twoprofs
Entrou em jun. 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.
Avaliações2
Classificação de twoprofs
It's an Ed Wood film - he ain't William Wyler.
I gave it a 3, but it's still worth looking at (we thought) to see the kind of schlock that got shown (at dive-ins, at three-movies-for-a-quarter flea pits) in the 50s (I remember them well).
We got it in one for those '50 movies for $4.95' sets - so if you've got it, you might as well watch it.
p.
I gave it a 3, but it's still worth looking at (we thought) to see the kind of schlock that got shown (at dive-ins, at three-movies-for-a-quarter flea pits) in the 50s (I remember them well).
We got it in one for those '50 movies for $4.95' sets - so if you've got it, you might as well watch it.
p.
Having lived through this period, and remembering a lot of it well, the film was something of a nostalgia trip for me, and a terrific companion piece to Betty Medsger's excellent book. (Wish we'd seen more of her.)
But why oh WHY do documentary filmmakers feel it necessary to use reconstructions with actors, as here? They are not only distracting (and perhaps confusing - ?), they suggest that the director does not trust her witnesses, who are FAR more interesting to watch and listen to than the dully animated wallpaper of the reconstructions.
For a purist like me, such tricks make me distrust the veracity of the material, but then I'm an old school documentarian, and growing more curmudgeonly with the passing of the years.
p.
But why oh WHY do documentary filmmakers feel it necessary to use reconstructions with actors, as here? They are not only distracting (and perhaps confusing - ?), they suggest that the director does not trust her witnesses, who are FAR more interesting to watch and listen to than the dully animated wallpaper of the reconstructions.
For a purist like me, such tricks make me distrust the veracity of the material, but then I'm an old school documentarian, and growing more curmudgeonly with the passing of the years.
p.
Enquetes respondidas recentemente
4 pesquisas respondidas no total
