Nefi
Entrou em mai. de 1999
Bem-vindo(a) ao novo perfil
Nossas atualizações ainda estão em desenvolvimento. Embora a versão anterior do perfil não esteja mais acessível, estamos trabalhando ativamente em melhorias, e alguns dos recursos ausentes retornarão em breve! Fique atento ao retorno deles. Enquanto isso, Análise de Classificação ainda está disponível em nossos aplicativos iOS e Android, encontrados na página de perfil. Para visualizar suas Distribuições de Classificação por ano e gênero, consulte nossa nova Guia de ajuda.
Selos2
Para saber como ganhar selos, acesse página de ajuda de selos.
Avaliações22
Classificação de Nefi
To everyone who rated this movie 8 9 or 10, are you out of your minds? This movie is the definition of awful and this comes from someone who has been watching horror films for more than three decades so i am sure of myself when i recognize a piece of crappy filmed material. I have been hearing of this one for a long time via reviews demanding a second look. So i finally watched it and i cannot find the words to express the degree of my disappointment. Actually this is the first time in 15 years for me to add a comment at imdb, to warn others. It is that bad. Avoid at all costs!!!
I finally got to see the remake of Fright Night. As a fan of the original who has seen it countless times since the 80s, I can wholeheartedly state that this new version is one of the best remakes I have ever seen.
The original story was brought wonderfully up to date. It was so clear that everything was deeply thought out. The original had a slight balance toward comedy. Here that balance is shifted a bit more towards the horror side so the film has a perfect mix of both elements in my opinion. It made me seriously tense and left me creeped out and this coming from someone who knows the flow of the main story by heart! Colin Farrell was in one word spectacular. Here is a vampire that really scares you underneath those extreme good looks, capable of turning out to be a ruthless monster in the blink of an eye. The violence by the way was pretty strong. I was positively surprised by the amount of gore for such a big budget studio production. And the 3D. I loved the 3D of the film. So subtle but at the same time as in your face as it gets when the scene necessitates it.
Which brings me to the unbelievable box office failure of this wonderful film Stateside. How did this happen? I will tell you. An unfortunate release at the tail end of the summer when in fact the film practically screams for a fall Halloween release date, coupled with two other 3D pictures (Conan the Barbarian and Spy Kids 4) at the same week not to mention another regular 2D release (One Day). They all died a quick death, with American audiences rejecting all four of them and flocking to a Southern anti-racist drama and an ape movie in huge numbers. I did not see the other 3 films as of today but I have to say that the flopping of Fright Night 2011 is one of the most unjust failures in the whole history of movies. The current 3D fatigue of Anmerican public was the main benefactor in this case. How else can you explain that all three of these 3D releases flopped in such a spectacular fashion during the same week? They clearly did not bother to make any distinction among the good and bad films that week and went with a to- hell-with-them-all attitude. Sorry but this I can not understand. Another thing I cannot understand is why this film was also practically ripped to pieces by professional critics and internet commentators unanimously. What's wrong with you guys? Is none of you able to spot a decently made gem of a film among all the family entertainment trash anymore? This film certainly did not deserve the fate it endured. I am soo sad about it all..
And one side note: Cinemablend.com meticulously analyzes and rates each 3D release regularly which greatly helps me when picking up what to watch in 3D. But in the case of Fright Night 2011, even that trusted site seems to have erred. At the time of the film's release in the US, the relevant article headed "Fright Night: To 3D or Not to 3D" specifically stated that the film was a terrible choice to be filmed in 3D since the many night scenes did not fare well in 3D mode because of the dimming of the projection light by the 3D glasses and that as a result it was impossible to see what was going on during most of the film's night scenes. Wroooooong! In the showing I attended at my local cinema, the film was very clear and there was absolutely nothing wrong with the dimness settings of the picture. The action was very clear to follow and at no point did I experience any difficulties regarding the 3D aspect of the film. So I am itching to ask: Could there possibly be something wrong with the projection settings of the films shown in the US theaters in general? American moviegoers seem to be really upset about these 3D projection issues for quite some time now and the whole thing now started to result in such box office anomalies as what was experienced by this unfortunate movie. Someone better do something Stateside about this whole issue or the future of 3D really is in trouble as regards the American market in my opinion since the notion of "3D" itself seems to have turned into box office poison as of late. Ooops!
The original story was brought wonderfully up to date. It was so clear that everything was deeply thought out. The original had a slight balance toward comedy. Here that balance is shifted a bit more towards the horror side so the film has a perfect mix of both elements in my opinion. It made me seriously tense and left me creeped out and this coming from someone who knows the flow of the main story by heart! Colin Farrell was in one word spectacular. Here is a vampire that really scares you underneath those extreme good looks, capable of turning out to be a ruthless monster in the blink of an eye. The violence by the way was pretty strong. I was positively surprised by the amount of gore for such a big budget studio production. And the 3D. I loved the 3D of the film. So subtle but at the same time as in your face as it gets when the scene necessitates it.
Which brings me to the unbelievable box office failure of this wonderful film Stateside. How did this happen? I will tell you. An unfortunate release at the tail end of the summer when in fact the film practically screams for a fall Halloween release date, coupled with two other 3D pictures (Conan the Barbarian and Spy Kids 4) at the same week not to mention another regular 2D release (One Day). They all died a quick death, with American audiences rejecting all four of them and flocking to a Southern anti-racist drama and an ape movie in huge numbers. I did not see the other 3 films as of today but I have to say that the flopping of Fright Night 2011 is one of the most unjust failures in the whole history of movies. The current 3D fatigue of Anmerican public was the main benefactor in this case. How else can you explain that all three of these 3D releases flopped in such a spectacular fashion during the same week? They clearly did not bother to make any distinction among the good and bad films that week and went with a to- hell-with-them-all attitude. Sorry but this I can not understand. Another thing I cannot understand is why this film was also practically ripped to pieces by professional critics and internet commentators unanimously. What's wrong with you guys? Is none of you able to spot a decently made gem of a film among all the family entertainment trash anymore? This film certainly did not deserve the fate it endured. I am soo sad about it all..
And one side note: Cinemablend.com meticulously analyzes and rates each 3D release regularly which greatly helps me when picking up what to watch in 3D. But in the case of Fright Night 2011, even that trusted site seems to have erred. At the time of the film's release in the US, the relevant article headed "Fright Night: To 3D or Not to 3D" specifically stated that the film was a terrible choice to be filmed in 3D since the many night scenes did not fare well in 3D mode because of the dimming of the projection light by the 3D glasses and that as a result it was impossible to see what was going on during most of the film's night scenes. Wroooooong! In the showing I attended at my local cinema, the film was very clear and there was absolutely nothing wrong with the dimness settings of the picture. The action was very clear to follow and at no point did I experience any difficulties regarding the 3D aspect of the film. So I am itching to ask: Could there possibly be something wrong with the projection settings of the films shown in the US theaters in general? American moviegoers seem to be really upset about these 3D projection issues for quite some time now and the whole thing now started to result in such box office anomalies as what was experienced by this unfortunate movie. Someone better do something Stateside about this whole issue or the future of 3D really is in trouble as regards the American market in my opinion since the notion of "3D" itself seems to have turned into box office poison as of late. Ooops!
Water For Elephants got released here a full week ahead of the US and first let me indulge in the joy of being able to review such a highly anticipated film before my fellow American film-loving counterparts.
The film completely fulfilled my expectations. It is a well scripted, meticulously shot and finely acted period drama, the likes of which are increasingly less to come by at the movies these days. A big congratulations to all those involved with the production for having the confidence to delve into this venture. Actually I am very curious about its box-office. Last year was a surprisingly profitable year for adult dramas and if that is any indication, this fine film should continue the same trend.
Water For Elephants really impresses with the production design, atmosphere, costumes and stunts. Most of the time I felt like I was watching a classic film made during the studio era; it looked that authentic and faultless. The three main actors all seem satisfied for having such meaty parts and deliver more than satisfactory performances. Robert Pattinson shines and proves that he is capable as a serious actor. Reese Witherspoon has always been a true professional and here with her stunts demonstrates that again. She also fits surprisingly well to the 1930s platinum blonde beauty type. Christopher Waltz is a wonderful actor and here it becomes very clear that his success in Inglorious Basterds was not a one-off. The story is very emotional and while it touches the heart romantically, it also manages to lay down a heretofore unseen dark aspect of old era circus entertainment in particular and also crowd entertainment as a whole. I almost wished for a three hour epic after it ended; it left me wanting more. The whole thing was really interesting.
All in all a wonderful and deeply satisfying experience at the movies, well worth every dime. Go see it so that adult dramas of this caliber (in terms of star power, production budget and subsequent attention to detail) could continue to be made.
The film completely fulfilled my expectations. It is a well scripted, meticulously shot and finely acted period drama, the likes of which are increasingly less to come by at the movies these days. A big congratulations to all those involved with the production for having the confidence to delve into this venture. Actually I am very curious about its box-office. Last year was a surprisingly profitable year for adult dramas and if that is any indication, this fine film should continue the same trend.
Water For Elephants really impresses with the production design, atmosphere, costumes and stunts. Most of the time I felt like I was watching a classic film made during the studio era; it looked that authentic and faultless. The three main actors all seem satisfied for having such meaty parts and deliver more than satisfactory performances. Robert Pattinson shines and proves that he is capable as a serious actor. Reese Witherspoon has always been a true professional and here with her stunts demonstrates that again. She also fits surprisingly well to the 1930s platinum blonde beauty type. Christopher Waltz is a wonderful actor and here it becomes very clear that his success in Inglorious Basterds was not a one-off. The story is very emotional and while it touches the heart romantically, it also manages to lay down a heretofore unseen dark aspect of old era circus entertainment in particular and also crowd entertainment as a whole. I almost wished for a three hour epic after it ended; it left me wanting more. The whole thing was really interesting.
All in all a wonderful and deeply satisfying experience at the movies, well worth every dime. Go see it so that adult dramas of this caliber (in terms of star power, production budget and subsequent attention to detail) could continue to be made.