Brude_Stone
Entrou em jan. 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.
Selos3
Para saber como ganhar selos, acesse página de ajuda de selos.
Avaliações7
Classificação de Brude_Stone
This gets 2 stars instead of 1 because the production values were surprisingly good for such an otherwise poorly made movie. Terrible dialogue and plotting, and a story that...well, you just wonder why anyone put the amount of money into this movie it obviously took to produce it.
Several named actors (Dan Hedeya, Ron Pearlman, Edward Herman) try manfully in their scenes to make the wordy dialogue work, as does a then little known Naomi Watts. I'd say I feel sorry for Ms. Watts, having to take roles like this while her best friend (Nicole Kidman) is doing Moulin Rouge! and other top films, but fortunately Naomi more than landed on her feet a year later with Mulholland Dr., which made her a star. We all have to pay our dues, I guess - this was part of Watts', and even Kidman had BMX Bandits in her past...
Several named actors (Dan Hedeya, Ron Pearlman, Edward Herman) try manfully in their scenes to make the wordy dialogue work, as does a then little known Naomi Watts. I'd say I feel sorry for Ms. Watts, having to take roles like this while her best friend (Nicole Kidman) is doing Moulin Rouge! and other top films, but fortunately Naomi more than landed on her feet a year later with Mulholland Dr., which made her a star. We all have to pay our dues, I guess - this was part of Watts', and even Kidman had BMX Bandits in her past...
4 Stars is too low for this surprisingly strong film. Yes, it's a Zalman King movie, but it was among his first and unlike probably everything else he did since, was a very good movie. It has a good, tight story and some very strong performances from its leads, especially Richard Tyson (who really should have become a big star but just never quite did for some reason).
I still believe that it is among the sexiest movies ever made, and that is not possible if you do not care about the characters or are drawn into their passion. Most movies of this type fail to engage the viewer in the story and so the passion and sexuality suffer, but that is not the case here. One doesn't need to watch this movie as an excuse for some cheap titillation, it also delivers as an enjoyable film as well.
I still believe that it is among the sexiest movies ever made, and that is not possible if you do not care about the characters or are drawn into their passion. Most movies of this type fail to engage the viewer in the story and so the passion and sexuality suffer, but that is not the case here. One doesn't need to watch this movie as an excuse for some cheap titillation, it also delivers as an enjoyable film as well.
Understand that I am a fan of avant-garde cinema. I have seen quite a lot of it - some very good, some very bad - but no film I have ever seen (avant-garde or otherwise) has ever been more excruciating to me than "Wavelength." Like the title of my post says, I know what excruciating means intimately and I do believe I'd rather suffer another five days with a kidney stone like I did a few years ago, than be forced to sit through this film for a third time (in film school I was forced to watch it twice for different teachers).
Stick to Maya Deren or Stan Brakhage or Bunuel or anybody to satisfy your avant-garde tastes. Experimenting with "Wavelength" might not be worth the pain.
Stick to Maya Deren or Stan Brakhage or Bunuel or anybody to satisfy your avant-garde tastes. Experimenting with "Wavelength" might not be worth the pain.