desertrain-1
Entrou em mai. de 2004
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 desertrain-1
I first read "A Wrinkle in Time" when I was seven years old, and since then it has been one of my all time favorite books. I read it several times, though in recent years I hadn't picked it up. When I heard that a TV movie was being made, I was excited. I thought, "Hey, TV, that means that they can do a miniseries or something, get the story right!"
How wrong I was.
The acting, I must admit, was good. If I totally disassociate the movie from the book, it's fine. But the fact is, as an adaptation, the movie really sucked. There's not much of better way to put it. I was watching the movie tonight, for the first (and last) time, and spent the entire time thinking to myself "That didn't happen", or "Why did they change that, of all things!" I started re-reading the book, and tried to keep a list of changes.
When I had filled up a page with writing before hitting page 30, I stopped keeping the list.
Disney did a fine job of movie making in this instance, but again, I have to really forget that the book even exists to much enjoy the plot of the movie.
They had a chance to make something wonderful: The actors were well chosen (even though Mrs. Murray should have had bright red hair, the actress did a fine job), and they did a good job with what they were given. The witches were a bit off from the book descriptions (especially Mrs. Which, who should have been a more stereotypical witch in black robes with a pointy hat), but they were fine actresses, and I could have overlooked it. But it was about when they introduced the man with red eyes that the story took a major turn from the plot of the book. One MAJOR point of contention for me was Mrs. Whatsit's centaur-like form. What in the world was that, anyhow? It was supposed to look like a centaur, but not. And what they did was stick a head on a horse - no human torso, and the proportions were all wrong, and it was not nearly the beautiful creature it was supposed to be. Bah.
Here is my recommendation: if you have read and loved Madeleine L'Engle's books as much as I have, don't watch this movie. If you haven't read the books and plan to, watch the movie beforehand so you aren't as disappointed as I was. If you don't plan to read the books, it's safe. If you've seen the movie and plan to read the books, you are in for a real treat.
I give this 1.5 stars out of 5, for the actors playing the kids, the father, and props to the rest for trying with a screenplay that butchered the story.
I feel bad for them.
How wrong I was.
The acting, I must admit, was good. If I totally disassociate the movie from the book, it's fine. But the fact is, as an adaptation, the movie really sucked. There's not much of better way to put it. I was watching the movie tonight, for the first (and last) time, and spent the entire time thinking to myself "That didn't happen", or "Why did they change that, of all things!" I started re-reading the book, and tried to keep a list of changes.
When I had filled up a page with writing before hitting page 30, I stopped keeping the list.
Disney did a fine job of movie making in this instance, but again, I have to really forget that the book even exists to much enjoy the plot of the movie.
They had a chance to make something wonderful: The actors were well chosen (even though Mrs. Murray should have had bright red hair, the actress did a fine job), and they did a good job with what they were given. The witches were a bit off from the book descriptions (especially Mrs. Which, who should have been a more stereotypical witch in black robes with a pointy hat), but they were fine actresses, and I could have overlooked it. But it was about when they introduced the man with red eyes that the story took a major turn from the plot of the book. One MAJOR point of contention for me was Mrs. Whatsit's centaur-like form. What in the world was that, anyhow? It was supposed to look like a centaur, but not. And what they did was stick a head on a horse - no human torso, and the proportions were all wrong, and it was not nearly the beautiful creature it was supposed to be. Bah.
Here is my recommendation: if you have read and loved Madeleine L'Engle's books as much as I have, don't watch this movie. If you haven't read the books and plan to, watch the movie beforehand so you aren't as disappointed as I was. If you don't plan to read the books, it's safe. If you've seen the movie and plan to read the books, you are in for a real treat.
I give this 1.5 stars out of 5, for the actors playing the kids, the father, and props to the rest for trying with a screenplay that butchered the story.
I feel bad for them.
I saw this movie only a few days ago at a convention, and was moved to think about a side of torture tactics that I had never examined. The power of mental abuse can surely override any physical abuse, and that is shown through Madeline Stowe's wondrous acting in this movie. Likewise, Alan Rickman brings to the screen a marvelous portrayal of a ruthless government interrogator. It is interesting, though, even while he tortures Stowe's character, how you see a bit of himself shine through his terrorist personality. It grabbed me, in the scene where she is blindfolded, and he is pretending to be someone else, how he lets the mask fall from his face even as his voice continues his work.
The basis of the plot is this: A children's book writer (Stowe) is arrested on the premise that her books hold subversive political ideas, trying to get children to go against the government. The writer continues to deny these allegations, even as she is questioned and eventually abused physically and mentally by a government agent (Rickman). The showing of these torture techniques is disturbing, and probably should not be watched by those who are squeamish about such things.
The film was made in partnership with Amnesty International in the early 90's. On the surface of this movie, I would have to agree with all their policies, but as with any movie of this sort, a viewer should not support the organization purely on the face of the movie screen, but it should spur the viewer to outside research. I believe that is what this movie does for many of us.
The upshot of this: I would say I enjoyed the movie, but 'enjoy' is not quite the right word. I would watch this movie again if the opportunity arose, and would also recommend it to anyone who has a taste for realistically disturbing movies.
4 stars out of 5.
The basis of the plot is this: A children's book writer (Stowe) is arrested on the premise that her books hold subversive political ideas, trying to get children to go against the government. The writer continues to deny these allegations, even as she is questioned and eventually abused physically and mentally by a government agent (Rickman). The showing of these torture techniques is disturbing, and probably should not be watched by those who are squeamish about such things.
The film was made in partnership with Amnesty International in the early 90's. On the surface of this movie, I would have to agree with all their policies, but as with any movie of this sort, a viewer should not support the organization purely on the face of the movie screen, but it should spur the viewer to outside research. I believe that is what this movie does for many of us.
The upshot of this: I would say I enjoyed the movie, but 'enjoy' is not quite the right word. I would watch this movie again if the opportunity arose, and would also recommend it to anyone who has a taste for realistically disturbing movies.
4 stars out of 5.