henfish
Entrou em jan. 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.
Selos2
Para saber como ganhar selos, acesse página de ajuda de selos.
Avaliações38
Classificação de henfish
When the chillies in a spice shop get more on screen attention than the leading man in a romance, you've got yourself big, big problems. Here are just a few: She's not allowed to touch a human... SHE'S RUBBING HER COUSIN'S HAND 5 MINUTES IN! Does every Indian now living in San Francisco have a history blighted by parricide!? When a film relies on over 50% of it's dialogue through the source of spoken thought it is corrupt of imagination.
On a more general note: Mistress of the Spices is a poor story poorly told. It's cliché ridden; the dialogue is shocking; the acting is unconvincing and the directing woefully one dimensional. Aishwarya Rai does indeed have stunning eyes - but does the camera really need to give us close-ups of them every 4 minutes!? There is nothing to recommend this febrile nonsense. It is patronising to both the Sub-Continent and the West and, as a metaphor, is as involving as if she'd have ran a DIY store. Actually...
If you're a fan of film and want to see how to get everything wrong - watch this. If you think time is too precious, have a curry instead - it's infinitely more authentic and satisfying.
On a more general note: Mistress of the Spices is a poor story poorly told. It's cliché ridden; the dialogue is shocking; the acting is unconvincing and the directing woefully one dimensional. Aishwarya Rai does indeed have stunning eyes - but does the camera really need to give us close-ups of them every 4 minutes!? There is nothing to recommend this febrile nonsense. It is patronising to both the Sub-Continent and the West and, as a metaphor, is as involving as if she'd have ran a DIY store. Actually...
If you're a fan of film and want to see how to get everything wrong - watch this. If you think time is too precious, have a curry instead - it's infinitely more authentic and satisfying.
Dear Ken, Can you fix it for me (being of Irish decent) to see a film based on a pivotal chapter of Irish history done in a simplistic, clichéd, patronising, un-explained and one dimensional manner?
Yours,
Henfish xxx
Dear Henfish,
Now then, now then... What have we here? (Strange glottal noises)
Well. We have fixed it for Henfish and The Wind That Shakes The Barley is that very film. We have removed any unsightly character development and left all emotional and dramatic scenarios as obvious and unchallenging as possible. To help this along we have made all the antagonistic characters exactly the same as one another in a helpful, one-dimensional fashion. Also - as your letter was so polite - we haven't lumbered you with any facts about the historical period in question. Instead, we have collated a large number of unbelievable soundbites (some refreshingly anachronistic), and peppered the entire film with them. This will hopefully confuse you to such a degree that you'll feel either overwhelming guilt and/or pride for the period in question and thus be blinkered as to the God awfulness of the actual project; failing, as it does, in every artistic area.
Yours,
Kenny Savey (rattle of jewellery... and almost empty head...)
Yours,
Henfish xxx
Dear Henfish,
Now then, now then... What have we here? (Strange glottal noises)
Well. We have fixed it for Henfish and The Wind That Shakes The Barley is that very film. We have removed any unsightly character development and left all emotional and dramatic scenarios as obvious and unchallenging as possible. To help this along we have made all the antagonistic characters exactly the same as one another in a helpful, one-dimensional fashion. Also - as your letter was so polite - we haven't lumbered you with any facts about the historical period in question. Instead, we have collated a large number of unbelievable soundbites (some refreshingly anachronistic), and peppered the entire film with them. This will hopefully confuse you to such a degree that you'll feel either overwhelming guilt and/or pride for the period in question and thus be blinkered as to the God awfulness of the actual project; failing, as it does, in every artistic area.
Yours,
Kenny Savey (rattle of jewellery... and almost empty head...)
A Geisha is a virgin who gives up her virginity to a wealthy man in order that he be her patron... No? Have I got that wrong? Best watch the film again or, better still, read the book. That way I won't have to sit through unnecessary fractured English; tedious, un-involving and badly handled set pieces; hybrid set designs confused between what producers think is the best of Eastern cinema and what they think Hollywood will think is the best of Eastern cinema (confused? They certainly were!) and a string of 1/2 dimensional performances (Li Gong is stunning.. and stunningly awful.. but only the 1st among equals)!
Ziyi Zhang is one of my favourite contemporary actors but, by God, she has her work cut out here. Her character (like the film and thus the audience) doesn't know whether it's coming or going! But in such an un-inventive, lazy fashion. Nothing adds up. The most predictable conclusions somehow seem to catch the characters off-guard. A prime example of this is Sayuri's reluctant wooing of Nobu at the Suomo fight. Not only is the dialogue she woos him with both lazy and forced - but she can be the only character on Earth who is surprised when he predictably (and unbelievably) falls for her. It's pretty much downhill from that point on as every cliché you hope wont happen does and, as moving as it is, the ending comes far to late to salvage the damage.
Why oh why oh why is a musicals' choreographer tackling such artistically demanding subject matter!!!!!!! This is a poor Hollywood attempt to match the subtle beauty of the best Eastern cinema. It isn't remotely subtle and the beauty is only surface. Hey! Maybe they knew that and it's a perfect metaphor for the subject matter!!! Oh! A pig just flew past my window...
On the plus side. Ken Wattanabe maintains much of the grace and poised demeanour missing from elsewhere and Suzuku Ohgo is a stand-out as the young Chiyo in the opening (and only decent) part of the film. But this is poor and tiresome fare. When the viewer doesn't have to work his brain watching a film, it turns off. Shortly afterwards - so does he!
Ziyi Zhang is one of my favourite contemporary actors but, by God, she has her work cut out here. Her character (like the film and thus the audience) doesn't know whether it's coming or going! But in such an un-inventive, lazy fashion. Nothing adds up. The most predictable conclusions somehow seem to catch the characters off-guard. A prime example of this is Sayuri's reluctant wooing of Nobu at the Suomo fight. Not only is the dialogue she woos him with both lazy and forced - but she can be the only character on Earth who is surprised when he predictably (and unbelievably) falls for her. It's pretty much downhill from that point on as every cliché you hope wont happen does and, as moving as it is, the ending comes far to late to salvage the damage.
Why oh why oh why is a musicals' choreographer tackling such artistically demanding subject matter!!!!!!! This is a poor Hollywood attempt to match the subtle beauty of the best Eastern cinema. It isn't remotely subtle and the beauty is only surface. Hey! Maybe they knew that and it's a perfect metaphor for the subject matter!!! Oh! A pig just flew past my window...
On the plus side. Ken Wattanabe maintains much of the grace and poised demeanour missing from elsewhere and Suzuku Ohgo is a stand-out as the young Chiyo in the opening (and only decent) part of the film. But this is poor and tiresome fare. When the viewer doesn't have to work his brain watching a film, it turns off. Shortly afterwards - so does he!