atolk
Iscritto in data dic 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.
Recensioni4
Valutazione di atolk
Blah, blah, blah, this film is weird, blah, blah, blah, the colors are ugly, blah, blah, blah, the guys wears lipstick. It's not even funny how one negative post is like another and how none of you guys bother to read the previously written comments which summarize the case for this movie as follows:
1)The movie is dated. REALLY dated.
2)The movie is Russian. REALLY Russian. Soviet, even.
3)Don't watch this movie, not unless you own a time machine and can transport yourself back into circa 1970 - and make yourself Russian in the process.
4)If you accidentally caught in on MST3K (like I did), and watched it to the end, mesmerized by its badness and the quick, though mean, wit of the MST3K trio - don't bitch about it, for heaven's sakes! Just think what it was that made you watch it. And think what you learned from it. About Russians. About movie-making. About the progress movie industry (and Russian movie industry in particular) has made during the 30-some years that passed since this movie was made. When was the last time you saw a car that was made in 1964? Yeah, I laughed when I saw one, too.
Are you the kind of person who is going to tell me that Woody Allen's "What's Up, Tiger Lily?" is a poor movie with a shaky plot and questionable performances? Or can you tell a joke when you see it? Oh, you didn't see it! Then what are we talking about here?
This movie is, as are many others of the MST3K fame, for movie buffs, who can enjoy a "bad" movie as much as a "good" one. And for someone who appreciates foreign culture and history, as unorthodox as it may appear. And no, Russians did not look or act like that, but they LIKED to watch it. Why? Why don't you think about it, instead of bashing a movie that does not comply with your video rental experience?
"Geez" is right. Geez, how many time do we have to explain to you people?
Over and out. Enjoy "The World is Not Enough" or whatever it is you watch.
1)The movie is dated. REALLY dated.
2)The movie is Russian. REALLY Russian. Soviet, even.
3)Don't watch this movie, not unless you own a time machine and can transport yourself back into circa 1970 - and make yourself Russian in the process.
4)If you accidentally caught in on MST3K (like I did), and watched it to the end, mesmerized by its badness and the quick, though mean, wit of the MST3K trio - don't bitch about it, for heaven's sakes! Just think what it was that made you watch it. And think what you learned from it. About Russians. About movie-making. About the progress movie industry (and Russian movie industry in particular) has made during the 30-some years that passed since this movie was made. When was the last time you saw a car that was made in 1964? Yeah, I laughed when I saw one, too.
Are you the kind of person who is going to tell me that Woody Allen's "What's Up, Tiger Lily?" is a poor movie with a shaky plot and questionable performances? Or can you tell a joke when you see it? Oh, you didn't see it! Then what are we talking about here?
This movie is, as are many others of the MST3K fame, for movie buffs, who can enjoy a "bad" movie as much as a "good" one. And for someone who appreciates foreign culture and history, as unorthodox as it may appear. And no, Russians did not look or act like that, but they LIKED to watch it. Why? Why don't you think about it, instead of bashing a movie that does not comply with your video rental experience?
"Geez" is right. Geez, how many time do we have to explain to you people?
Over and out. Enjoy "The World is Not Enough" or whatever it is you watch.
One of the greatest stories of love and friendship and loneliness I have ever seen. Ever. The feel-good, cry a little, learn a lot movie. Outstanding photography, great dialogue, and so much heart. Someone said that Lelouch is forever making the same movie over and over again. Good! I don't care if I don't see another one.
And what do you know -- a movie like this, a story of a super-successful, super-lovable, super-lonely man who decides to leave it all behind and lives vicariously through a poor young protege he crosses his paths with -- this story did not make it to the American screen and video?! I can hardly believe this. Someone give me the name of a person who decided to pass on this movie. Someone tell me how it is possible to release "Les Miserables" by Claude Lelouch starring Jean-Paul Belmondo and skip on an equally powerful, if not more so, "Itineraire..." which was made by the same two masters 7 years earlier?
Anyone who has seen "Les Miserables", call your Senator and demand that this movie be released in the United States of A.
Any foreign movie distributor who is reading this, grab this movie and you will have hit a mother lode.
And what do you know -- a movie like this, a story of a super-successful, super-lovable, super-lonely man who decides to leave it all behind and lives vicariously through a poor young protege he crosses his paths with -- this story did not make it to the American screen and video?! I can hardly believe this. Someone give me the name of a person who decided to pass on this movie. Someone tell me how it is possible to release "Les Miserables" by Claude Lelouch starring Jean-Paul Belmondo and skip on an equally powerful, if not more so, "Itineraire..." which was made by the same two masters 7 years earlier?
Anyone who has seen "Les Miserables", call your Senator and demand that this movie be released in the United States of A.
Any foreign movie distributor who is reading this, grab this movie and you will have hit a mother lode.
Even as I was trying to keep still and finish the movie, I was asking myself: is there any reason to watch this, admittedly strong and fresh in its time, film after one has seen the Hollywood remake with Al Pacino? The answer to me is 'no'.
Unless you are a film school student or a movie buff exploring the phenomenon of the long-lasting, though rarely happy, romance that Hollywood seems to have with remaking older/foreign movies, there is nothing there for you. If you are, however, looking for an example of a successful remake to bolster your faith in Hollywood after such failed covers as "Father's Day", then this is the original for one of the best ones.
Never once will you be as captivated by the story or performance as you are in the Al Pacino movie. The subtitles are-- well, they are the subtitles. They cater to our snob appeal but hardly add to the viewing experience. The character of the baby-faced, cigarette smoking, women-coveting boy is one-dimensional and boring, complete with thoughts read out loud by the narrator. The colonel is impressive, but then so is Pacino.
This, of course, only makes sense to an English-speaking viewer familiar with the remake. I tried hard to put myself in the shoes of a "Scent of a Woman" virgin in order to do this movie justice. I failed. If you have not seen the remake, I recommend watching this original first.
Briefly about the plot. A young army cadet is assigned to a retired blind colonel, who needs assistance in his cross country trip. The colonel teaches the boy a few life's lessons, before reaching his final destination, the cheerful sunny Naples, where his dark goal awaits him. A beautiful young girl, in love with the colonel since she was a child, will do anything to prevent him from carrying out his plan. Main differences from the remake: missing is the boy's school life (and, naturally, problems), but a nice and almost believable love story is present. The ending -- well, it's different.
Unless you are a film school student or a movie buff exploring the phenomenon of the long-lasting, though rarely happy, romance that Hollywood seems to have with remaking older/foreign movies, there is nothing there for you. If you are, however, looking for an example of a successful remake to bolster your faith in Hollywood after such failed covers as "Father's Day", then this is the original for one of the best ones.
Never once will you be as captivated by the story or performance as you are in the Al Pacino movie. The subtitles are-- well, they are the subtitles. They cater to our snob appeal but hardly add to the viewing experience. The character of the baby-faced, cigarette smoking, women-coveting boy is one-dimensional and boring, complete with thoughts read out loud by the narrator. The colonel is impressive, but then so is Pacino.
This, of course, only makes sense to an English-speaking viewer familiar with the remake. I tried hard to put myself in the shoes of a "Scent of a Woman" virgin in order to do this movie justice. I failed. If you have not seen the remake, I recommend watching this original first.
Briefly about the plot. A young army cadet is assigned to a retired blind colonel, who needs assistance in his cross country trip. The colonel teaches the boy a few life's lessons, before reaching his final destination, the cheerful sunny Naples, where his dark goal awaits him. A beautiful young girl, in love with the colonel since she was a child, will do anything to prevent him from carrying out his plan. Main differences from the remake: missing is the boy's school life (and, naturally, problems), but a nice and almost believable love story is present. The ending -- well, it's different.