chajanka
Iscritto in data nov 2003
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.
Distintivi3
Per sapere come ottenere i badge, vai a pagina di aiuto per i badge.
Valutazioni1523
Valutazione di chajanka
Recensioni4
Valutazione di chajanka
This is a film about an evil, sadistic hitman who sucks at being a family man and cannot find meaning in life unless he is actively inflicting fear and pain on people. The film is well-made, and Bob Odenkirk does a fine job as the leading man - he's one of the main reasons to see this, and he doesn't disappoint.
What disappoints is the story, which failed to engage me at any point past the very start. The moment it became obvious (probably around the bus scene) that he's stronger and more dangerous than anyone else in the movie, it lost all tension. And really, he's the bad guy. What is there to root for?
I was not emotionally involved at all. The film glamorizes violence while trying to paint its protagonist as some kind of underdog. He's not. He's a walking slaughterhouse. The other characters are weak, and the part of the story where even his own family sees him as a loser doesn't work when he can single-handedly wipe out organized crime syndicates. None of it works.
I guess this would be fine to watch with a group of friends for the chance to poke fun at it. But for me, it was boring and mostly decorative. I wouldn't rewatch it. Still, I'd love to see Odenkirk get a proper action role in a film with a story that actually deserves him.
What disappoints is the story, which failed to engage me at any point past the very start. The moment it became obvious (probably around the bus scene) that he's stronger and more dangerous than anyone else in the movie, it lost all tension. And really, he's the bad guy. What is there to root for?
I was not emotionally involved at all. The film glamorizes violence while trying to paint its protagonist as some kind of underdog. He's not. He's a walking slaughterhouse. The other characters are weak, and the part of the story where even his own family sees him as a loser doesn't work when he can single-handedly wipe out organized crime syndicates. None of it works.
I guess this would be fine to watch with a group of friends for the chance to poke fun at it. But for me, it was boring and mostly decorative. I wouldn't rewatch it. Still, I'd love to see Odenkirk get a proper action role in a film with a story that actually deserves him.
I just watched Fiume o morte! In a small cinema in Zagreb, and I was most pleasantly surprised. The director starts by interviewing locals at Rijeka's main market, asking if they know who Gabriele D'Annunzio was, and soon shifts to reenacting the bizarre episode of his occupation of the city - with those very same people. The blending of documentary and drama works perfectly throughout the film, which is based on over 10,000 photographs taken during the occupation, along with some video footage. What's striking is that this original archive material - real images of D'Annunzio and his legionaries - is at all times more bizarre and grotesque than anything the film's reenactors create. And that's saying something, because the reenactment is intentionally playful, at times outright silly, and often laugh-out-loud funny.
The film has great pacing from start to finish, balancing humor with serious themes in a way that feels completely natural. Nothing about it is pretentious. While it tells the story of D'Annunzio, the real protagonist is Rijeka itself - its residents, its history, its character. The director, a native of the city, treats it with warmth and respect, as do the locals who become part of the film. Adding to its uniqueness, the film is narrated in the Fiume dialect of Italian by Fiumani residents of the city, with the narrators switching as the film progresses.
And then, near the end, a perfect punchline: a brand-new statue of D'Annunzio has just been unveiled in Trieste. This comes right after the film makes it clear that his grand adventure in Rijeka was nothing but reckless destruction, ending with Italian soldiers killing other Italian soldiers in what was, in reality, the same army.
It's an important film, especially today, with the rise of nationalism across Europe and beyond. And it's also one of the most engaging historical docudramas I've ever seen. Anyone can watch this film - because the story itself is fascinating, and because it is told in such an effortlessly entertaining way.
The film has great pacing from start to finish, balancing humor with serious themes in a way that feels completely natural. Nothing about it is pretentious. While it tells the story of D'Annunzio, the real protagonist is Rijeka itself - its residents, its history, its character. The director, a native of the city, treats it with warmth and respect, as do the locals who become part of the film. Adding to its uniqueness, the film is narrated in the Fiume dialect of Italian by Fiumani residents of the city, with the narrators switching as the film progresses.
And then, near the end, a perfect punchline: a brand-new statue of D'Annunzio has just been unveiled in Trieste. This comes right after the film makes it clear that his grand adventure in Rijeka was nothing but reckless destruction, ending with Italian soldiers killing other Italian soldiers in what was, in reality, the same army.
It's an important film, especially today, with the rise of nationalism across Europe and beyond. And it's also one of the most engaging historical docudramas I've ever seen. Anyone can watch this film - because the story itself is fascinating, and because it is told in such an effortlessly entertaining way.
I've been quite puzzled by the numerous positive reviews of Arachnophobia, where people have been lauding its mix of fright and humor. Contrary to, what seems to be the general sentiment, I found the movie incredibly dull, highly predictable, and overall poorly executed. Sure, there are brief moments when John Goodman brings a bit of humor and a pleasant energy to the screen, but aside from that, I found myself laughing more at the special effects and the palpable absence of engaging content than anything else.
Julian Sands seems to blend into the background with little impact, and Jeff Daniels fails to deliver any noteworthy moments. My childhood memories of watching this film in the cinema painted it in a much better light than what I experienced recently. Watching it again with my family over the holidays, it turned out to be an excellent choice for entirely unintended reasons - it gave us ample opportunities to engage in conversations, look up other movies and actors, and enjoy poking fun at the film itself.
Julian Sands seems to blend into the background with little impact, and Jeff Daniels fails to deliver any noteworthy moments. My childhood memories of watching this film in the cinema painted it in a much better light than what I experienced recently. Watching it again with my family over the holidays, it turned out to be an excellent choice for entirely unintended reasons - it gave us ample opportunities to engage in conversations, look up other movies and actors, and enjoy poking fun at the film itself.
Sondaggi effettuati di recente
4 sondaggi totali effettuati