you can imagine, I didn't much care about anything that happened in the film after that, which pretty much sums why "Moonraker" is so frustrating. 007 has always held a license to be as he silly as he wants, but this particular entry demonstrates that boundaries DO have to be drawn somewhere. You know you're in the trouble when it gets to the point where the appearance of Mini-Me would lend more credibility to the proceedings!
Needless to say, that decision was a far cry from Ian Fleming's original vision. His original novelization of "Moonraker" was a solid page-turner about an megalomaniacal villain's scheme to fire a nuclear rocket into the heart of London and even contained a scene where Bond almost makes the shocking decision to sacrifice his own life to save the city. This time, the villain wants to wipe out all life on earth and start his own utopia of perfect human specimens. Of course, ludicrous storylines like this are what make the Bond franchise what it is, but this is probably the only entry in the series that actually manages to be MORE silly than the "Austin Powers" films that spoof it. The first half hour gives an indication of how much better the film might have been had it played things more straight. Things start off dynamically with a breathtaking sky-diving sequence that is undoubtedly one of the best teasers in the series and also earns high marks later on for a scene in which Bond is trapped helplessly on a G-force simulator. It is one of the very few instances in the series where 007 is left too shaken up to even utter a one-liner, but unfortunately, this is the ONLY moment in the film where an action setpiece is not completely obliterated by an overuse of low, cornball humour and juvenile sight gags.
By the time "Moonraker" has reached its outer space finale, all suspense has been drained away and the flashy battle sequence, while undoubtedly expensive, is pretty underwhelming, especially when compared to the climactic setpieces in "The Spy Who Loved Me". The supporting cast also does little to enhance the proceedings. Lois Chiles is awfully wooden as the aptly-named heroine, Dr. Holly Goodhead, and Michel Lonsdale, despite having a great deal of witty dialogue ("Take good care of Mr. Bond. See that some harm comes to him"), is one of the more dull Bond villains, mainly because he speaks in monotone throughout the entire film and doesn't even seem to truly relish his evil schemes. And then there's the character of Jaws, who was arguably the most memorable Bond villain of them all in "TSWLM", but has his credibility completely shattered here. The character is now portrayed as an inane buffoon who could never stop 007 if his life depended on it, and a scene midway through in which he suddenly falls head-over-heels in love has got to be the most embarrasing moment in the entire series, bar none! As you can imagine, I didn't much care about anything that happened in the film after that, which pretty much sums why "Moonraker" is so frustrating. 007 has always held a license to be as he silly as he wants, but this particular entry demonstrates that boundaries DO have to be drawn somewhere. You know you're in the trouble when it gets to the point where the appearance of Mini-Me would lend more credibility to the proceedings!