neilmarshall-1
Entrou em mai. de 2006
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.
Avaliações3
Classificação de neilmarshall-1
I went to see this movie last night with no prior knowledge about the film, other than the attractive movie poster featuring a decapitated statue of liberty.
When the movie started and we were watching some camcorder footage, I kept wondering when the film was actually going to start! This was the kind of feeling I got throughout the whole movie. And I was not alone! I heard murmurings around the cinema with spectators wondering the same thing. I can not remember the last time I went to the cinema with over half the audience leaving before the halfway mark. (And the movie only lasts 95 mins) I admire the risk that the filmmakers took to create this movie. There are some attractive special effects and some parts of the movie are visually stunning. I also thought it was refreshing to see another film from the point of view of a cameraman, as I have not seen such a movie since the Blair Witch Project. However, before I went to see the Blair Witch Project, I knew what to expect.
In my opinion, Cloverfield would have been best suited on the Independent cinema screen, rather than mainstream.
If you want to go and see a movie from a different point of view with some attractive special effects then go and see this movie. However, if you are going with your friends or partners in the hope of watching something greatly entertaining with a great storyline, then you will most likely be disappointed.
When the movie started and we were watching some camcorder footage, I kept wondering when the film was actually going to start! This was the kind of feeling I got throughout the whole movie. And I was not alone! I heard murmurings around the cinema with spectators wondering the same thing. I can not remember the last time I went to the cinema with over half the audience leaving before the halfway mark. (And the movie only lasts 95 mins) I admire the risk that the filmmakers took to create this movie. There are some attractive special effects and some parts of the movie are visually stunning. I also thought it was refreshing to see another film from the point of view of a cameraman, as I have not seen such a movie since the Blair Witch Project. However, before I went to see the Blair Witch Project, I knew what to expect.
In my opinion, Cloverfield would have been best suited on the Independent cinema screen, rather than mainstream.
If you want to go and see a movie from a different point of view with some attractive special effects then go and see this movie. However, if you are going with your friends or partners in the hope of watching something greatly entertaining with a great storyline, then you will most likely be disappointed.
If you have never seen any of Lepage's work before, this is a good place to start. You will be entertained, educated and amazed by this movie that was created on a shoe-string budget. The movie is packed full of simple, but effective visuals that don't take over the movie, but seamlessly take you on a journey. I particularly liked the Green Screen effects, which (to the untrained eye) are seamless. The final scene in the airport with the large Aim Higher backdrop was the cream of the crop. I also thought that some of the transitions were simple, yet stunning. It is 'one of those films' you would normally find yourself watching on your own one afternoon. It's not for everyone, but if you are open minded, don't mind subtitles and want some light entertainment then this movie will not disappoint.
After months of anticipation, I finally got the chance to watch the Da Vinci Code tonight and I was left wanting a bit more...
I read only half the book and because the release of the motion picture was not too far off, this hindered me from finishing it. The first thing that struck me about the movie was how the casting of Tom Hanks and Jean Reno tarnished the content. As an actor myself I thought that Hanks should not have been cast in this role, however his performance grows on you throughout the movie. I think Hanks is an exceptional actor, but after watching it I think that a fresh face would have been more appropriate. Maybe if they decide to create a movie of Angels & Demons they might not use Hanks again. From what I could gather from the book, the character that Reno played was not what I expected. He seems to always play the French guy in Hollywood movies and I suppose it seemed only natural to cast him as a French guy in France for once. But, I could not steer my mind clear of the fact that I was watching Jean Reno and not a French equivalent of an FBI agent.
The movie itself was always going to be a hit because of the success of the book and as a whole it did not disappoint. It is rare in movies that the dialogue is more successful than the action. But, Da Vinci Code is an excellent example of using the spoken word to its full potential.
The best part of the movie for me was the feudal debate between Robert Langdon and Sir Ian McKellan's character (who never fails to disappoint me with a performance) where he exposes the painting of The Last Supper as being a controversial alternative version of Jesus'last supper with his disciples. 'The eyes see only what you want them to see', is a clever phrase that is repeated quite often throughout.
The worst parts of the movie for me were when we were shown Robert Langdon's fear of claustrophobia. Having already read Angels & Demons and half of Da Vinci code before watching the movie I already knew a lot of information about Langdon's character, but the way his fear was depicted reminded me of a 1980's American Soap Opera. And his fear wasn't exposed until it was dropped into conversation about three quarters of the way through the movie.
Overall, I really did enjoy this movie and I have no doubt that I will be buying the DVD when it comes out and I will be eagerly awaiting the movie of Angels & Demons. It's a must-see movie, which appealed to me more than the similar boom of the Lord of the Rings movies over the past four years. It's two and a half hours of education and entertainment and it won't have you looking at your watch.
I read only half the book and because the release of the motion picture was not too far off, this hindered me from finishing it. The first thing that struck me about the movie was how the casting of Tom Hanks and Jean Reno tarnished the content. As an actor myself I thought that Hanks should not have been cast in this role, however his performance grows on you throughout the movie. I think Hanks is an exceptional actor, but after watching it I think that a fresh face would have been more appropriate. Maybe if they decide to create a movie of Angels & Demons they might not use Hanks again. From what I could gather from the book, the character that Reno played was not what I expected. He seems to always play the French guy in Hollywood movies and I suppose it seemed only natural to cast him as a French guy in France for once. But, I could not steer my mind clear of the fact that I was watching Jean Reno and not a French equivalent of an FBI agent.
The movie itself was always going to be a hit because of the success of the book and as a whole it did not disappoint. It is rare in movies that the dialogue is more successful than the action. But, Da Vinci Code is an excellent example of using the spoken word to its full potential.
The best part of the movie for me was the feudal debate between Robert Langdon and Sir Ian McKellan's character (who never fails to disappoint me with a performance) where he exposes the painting of The Last Supper as being a controversial alternative version of Jesus'last supper with his disciples. 'The eyes see only what you want them to see', is a clever phrase that is repeated quite often throughout.
The worst parts of the movie for me were when we were shown Robert Langdon's fear of claustrophobia. Having already read Angels & Demons and half of Da Vinci code before watching the movie I already knew a lot of information about Langdon's character, but the way his fear was depicted reminded me of a 1980's American Soap Opera. And his fear wasn't exposed until it was dropped into conversation about three quarters of the way through the movie.
Overall, I really did enjoy this movie and I have no doubt that I will be buying the DVD when it comes out and I will be eagerly awaiting the movie of Angels & Demons. It's a must-see movie, which appealed to me more than the similar boom of the Lord of the Rings movies over the past four years. It's two and a half hours of education and entertainment and it won't have you looking at your watch.