panicoma-1
Iscritto in data dic 2001
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.
Recensioni11
Valutazione di panicoma-1
Everything you ever thought could be wrong with a movie, but you gotta love it. Camp and impossible characters, new faces in big roles, familiars in wrong ones, clichés abound, jokes fall like lead balloons, music replaces pace, but it works. See it. Forget it's a Richie movie and you have to like it, a lot. Action and pretty fast cutting whip this frenzied tale of miscreants oiling the highways of lowlife London and once you decide to go with it and forget Lock Stock, it's a smile at high speed. Deduct a point for the bum performance of the beauty queen accountant who you want to kick from the off and it's an entertaining night with a bottle of cheap wine and an absence of synthetic chemical recreation.
I watched this directly after the magnificently wretched Eastern Promises (see my comment), and didn't realise till the titles came up that it was a David Cronenberg effort. After slagging-off his Anglo-Russian pantomime and awarding perhaps half percent credit for Mortensen's performance (not without critical drawbacks), I wondered if I'd done him an injustice; maybe he'd actually made a WORSE movie and I'd just missed it? I wish ... This is far, far inferior to the later effort (and I will stress - EFFORT).
Why do they keep on giving this man money to try to make movies when it's painfully apparent he hasn't even got what it takes to make a third rate film, and this is with a cast including Ed Harris and William Hurt? Okay, it's based on a graphic novel, but isn't it about time they gave him something more suitable to do with his time; adverts for The Mindless maybe, shampoo promotions or dogfood slots? I'm reminded of Steve Martin's line in Trains, Planes and Automobiles, when he says to John Candy's Dale Griffin character, 'hey and here's some advice, next time you tell a story - have a point'. Here there IS no point. The unraveling anecdote has no form, no plot and no direction, but I think we've come to expect that haven't we?
Once again Mortensen is great, the only thing he does wrong is to get involved with the piece, and he ought to steer clear of this director chum if he wants to retain any dignity or progression in his career. It's one-dimensional, and keeping with his usual theme, Cronenberg has no sympathetic characters, in fact none of the characters have any character at all. If he's a film-maker fascinated by violence, we'd all be better served by leaving him in a dark room to tell himself what he'd like to do to all those intellectuals who make witty, themed movies full of body, charm and charisma (Wes Anderson for instance), directors who hit the mark on every outing with courageous invention, multi-layered creativity and possibly much lower budgets?
While there are Cinemas still able to break even in the face of recession, it seems madness that no-one can spot meaningless operas of mayhem before they get any further in production than the story-board. There are so many useful and talented artists, from writers through to those more heavily involved in such projects that it seems inconceivable that not one person with the requisite power to stop this sort of drivel had the balls to yell out 'CUT' before the whole silly episode got out of hand.
My biggest gripe with David Cronenberg is that he doesn't appear to credit his audience with any intelligence at all any more, or perhaps he's lost the ability to spot a good story. I now think he's capable of screwing-up any and every idea he's handed, and the man must be restrained physically from entering any studio with the intent of telling a tale HIS WAY.
Of the actual film, William Hurt, miscast as a Philadelphia heavy, and Ed Harris with ridiculous mob uniform of black suit,tie and shades are given clunky clichéd dialogue the like of which (sorry for the cliché) has not been heard since the original '50s series of Dragnet. The sex scenes, those heavily overdone, ambiguous -(does she like it, doesn't she like it) - have all been done before, with grace and danger, and so much better, in B movies from the Golden Age of Hollywood and New Wave French Cinema.
What was Cronenberg trying to say,(badly)? Perhaps, 'everyone reverts to their real personality in the end'. Well David, on this showing, you've proved that YOU do!
Why do they keep on giving this man money to try to make movies when it's painfully apparent he hasn't even got what it takes to make a third rate film, and this is with a cast including Ed Harris and William Hurt? Okay, it's based on a graphic novel, but isn't it about time they gave him something more suitable to do with his time; adverts for The Mindless maybe, shampoo promotions or dogfood slots? I'm reminded of Steve Martin's line in Trains, Planes and Automobiles, when he says to John Candy's Dale Griffin character, 'hey and here's some advice, next time you tell a story - have a point'. Here there IS no point. The unraveling anecdote has no form, no plot and no direction, but I think we've come to expect that haven't we?
Once again Mortensen is great, the only thing he does wrong is to get involved with the piece, and he ought to steer clear of this director chum if he wants to retain any dignity or progression in his career. It's one-dimensional, and keeping with his usual theme, Cronenberg has no sympathetic characters, in fact none of the characters have any character at all. If he's a film-maker fascinated by violence, we'd all be better served by leaving him in a dark room to tell himself what he'd like to do to all those intellectuals who make witty, themed movies full of body, charm and charisma (Wes Anderson for instance), directors who hit the mark on every outing with courageous invention, multi-layered creativity and possibly much lower budgets?
While there are Cinemas still able to break even in the face of recession, it seems madness that no-one can spot meaningless operas of mayhem before they get any further in production than the story-board. There are so many useful and talented artists, from writers through to those more heavily involved in such projects that it seems inconceivable that not one person with the requisite power to stop this sort of drivel had the balls to yell out 'CUT' before the whole silly episode got out of hand.
My biggest gripe with David Cronenberg is that he doesn't appear to credit his audience with any intelligence at all any more, or perhaps he's lost the ability to spot a good story. I now think he's capable of screwing-up any and every idea he's handed, and the man must be restrained physically from entering any studio with the intent of telling a tale HIS WAY.
Of the actual film, William Hurt, miscast as a Philadelphia heavy, and Ed Harris with ridiculous mob uniform of black suit,tie and shades are given clunky clichéd dialogue the like of which (sorry for the cliché) has not been heard since the original '50s series of Dragnet. The sex scenes, those heavily overdone, ambiguous -(does she like it, doesn't she like it) - have all been done before, with grace and danger, and so much better, in B movies from the Golden Age of Hollywood and New Wave French Cinema.
What was Cronenberg trying to say,(badly)? Perhaps, 'everyone reverts to their real personality in the end'. Well David, on this showing, you've proved that YOU do!