christine-705-717153
Entrou em jun. de 2013
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.
Avaliações12
Classificação de christine-705-717153
Avaliações34
Classificação de christine-705-717153
Hope Springs is a story of regret, patience, love, and acceptance—all in two short hours. I, who am twice divorced, have always been in awe of anyone who makes it past the five-year mark in a marriage. When I meet people who have been married for decades, I tell them it surely is their greatest accomplishment in life. Some look at me strangely, others nod in agreement, and still others make some comment or other about how it's not always easy. Whatever their response, I know there are secrets lying behind those knowing glances, pensive stares, or sarcastic comments. Hope Springs takes us inside those secrets, and I was grateful for the tour. It's a wonderful and uncomfortable movie.
First, I have to talk about Meryl. I want to thank Margery Simpson, the casting director, for not casting Diane Keaton in the role of Kay. Kay is a bit of a stereotypical housewife from days of old who gets in the rut of service to husband and family. She feels uncomfortable about it, but she is unable to express herself. Imagine a less sophisticated version of the role Diane played in The First Wives Club. Diane plays these women from our past without a hint of the submerged intelligence – the choice to hold back rather than speak their minds, and the price they paid to hold it back. Meryl plays the role perfectly ("What else is new," I hear you ask). It's hard to express intelligence held back without words, but Meryl nails it. When she does speak, we strain to hear her. "I might be less lonely if I were alone," is delivered with such thought, such care, that you know she has been sorting it out in her mind for years. Thank you Meryl for bringing the Achilles heel of my mother's generation to the screen in such a dignified and kind way. But the true star is Tommy Lee Jones, who broke my heart a million times during the film. His performance is worthy of an Academy Award, although we all know these chick flicks rarely receive the golden statue. This one ought to be an exception to this rule. What a complex character! What a range of exploration he needs to do in the short time he has to get it right or call it quits. Whether he's expressing his confusion about what is happening ("I was good, I really was. I never fooled around.") or struggling to try again, to let his guard down one more time, he is just on the mark. And talk about expressing yourself with more than silly words; he owned the screen. Owned it, I tell you.Steve Carell has to get a mention here, especially because his character could easily have ruined the film by being ridiculous. His one-liners needed to be laid gently on the therapy bed, and he did it perfectly. Also, his coat and tie were perfect. He is cute, isn't he? Not a leading man? He was the lead in Dan In Real Life, and I liked him in that, but I didn't think of him as the lead in it. And, he is a secondary lead winner. Nicely done, Steve. I think you should stick to more roles with depth, and leave movies like The 40 Year Old Virgin to Ben Stiller, who irritates me no end.
The therapy-session scenes are difficult to take. They made everyone in the theater uncomfortable. Long after another film-maker would have cut away to relieve the discomfort, we were still sitting there waiting for it to ease up. That was new to me. Rarely does anyone punish an audience for having spent money to be entertained, even if the punishment makes the point and tells the story. But I am glad David Frankel did. It wasn't just in the sessions either. Admit it, those of you who have seen the film, you were disappointed with the EcoHotel they stayed in and hated seeing them in there, didn't you? But it told the story as it needed to be told, so thanks for making me uncomfortable.
At some point in the movie, someone says to someone else, "What are you going to do with your one and only life?" I can't even remember who said it to whom. But that kind of comment calls for a large answer, some amazing thing you must do to make your mark, to be remembered long after you have left for parts unknown. Watching this movie, I felt for the first time that is not what one needs to strive for. It is more important to get it right with another human being; to really go through ups and downs and years of interaction might be the best thing you can do with your one and only life.
Go see it. If you are married, go with your spouse. But if you are divorced, be careful; you might find yourself wondering might have been if you had taken a larger-than-life step before it was over.
First, I have to talk about Meryl. I want to thank Margery Simpson, the casting director, for not casting Diane Keaton in the role of Kay. Kay is a bit of a stereotypical housewife from days of old who gets in the rut of service to husband and family. She feels uncomfortable about it, but she is unable to express herself. Imagine a less sophisticated version of the role Diane played in The First Wives Club. Diane plays these women from our past without a hint of the submerged intelligence – the choice to hold back rather than speak their minds, and the price they paid to hold it back. Meryl plays the role perfectly ("What else is new," I hear you ask). It's hard to express intelligence held back without words, but Meryl nails it. When she does speak, we strain to hear her. "I might be less lonely if I were alone," is delivered with such thought, such care, that you know she has been sorting it out in her mind for years. Thank you Meryl for bringing the Achilles heel of my mother's generation to the screen in such a dignified and kind way. But the true star is Tommy Lee Jones, who broke my heart a million times during the film. His performance is worthy of an Academy Award, although we all know these chick flicks rarely receive the golden statue. This one ought to be an exception to this rule. What a complex character! What a range of exploration he needs to do in the short time he has to get it right or call it quits. Whether he's expressing his confusion about what is happening ("I was good, I really was. I never fooled around.") or struggling to try again, to let his guard down one more time, he is just on the mark. And talk about expressing yourself with more than silly words; he owned the screen. Owned it, I tell you.Steve Carell has to get a mention here, especially because his character could easily have ruined the film by being ridiculous. His one-liners needed to be laid gently on the therapy bed, and he did it perfectly. Also, his coat and tie were perfect. He is cute, isn't he? Not a leading man? He was the lead in Dan In Real Life, and I liked him in that, but I didn't think of him as the lead in it. And, he is a secondary lead winner. Nicely done, Steve. I think you should stick to more roles with depth, and leave movies like The 40 Year Old Virgin to Ben Stiller, who irritates me no end.
The therapy-session scenes are difficult to take. They made everyone in the theater uncomfortable. Long after another film-maker would have cut away to relieve the discomfort, we were still sitting there waiting for it to ease up. That was new to me. Rarely does anyone punish an audience for having spent money to be entertained, even if the punishment makes the point and tells the story. But I am glad David Frankel did. It wasn't just in the sessions either. Admit it, those of you who have seen the film, you were disappointed with the EcoHotel they stayed in and hated seeing them in there, didn't you? But it told the story as it needed to be told, so thanks for making me uncomfortable.
At some point in the movie, someone says to someone else, "What are you going to do with your one and only life?" I can't even remember who said it to whom. But that kind of comment calls for a large answer, some amazing thing you must do to make your mark, to be remembered long after you have left for parts unknown. Watching this movie, I felt for the first time that is not what one needs to strive for. It is more important to get it right with another human being; to really go through ups and downs and years of interaction might be the best thing you can do with your one and only life.
Go see it. If you are married, go with your spouse. But if you are divorced, be careful; you might find yourself wondering might have been if you had taken a larger-than-life step before it was over.
I saw a two-part documentary on Woody Allen a few months ago. At one point during the documentary, he pulls out a box filled with bits of paper and he says something to the effect that he is constantly writing ideas down on pieces of paper. From those pieces of paper he creates his scripts. I thought he meant that an idea then comes to fruition from the musings he has gathered. In To Rome with Love, it appears that he just reached his boney hand int0 the box, pulled out six or seven pieces of paper, and wrote six or seven separate little silly stories with the ideas from each.
There is no plot, just a series of conversations that speak to some neurosis of Woody's that must have been bothering him when he was working on the script.
There is no editing. There are no segues between scenes. Just a choppy sea that bounces us around on top of waves that randomly hit the bow.
There are just a series of scenes set in lovely Rome (which made me want to visit again; I haven't been there in ten years) that have no relationship to each other, and frankly, it is Woody Allen at his laziest. I have already determined that Woody Allen is a lazy writer and director. He mentioned in an interview that he's fast and on budget because he has other things he likes to do, other interests in his life, and thus has no desire to spend more time than he has to on the set. He is notorious for giving little direction, for not providing much input to enable actors to see his vision. Actors speak of this tendency with reverence as if no direction makes him a great director. Huh? I believe his technique of inserting actors into scenes as teachers of the scene's point is lazy too. He doesn't have to show us the way to anything, he just sticks someone into the scene who has no business being there to tell us what we are supposed to surmise from the action around it. That's Alec Baldwin's job in To Rome with Love, and he does it well. And the message he's giving us is so "Baldwin" that you are willing to sit and nod in agreement. Juliet Taylor is also well cast. But as a woman, the entire vignette about Monica, the manipulative, deceitful, seductress of the innocent, and Jack, who never had a prayer of escaping her black widow's web, makes me furious. And I think Woody thinks that way. He's just an innocent guy who has been made out to be the bad guy by women who always planned to destroy him Enough about Woody's personal life. Back to his lazy professional life. Looking back, I've decided he was lazy in Midnight in Paris too. He brought in all kinds of literary giants from another era, but he presented them in shallow characterizations, rather than doing some homework and really having them respond as they might have to some of the questions Gil could have asked them. Instead, they just showed up and bantered in a shallow, one-liner sort of way. It could have been truly thought provoking and unique if they had responded to questions about present-day intellectual challenges.
The last scene is worth the trip. "Volare" played by a brass and string band on the Spanish Steps is marvelous. I hummed it all the way home, much to the chagrin of my aunt and cousin, who attended the movie with me. But why not? I would have loved to have been there in the dark when they were filming it. No one around. The middle of the night. "Volare" wafting into the night. A little whimsy is a good thing.
I may be done with Woody Allen. I have said it before, but maybe this time I mean it. Work a little harder Woody, and quit resting on your laurels. Your sharp wit and pathetic neurosis are getting as old as you apparently feel.
There is no plot, just a series of conversations that speak to some neurosis of Woody's that must have been bothering him when he was working on the script.
There is no editing. There are no segues between scenes. Just a choppy sea that bounces us around on top of waves that randomly hit the bow.
There are just a series of scenes set in lovely Rome (which made me want to visit again; I haven't been there in ten years) that have no relationship to each other, and frankly, it is Woody Allen at his laziest. I have already determined that Woody Allen is a lazy writer and director. He mentioned in an interview that he's fast and on budget because he has other things he likes to do, other interests in his life, and thus has no desire to spend more time than he has to on the set. He is notorious for giving little direction, for not providing much input to enable actors to see his vision. Actors speak of this tendency with reverence as if no direction makes him a great director. Huh? I believe his technique of inserting actors into scenes as teachers of the scene's point is lazy too. He doesn't have to show us the way to anything, he just sticks someone into the scene who has no business being there to tell us what we are supposed to surmise from the action around it. That's Alec Baldwin's job in To Rome with Love, and he does it well. And the message he's giving us is so "Baldwin" that you are willing to sit and nod in agreement. Juliet Taylor is also well cast. But as a woman, the entire vignette about Monica, the manipulative, deceitful, seductress of the innocent, and Jack, who never had a prayer of escaping her black widow's web, makes me furious. And I think Woody thinks that way. He's just an innocent guy who has been made out to be the bad guy by women who always planned to destroy him Enough about Woody's personal life. Back to his lazy professional life. Looking back, I've decided he was lazy in Midnight in Paris too. He brought in all kinds of literary giants from another era, but he presented them in shallow characterizations, rather than doing some homework and really having them respond as they might have to some of the questions Gil could have asked them. Instead, they just showed up and bantered in a shallow, one-liner sort of way. It could have been truly thought provoking and unique if they had responded to questions about present-day intellectual challenges.
The last scene is worth the trip. "Volare" played by a brass and string band on the Spanish Steps is marvelous. I hummed it all the way home, much to the chagrin of my aunt and cousin, who attended the movie with me. But why not? I would have loved to have been there in the dark when they were filming it. No one around. The middle of the night. "Volare" wafting into the night. A little whimsy is a good thing.
I may be done with Woody Allen. I have said it before, but maybe this time I mean it. Work a little harder Woody, and quit resting on your laurels. Your sharp wit and pathetic neurosis are getting as old as you apparently feel.
I'm sure I wouldn't have seen Mirror Mirror if Julia Roberts hadn't been in it, and I'm sure I wouldn't have reviewed it if not for the cast, but I'm glad I went. The previews were all of animated movies scheduled to come out over the next few months, and since I seldom go to G- or PG-rated movies, I can see that I'm missing something just from the previews. Other than that, though, I do not think this movie is a must-see.
Okay, here is the thing. They got the feminist part totally right. The old Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs envisaged Snow White as a fabulous homemaker, sweeper-upper, cook, and kindly mother to the dwarfs—but she was basically a ditz who had no brain—and for that matter, no personality traits other than her love of service. This new Snow White, controversial eyebrows and all, is fabulous. She is strong, and she grows in her confidence and strength as she experiences successes. This is the message I would want sent to my daughter if she were young again. But there is a downside—a politically incorrect downside. Her strength and fabulousness come at the expense of the Dwarfs. The Dwarfs are buffoons, almost slapstick in their silliness and stupidity, and that portrayal makes a mockery of all the gains the little people have made over the years. I was very uncomfortable with it. And don't tell me I'm too sensitive. They run into each other, they can only beat bigger people by running around on stilts, they forget they have the key to get outside the house, and they show up late and throw snowballs to defend themselves against the big bad guy.
The Prince is boring, but Julia is lovely and the sets are amazing. I love the way the castle is set out on a cliff. It's really remarkable. Julia's wedding dress alone is reason enough for Vera Wang to go see this movie. I wish they had held the shot of those shoes lined up in a row a little longer, so I could really see them.
So let's change those fairy tales to stories in which everyone gets to be their best selves, okay? Then let's take our kids to movies like this and enjoy them as pieces of our history reborn, only better.
Okay, here is the thing. They got the feminist part totally right. The old Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs envisaged Snow White as a fabulous homemaker, sweeper-upper, cook, and kindly mother to the dwarfs—but she was basically a ditz who had no brain—and for that matter, no personality traits other than her love of service. This new Snow White, controversial eyebrows and all, is fabulous. She is strong, and she grows in her confidence and strength as she experiences successes. This is the message I would want sent to my daughter if she were young again. But there is a downside—a politically incorrect downside. Her strength and fabulousness come at the expense of the Dwarfs. The Dwarfs are buffoons, almost slapstick in their silliness and stupidity, and that portrayal makes a mockery of all the gains the little people have made over the years. I was very uncomfortable with it. And don't tell me I'm too sensitive. They run into each other, they can only beat bigger people by running around on stilts, they forget they have the key to get outside the house, and they show up late and throw snowballs to defend themselves against the big bad guy.
The Prince is boring, but Julia is lovely and the sets are amazing. I love the way the castle is set out on a cliff. It's really remarkable. Julia's wedding dress alone is reason enough for Vera Wang to go see this movie. I wish they had held the shot of those shoes lined up in a row a little longer, so I could really see them.
So let's change those fairy tales to stories in which everyone gets to be their best selves, okay? Then let's take our kids to movies like this and enjoy them as pieces of our history reborn, only better.