wvc-1
Entrou em jun. 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.
Selos3
Para saber como ganhar selos, acesse página de ajuda de selos.
Avaliações2
Classificação de wvc-1
Yes, the movie is well done for its genre, but they've been making versions of this movie for more than 60 years, and modulo some details and production values, they're pretty much the same. I could have gone into the screening with a checklist of things that are supposed to happen in a boxing movie, and when I came out, all the items would have been checked.
There are only a couple of boxing films that have broken the mold in some way. I'm sure there were others, but the first two I can think of offhand are Raging Bull and the first Rocky.
It was a good movie, but one of the best films of 2004? No way. It's not even the best film Clint Eastwood has ever directed. (That honor would go to Mystic River.)
There are only a couple of boxing films that have broken the mold in some way. I'm sure there were others, but the first two I can think of offhand are Raging Bull and the first Rocky.
It was a good movie, but one of the best films of 2004? No way. It's not even the best film Clint Eastwood has ever directed. (That honor would go to Mystic River.)
I'm a fan of both Kurt Vonnegut and Alan Rudolph (especially Alan Rudolph), but I was just appalled when I saw this film. The only redeeming feature is Bruce Willis's performance. Other than that, it's a real mess. What was Rudolph thinking?!