junglepants
Entrou em mai. de 2002
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.
Avaliações9
Classificação de junglepants
The movie was enjoyable to watch. The music coalesced well with the visuals. I thought the visuals maybe tried too hard to be stylish, as much as Sofia Coppola would like to think she doesn't go over the top. Compared to say, Michael Bay, she doesn't, but the movie's style sometimes gets in the way of the story. In the grand scheme of things though, it just made the 1970s seem really cool; then again, that isn't all that difficult to accomplish.
I'm not sure whether or not this was Coppola's intention (I'm going to guess not), but the themes of the film came off as really heavy-handed and melodramatic. Since the film came from the book, and I'm guessing the director didn't want to p*** off the writer, this was probably unintentional, even though it would flow well with the self-important, hazy visual design.
What the movie does do a great job of is going out of its way to romanticize the 1970s, suburban life, and especially the Lisbon girls, who are turned into dreamy, angelic fairies, which may be a justification for the slightly excessive, unnecessary stylization (Ooh, a dream-like atmosphere, how clever!) of visual design. That is to say, there is a high likelihood that teenage boys viewing this movie could very well develop a dangerous crush on Kirsten Dunst. The acting was quite good...the talent seemed to follow Coppola's vision perfectly, whether or not this is a good thing...I'd say, mostly good. I'd recommend it. Because my opinion is so important and all.
I'm not sure whether or not this was Coppola's intention (I'm going to guess not), but the themes of the film came off as really heavy-handed and melodramatic. Since the film came from the book, and I'm guessing the director didn't want to p*** off the writer, this was probably unintentional, even though it would flow well with the self-important, hazy visual design.
What the movie does do a great job of is going out of its way to romanticize the 1970s, suburban life, and especially the Lisbon girls, who are turned into dreamy, angelic fairies, which may be a justification for the slightly excessive, unnecessary stylization (Ooh, a dream-like atmosphere, how clever!) of visual design. That is to say, there is a high likelihood that teenage boys viewing this movie could very well develop a dangerous crush on Kirsten Dunst. The acting was quite good...the talent seemed to follow Coppola's vision perfectly, whether or not this is a good thing...I'd say, mostly good. I'd recommend it. Because my opinion is so important and all.
This movie is really awful. It was clearly meant to be a stage play, but the script was probably so bad that no Broadway producer wanted to pick it up, so it was sold to a movie director or studio or whatnot. Robert Downey Jr.'s performance is the only redeeming quality here. I can't believe how easy it is for crap like this to be produced.
Can someone explain to me what 'fake shemp' is? Can someone explain to me what 'fake shemp' is? Can someone explain to me what 'fake shemp' is? Can someone explain to me what 'fake shemp' is? Can someone explain to me what 'fake shemp' is? Can someone explain to me what 'fake shemp' is? Can someone explain to me what 'fake shemp' is?