badbit
Entrou em dez. de 2001
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.
Selos3
Para saber como ganhar selos, acesse página de ajuda de selos.
Avaliações12
Classificação de badbit
Wow! I just saw this movie on T.V., I had no expectations at all. IT IS GREAT. The way that it makes it's way from comedy to drama in a reflexive way.
I believe that this movie uses a true and sincere cinematic language. Just remember the scene where "la nena" was grabbing the branch of a tree VERY similar to the "memories tree" her mommy and daddy built for her while shouting: "No daddy! I don't want to!". A clear regression to childhood...
I believe that this movie uses a true and sincere cinematic language. Just remember the scene where "la nena" was grabbing the branch of a tree VERY similar to the "memories tree" her mommy and daddy built for her while shouting: "No daddy! I don't want to!". A clear regression to childhood...
There is only ONE reason for which I didn't fell asleep during this film: uncomfortable seats. Boy, this is boring! A movie with no plot at all, with horrible acting, cliched, etc. What a waste of time... Dragons appear for no reason at all and they destroy the whole world. And it's long long long long! I felt like it was four hours long, and I've seen four-hours-long movies which are a lot more entertaining to watch. The only line wich gave me a good laugh: "There's only one thing worse than dragons, americans"
After watching LOTR and cursing it as the worst movie of the year, I decided to take a look at the books to see what the fuzz is all about. Well, the reading of "The fellowship of the ring" made me reconsider my opinion. The movie it's A LOT WORSE after reading it. I liked the book, but it will not be in my favorite list.
I can't stand the great deal of people who are claiming that "Peter Jackson did a wonderful job adapting the book to the screen" and that "it couldn't be better" without even reading the book!
Many people say, "it's impossible to adapt a book to the screen". Well, guess what, it's not. If you watch and read "The godfather" you'll know what I mean. I consider the movie even superior than the book, it's pecfect in every way. Another good example it's "2001: A space oddisey", while in this case the book is superior, the movie it's a very good work. The list goes on: Gone with the wind, Lawrence of arabia, A clockwork orange, The wizard of Oz, The grapes of wrath, blah, blah. I guess that LOTR it's not even one of the 100 greatest adapted screenplays of all-time.
First of all, the events in the book are slowly revealed, a little bit at a time, it makes the whole thing much more interesting. In the movie we start with a voice-over spoiling us all the emotion and trying to make us think "wow, this movie is gonna be great, look at that big monster".
Second, everything in the book happens for good reason. A lot of scenes from the book appear in the film, but their reason it's very different. For example the parting of Frodo from the shire has a lot more of preparation, planning and help from his hobbit-friends, why? If you want to know, read the book, it's explained there with a lot of detail. In the movie it's off-and-go, for no reason at all. I have to say this also about Merry and Pippin, in the movie they're pointless. Another bad scene, this one involving snow, comes to my mind.
Third, middle-earth it's portrayed in the book with great detail, it's very real. I can imagine every square-inch of it, the vegetation, animals, climate, soil, etc. In the book we see it mostly as a CGI generated background and it looks fake.
Fourth, acting. This is the worst part of the movie. The dialog it's just stupid, it makes the characters look like cardboard. They take themselves too seriously, and they speak as if they were reading some ancient sacred text. The book has this feeling also, but the book pretends to feel like an ancient sacred text. Also, everyone has the same facial expression trough the whole movie (specialy Frodo).
Fifth, in the book, the pacing it's very slow. It gives us the impression that middle-earth it's a slow place. That the news take months to travel from town to town. There's no technology, but there's history, culture, myth, art and traditions. Frodo is scared to death when he hears that black riders were seen in this town, or in that place. Every time closer. In the movie, we only see Frodo being chased by scary-looking men in black, who made us say: "Look, the bad guys". Also, in the movie we see people killing bad guys at an incredible fast rate, then, after they managed to escape in an unconvincing way with help from someone you didn't expect, they kill more bad guys.
AND ABOVE ALL, THE ENDING. Please!!!! This is the result of making the three movies at the same time. It just fades to black in the middle of the story. Altough the book ending it's very similar, it leaves you satisfied, and wanting to know that will happen next. The movie just stops. I guess the next movie will begin from the next frame this one finished. Amazing that the ending didn't catched up Frodo in the middle of a word.
In my opinion, this movie it's bad, and it drags on forever. Ask yourself this questions, I give you my answers:
1. Is it innovative? No, there are a lot of movies which use the techniques used here. 2. Is it original? No, adapting a book to the screen it's done by Hollywood in a regular basis. If you say that the story it's original, then you're really saying that the book it's original. 3. Does it have great fx? I don't think so. This movie uses almost the same fx techniques than "Star Wars: The phantom menace". If the effects were somewhat different, they weren't real enough. Even "Jurassic Park" fx are better 4. Does it have memorable scenes? No, even the death of Gandalf was laughable.
Overall, I have given my opinion before and after reading the book. And my conclusion it's this: This is the second most over-rated movie of all times (the first one it's Titanic). It's nothing new, original or great. Too bad that the other two movies are already finished, because they're gonna be just like this one.
I can't stand the great deal of people who are claiming that "Peter Jackson did a wonderful job adapting the book to the screen" and that "it couldn't be better" without even reading the book!
Many people say, "it's impossible to adapt a book to the screen". Well, guess what, it's not. If you watch and read "The godfather" you'll know what I mean. I consider the movie even superior than the book, it's pecfect in every way. Another good example it's "2001: A space oddisey", while in this case the book is superior, the movie it's a very good work. The list goes on: Gone with the wind, Lawrence of arabia, A clockwork orange, The wizard of Oz, The grapes of wrath, blah, blah. I guess that LOTR it's not even one of the 100 greatest adapted screenplays of all-time.
First of all, the events in the book are slowly revealed, a little bit at a time, it makes the whole thing much more interesting. In the movie we start with a voice-over spoiling us all the emotion and trying to make us think "wow, this movie is gonna be great, look at that big monster".
Second, everything in the book happens for good reason. A lot of scenes from the book appear in the film, but their reason it's very different. For example the parting of Frodo from the shire has a lot more of preparation, planning and help from his hobbit-friends, why? If you want to know, read the book, it's explained there with a lot of detail. In the movie it's off-and-go, for no reason at all. I have to say this also about Merry and Pippin, in the movie they're pointless. Another bad scene, this one involving snow, comes to my mind.
Third, middle-earth it's portrayed in the book with great detail, it's very real. I can imagine every square-inch of it, the vegetation, animals, climate, soil, etc. In the book we see it mostly as a CGI generated background and it looks fake.
Fourth, acting. This is the worst part of the movie. The dialog it's just stupid, it makes the characters look like cardboard. They take themselves too seriously, and they speak as if they were reading some ancient sacred text. The book has this feeling also, but the book pretends to feel like an ancient sacred text. Also, everyone has the same facial expression trough the whole movie (specialy Frodo).
Fifth, in the book, the pacing it's very slow. It gives us the impression that middle-earth it's a slow place. That the news take months to travel from town to town. There's no technology, but there's history, culture, myth, art and traditions. Frodo is scared to death when he hears that black riders were seen in this town, or in that place. Every time closer. In the movie, we only see Frodo being chased by scary-looking men in black, who made us say: "Look, the bad guys". Also, in the movie we see people killing bad guys at an incredible fast rate, then, after they managed to escape in an unconvincing way with help from someone you didn't expect, they kill more bad guys.
AND ABOVE ALL, THE ENDING. Please!!!! This is the result of making the three movies at the same time. It just fades to black in the middle of the story. Altough the book ending it's very similar, it leaves you satisfied, and wanting to know that will happen next. The movie just stops. I guess the next movie will begin from the next frame this one finished. Amazing that the ending didn't catched up Frodo in the middle of a word.
In my opinion, this movie it's bad, and it drags on forever. Ask yourself this questions, I give you my answers:
1. Is it innovative? No, there are a lot of movies which use the techniques used here. 2. Is it original? No, adapting a book to the screen it's done by Hollywood in a regular basis. If you say that the story it's original, then you're really saying that the book it's original. 3. Does it have great fx? I don't think so. This movie uses almost the same fx techniques than "Star Wars: The phantom menace". If the effects were somewhat different, they weren't real enough. Even "Jurassic Park" fx are better 4. Does it have memorable scenes? No, even the death of Gandalf was laughable.
Overall, I have given my opinion before and after reading the book. And my conclusion it's this: This is the second most over-rated movie of all times (the first one it's Titanic). It's nothing new, original or great. Too bad that the other two movies are already finished, because they're gonna be just like this one.