dcs84
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.
Avaliações9
Classificação de dcs84
Why is it that as a society, the high brow amongst us become giddy with excitement when they discover something they don't understand, but believe that meaning within that something must exist.
Donnie Darko is a film that throws out metaphors, symbolism, iconography, and semiotics like a garage sale. Everything is just thrown onto trestle tables for the neighborhood to pick over,take what they want, and discard the rest.
The major flaw is that the film was written and directed by the same individual. It strikes me that Richard Kelly should have handed the reigns to the adults. Everything had an off kilter cartoony element to it, not quite of our world. It reminded me a little of a Steinbeck novel. Where all the characters are stereotypical constructs of an author who has limited practical knowledge of the world and its base elements. The film seems to be a pastiche of "The seventh sign", "The sixth Sense", and "American Beauty".
What is most galling about films like "Donnie Darko" is that the audience are so dizzy, disoriented, and torqued up that they are frightened witless to admit that they didn't follow many plot points at all. And they are then too unsure of themselves to blame a poor script, or 'happenstance' plot elements for their confusion. The pathetic witless fools try even harder to find 'hidden' meaning and hide behind the mantra "the author has left the film open to individual interpretation". Well I can interpret it for you, it goes something like this "Waffle, waffle, waffle, baffle, red herring, happenstance, twist, waffle, bible, baffle, amateur psychology, half baked scientific claptrap read at doctors waiting room from a dog-earred copy of the American Science Monitor, break in the films time continuum, waffle, more bible, simplistic cultural elements like smurfs, lifestyle gurus, the end".
What if Jackson Pollocks "Blue Poles" was simply a case of an unskilled man flicking drops of paint on a canvas and then attaching method and meaning. What if Bjork really is just an eccentric, borderline manic depressive who has no technical skill and hides behind weirdness and intrigue. And what if "Donnie Darko" is just a rambling anecdote of amateur theatrics, psychology, and philosophy hoping to hoodwink another town into buying its philosophical snake oil.
Donnie Darko is a film that throws out metaphors, symbolism, iconography, and semiotics like a garage sale. Everything is just thrown onto trestle tables for the neighborhood to pick over,take what they want, and discard the rest.
The major flaw is that the film was written and directed by the same individual. It strikes me that Richard Kelly should have handed the reigns to the adults. Everything had an off kilter cartoony element to it, not quite of our world. It reminded me a little of a Steinbeck novel. Where all the characters are stereotypical constructs of an author who has limited practical knowledge of the world and its base elements. The film seems to be a pastiche of "The seventh sign", "The sixth Sense", and "American Beauty".
What is most galling about films like "Donnie Darko" is that the audience are so dizzy, disoriented, and torqued up that they are frightened witless to admit that they didn't follow many plot points at all. And they are then too unsure of themselves to blame a poor script, or 'happenstance' plot elements for their confusion. The pathetic witless fools try even harder to find 'hidden' meaning and hide behind the mantra "the author has left the film open to individual interpretation". Well I can interpret it for you, it goes something like this "Waffle, waffle, waffle, baffle, red herring, happenstance, twist, waffle, bible, baffle, amateur psychology, half baked scientific claptrap read at doctors waiting room from a dog-earred copy of the American Science Monitor, break in the films time continuum, waffle, more bible, simplistic cultural elements like smurfs, lifestyle gurus, the end".
What if Jackson Pollocks "Blue Poles" was simply a case of an unskilled man flicking drops of paint on a canvas and then attaching method and meaning. What if Bjork really is just an eccentric, borderline manic depressive who has no technical skill and hides behind weirdness and intrigue. And what if "Donnie Darko" is just a rambling anecdote of amateur theatrics, psychology, and philosophy hoping to hoodwink another town into buying its philosophical snake oil.
I couldn't believe what I was reading about this film and decided that I would have to set the record straight somewhat, or at the very least add a little bit of balance to the comments index.
"Strange Bedfellows" is symptomatic of what is currently ailing the Australian film industry at the moment. It is a small film (has the feel of a film school assignment), with underdone production values, and a severely undercooked script. It's a raw, still bloody and pulpy, carrion of a script. The writer, excuse me, writers of this 'piece' would have done well to hire a professional to completely overhaul their basic concept paying special attention to the dialogue, as well as ramping up the joke to minute ratio (which was dire).
The film is a throwback to the 1950's, I have no problem with the use of stereotypes, but those pressed into service for this film were retired elsewhere on this planet approximately 40 years ago. I suppose the film was about two elderly gents who were masquerading as homosexual lovers so their innocence could, potentially have been genuine. But the stereotypes 'dug up' for this film lacked any form of comedic, or creative interest.
The lack of a creditable script and the uninspired use of stereotypes aside, this film could have been worthwhile had it been ripsnortingly funny, but alas, it was found lacking it that department also.
I have heard it before about a lot of Australian film and television product relating to the comedy genre. It is said by those in the industry that almost all Australian film and television comedies have one thing in common, "they're just not funny". "Strange Bedfellows" falls into that category, it just isn't funny.....enough. There are, admittedly a couple of funny happenings (the opening sequence when the mailman spins around and throws the mail sack at a newsagents was mildly amusing).
It was not a complete train wreck of an exercise (although it was pretty close), unlike a couple of other people, I actually thought Paul Hogan was one of the few protagonists who looked comfortable in his role. Glynn Nicholas, is also quite good as the towns hairdresser, in fact, as much as he could, I thought he stole the film.
As a long suffering Australian, please, in 2005 could we perhaps, instead of making five half-baked, insipid, quirky sleepers, could we pool the funds and make one decent tear-you-from-your-seat blockbuster.
"Strange Bedfellows" is symptomatic of what is currently ailing the Australian film industry at the moment. It is a small film (has the feel of a film school assignment), with underdone production values, and a severely undercooked script. It's a raw, still bloody and pulpy, carrion of a script. The writer, excuse me, writers of this 'piece' would have done well to hire a professional to completely overhaul their basic concept paying special attention to the dialogue, as well as ramping up the joke to minute ratio (which was dire).
The film is a throwback to the 1950's, I have no problem with the use of stereotypes, but those pressed into service for this film were retired elsewhere on this planet approximately 40 years ago. I suppose the film was about two elderly gents who were masquerading as homosexual lovers so their innocence could, potentially have been genuine. But the stereotypes 'dug up' for this film lacked any form of comedic, or creative interest.
The lack of a creditable script and the uninspired use of stereotypes aside, this film could have been worthwhile had it been ripsnortingly funny, but alas, it was found lacking it that department also.
I have heard it before about a lot of Australian film and television product relating to the comedy genre. It is said by those in the industry that almost all Australian film and television comedies have one thing in common, "they're just not funny". "Strange Bedfellows" falls into that category, it just isn't funny.....enough. There are, admittedly a couple of funny happenings (the opening sequence when the mailman spins around and throws the mail sack at a newsagents was mildly amusing).
It was not a complete train wreck of an exercise (although it was pretty close), unlike a couple of other people, I actually thought Paul Hogan was one of the few protagonists who looked comfortable in his role. Glynn Nicholas, is also quite good as the towns hairdresser, in fact, as much as he could, I thought he stole the film.
As a long suffering Australian, please, in 2005 could we perhaps, instead of making five half-baked, insipid, quirky sleepers, could we pool the funds and make one decent tear-you-from-your-seat blockbuster.
