devinecomic
Entrou em mar. 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.
Avaliações17
Classificação de devinecomic
Due to the seriousness of her crime, Amanda is being tried as an adult, for murder, and faces execution if guilty.
Amanda is 15 years old.
This film is based on a true story. Unfortunately, this means absolutely nothing in the film represents what actually happened to Amanda... except perhaps that she murdered someone and was found guilty.
So, viewing the film in it's own right, I think it does an excellent job of presenting us with information, with a scenario, and asking us many questions about the legal system, and the strange institution that is the death penalty. The subject is a minor, only 15yrs old. Alcohol and drugs are involved, and she is only 15yrs old. Sex, prostitution, and rape by a family member, and she is 15yrs old. Married, legally, at 15yrs old. Up in front of the beak, death penalty, possibly facing the end of her life, at 15yrs old.
In fact, having read my own paragraph above, I find it incredible that this is a true story... I mean, how could all this happen, and then a jury of adults be asked to decide on a death penalty for a child who has been through all this? Madness, to be sure. Perhaps a jury of 15yr olds would be better? After all, are we not supposed to be judged by our peers?
The situations in the film are well presented. The confusion and the strangeness not blindfolding us, and not brainwashing either.
We are allowed to think all the way through this movie... and I guess careful thought about this subject is what was needed. All actors do well, especially Lewis, who develops a very whole, very believable character throughout.
One criticism might be that while the film carries an 18 rating, what we actually see is , well, Disney-fied. The subject is wholly unpleasant, true or not, but the edges are certainly smoothed. It is presented in a Saturday matinée format, when it could quite easily, and maybe more truthfully, be presented in Natural Born Killers reality styley, and thus deserve it's rating.
Well worth watching... thought provoking, well acted, and deserves a "7" from me!
Amanda is 15 years old.
This film is based on a true story. Unfortunately, this means absolutely nothing in the film represents what actually happened to Amanda... except perhaps that she murdered someone and was found guilty.
So, viewing the film in it's own right, I think it does an excellent job of presenting us with information, with a scenario, and asking us many questions about the legal system, and the strange institution that is the death penalty. The subject is a minor, only 15yrs old. Alcohol and drugs are involved, and she is only 15yrs old. Sex, prostitution, and rape by a family member, and she is 15yrs old. Married, legally, at 15yrs old. Up in front of the beak, death penalty, possibly facing the end of her life, at 15yrs old.
In fact, having read my own paragraph above, I find it incredible that this is a true story... I mean, how could all this happen, and then a jury of adults be asked to decide on a death penalty for a child who has been through all this? Madness, to be sure. Perhaps a jury of 15yr olds would be better? After all, are we not supposed to be judged by our peers?
The situations in the film are well presented. The confusion and the strangeness not blindfolding us, and not brainwashing either.
We are allowed to think all the way through this movie... and I guess careful thought about this subject is what was needed. All actors do well, especially Lewis, who develops a very whole, very believable character throughout.
One criticism might be that while the film carries an 18 rating, what we actually see is , well, Disney-fied. The subject is wholly unpleasant, true or not, but the edges are certainly smoothed. It is presented in a Saturday matinée format, when it could quite easily, and maybe more truthfully, be presented in Natural Born Killers reality styley, and thus deserve it's rating.
Well worth watching... thought provoking, well acted, and deserves a "7" from me!
The Witchfinder General is a true story, at least, there was a Witchfinder General, around 1645, who did get confessions from 'witches' by medieval means, and perform executions as deemed necessary. As for anything in this film being truthful... well, I'm not so sure.
We are presented with a devious sex addict, who literally rides around the country, with a burly henchman sidekick, and has sex with as many women as possible, while getting paid for torturing people and organising executions. Now, from the history books, I can't find any reference to the sexual deviance or deviousness of this man. Neither do I believe that all of Olde England's pubs were full of bare-breasted women out for a grand time. Nor do I believe that the daughter of a 17th century clergyman would be encouraged, by her father, to have pre-marital sex, in the vicarage, while the dear old man pops off to bed early... after prayers we assume?? And, to top it all off, with dear old Dad having been tried as a witch, would the congregation of a 17th century village then desecrate the hallowed church and write graffiti on the walls?? No, idiot, I shouldn't think they could even write!!
There is so much film potential in this subject, perhaps along the lines of the brilliant Plunkett and MacLeane or A Knights Tale or even the historically accurate epic, Gangs of New york (trust me, I know!!). And OK, I accept that this film was released in 1968, but it seems to me that it was made for an unquestioning, maybe American, audience. Especially as the narrative explains the situation at the start of the film more in terms of 20th century McCarthyism, that 17th Century mysticism.
No problem with the acting, all good. Scenery pretty good, although those dungeons were devilishly clean! As for the script, it was only marred by inaccuracies, rather than lack of storyline. And this film does have a little story going on, in its own way... but a real shame, when the factual subject would have been so much better.
I voted a generous "5"... and live in hope of a decent and historically interested director getting a hold of this subject. Please??
We are presented with a devious sex addict, who literally rides around the country, with a burly henchman sidekick, and has sex with as many women as possible, while getting paid for torturing people and organising executions. Now, from the history books, I can't find any reference to the sexual deviance or deviousness of this man. Neither do I believe that all of Olde England's pubs were full of bare-breasted women out for a grand time. Nor do I believe that the daughter of a 17th century clergyman would be encouraged, by her father, to have pre-marital sex, in the vicarage, while the dear old man pops off to bed early... after prayers we assume?? And, to top it all off, with dear old Dad having been tried as a witch, would the congregation of a 17th century village then desecrate the hallowed church and write graffiti on the walls?? No, idiot, I shouldn't think they could even write!!
There is so much film potential in this subject, perhaps along the lines of the brilliant Plunkett and MacLeane or A Knights Tale or even the historically accurate epic, Gangs of New york (trust me, I know!!). And OK, I accept that this film was released in 1968, but it seems to me that it was made for an unquestioning, maybe American, audience. Especially as the narrative explains the situation at the start of the film more in terms of 20th century McCarthyism, that 17th Century mysticism.
No problem with the acting, all good. Scenery pretty good, although those dungeons were devilishly clean! As for the script, it was only marred by inaccuracies, rather than lack of storyline. And this film does have a little story going on, in its own way... but a real shame, when the factual subject would have been so much better.
I voted a generous "5"... and live in hope of a decent and historically interested director getting a hold of this subject. Please??
So the taxi driver, on the night shift, is a vampire. Powerful, mystical, spiritual, all the usual vampiry stuff... but hey, he's gotta earn a living, get some o' them dollars, right??
Wrong.
The whole point of vampires is that they live a separate existence, feeding off of our race as they need. Their structured and mysterious society goes far beyond money, far beyond the need for the day to day, 9pm to 5am, shift work that the rest of us have to put up with. Taxi driver indeed! And it gets worse.
Our vampire hero, the love, lust, and blood full monty only becomes a vampire when someone has tipped a bag of flour over him, and turned on some blue scenery lights. Yep, the make-up and lighting budget was a bit strained. Made in the late 80's, this film also seemed more linked to the "Fame!" series than anything else. These aren't actors, they're dancers! The story is set around an 80's dance production, and yes, they definitely did stick with hiring dancers... even the vampire hero midget, with what looks like an astounding physique, will not doubt turn out to be a dancer when put under the microscope.
So, 80's dancing, leg warmers, shocking 80's music, awful 80's characters and situations... oh yes, the 80's was the decade when nothing really happened anywhere, unless there was an over choreographed modern dance show going on! And yes a ridiculous 80's script. There is nothing here for vampire or horror fans... nothing at all. A budget film, with budget cast and when the budget ran out they ended it with a sub-budget ending... it really is terrible.
Sure, they "Wanna live for ever", and after a quick nibble in the park, they probably will! I voted a "2"
Wrong.
The whole point of vampires is that they live a separate existence, feeding off of our race as they need. Their structured and mysterious society goes far beyond money, far beyond the need for the day to day, 9pm to 5am, shift work that the rest of us have to put up with. Taxi driver indeed! And it gets worse.
Our vampire hero, the love, lust, and blood full monty only becomes a vampire when someone has tipped a bag of flour over him, and turned on some blue scenery lights. Yep, the make-up and lighting budget was a bit strained. Made in the late 80's, this film also seemed more linked to the "Fame!" series than anything else. These aren't actors, they're dancers! The story is set around an 80's dance production, and yes, they definitely did stick with hiring dancers... even the vampire hero midget, with what looks like an astounding physique, will not doubt turn out to be a dancer when put under the microscope.
So, 80's dancing, leg warmers, shocking 80's music, awful 80's characters and situations... oh yes, the 80's was the decade when nothing really happened anywhere, unless there was an over choreographed modern dance show going on! And yes a ridiculous 80's script. There is nothing here for vampire or horror fans... nothing at all. A budget film, with budget cast and when the budget ran out they ended it with a sub-budget ending... it really is terrible.
Sure, they "Wanna live for ever", and after a quick nibble in the park, they probably will! I voted a "2"