MeggiesNicky
Joined Dec 2001
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews4
MeggiesNicky's rating
I know this is a cliche among anime fans -- but see the original. Most of the negative reviews are written about the American release of Gundam Wing on TCN which was okay, but pretty shallow and, frankly, not told all that coherently. The original, Japanese-language version makes a lot more sense and really shows you the depth of the characters and of the plot. Subtitles can be a pain to read if you've watched them before, but it's worth the growing pains -- believe me!
As for whether Gundam Wing is derivative of the earlier series -- of course it is! I've yet to run into an anime series that's a "sequel" that didn't have some major parallels to the earlier stories in the saga. Let's face it, though -- the reason there's a sequel is because the first one was a success. The whole point of putting out a second series is to re-clothe the same, winning formula. Can that wear thing? You bet. But it's the nature of the beast.
Gundam Wing is a great sequel in its added depth and complexity, but you're you're not going to catch any of that in the American release... But, even there, it's a moderately fun ride.
As for whether Gundam Wing is derivative of the earlier series -- of course it is! I've yet to run into an anime series that's a "sequel" that didn't have some major parallels to the earlier stories in the saga. Let's face it, though -- the reason there's a sequel is because the first one was a success. The whole point of putting out a second series is to re-clothe the same, winning formula. Can that wear thing? You bet. But it's the nature of the beast.
Gundam Wing is a great sequel in its added depth and complexity, but you're you're not going to catch any of that in the American release... But, even there, it's a moderately fun ride.
It's one thing to put a movie on TV. Another to shoot one and put it directly on TV. Another to shoot a movie as if you never intended to do anything with it other than put it on TV. And man does this one smell of video!
The story's okay, with some adaptations from the novel, but that's no big deal. I can forgive that. I can even forgive the sappiness of the stoy; judge a movie on its own genre.
What I can't forgive is the production. I admit that PAX is no big media centre, but surely they can still draw a little better talent than the casting for this flick. The leads all look like they're doing a commercial for local TV or else hamming it up in a civic theatre. People sometimes seem to forget that when there's a camera involved, they don't need to act out as they might on stage.
What's worse is the cinematography which is framed like a daytime drama, and lit with less creativity than that. The staging is simple -- two people talking should face each other in the middle of the room. The action should be center-stage. Et cetera.
You can bear with it, but the production doesn't do half justice to what the authors of the novel deserve...
The story's okay, with some adaptations from the novel, but that's no big deal. I can forgive that. I can even forgive the sappiness of the stoy; judge a movie on its own genre.
What I can't forgive is the production. I admit that PAX is no big media centre, but surely they can still draw a little better talent than the casting for this flick. The leads all look like they're doing a commercial for local TV or else hamming it up in a civic theatre. People sometimes seem to forget that when there's a camera involved, they don't need to act out as they might on stage.
What's worse is the cinematography which is framed like a daytime drama, and lit with less creativity than that. The staging is simple -- two people talking should face each other in the middle of the room. The action should be center-stage. Et cetera.
You can bear with it, but the production doesn't do half justice to what the authors of the novel deserve...
I'm a fan of Peter Lorre's and I love black & white films. I enjoy foreign films. I even like trying to twist my brain around mind-boggling, symbol-filled, convoluted art flicks. But I was incredibly disappointed in, *M*.
It had a lot of potential, but it kept drowning in itself. It took me a while to understand this. The plot itself wasn't overly complex -- so why did I still have the feeling of unpleasant confusion. What I finally realized is that *M*'s downfall is that it can't decide what it is.
I went into it with a general understanding of what it was going to be about, and knowing Peter Lorre's work I had certain expectations. The parts of the movie that were most satisfying to me were those which fit those expectations: a tense, shadowy atmosphere made all the more eerie and suspenseful by the skillful use of, "In the Hall of Mountain King."
Other parts of the movie felt more like a police procedural. There is certainly a place for the Ed McBain's of our world, but that place is not being mixed in with Robyn Cook. These segments felt out of place, and they jarringly interrupted the mood created by the spookier, more emotionally taut scenes.
The much-applauded ending had the same problem for me: it suddenly introduced yet another mood -- that of introspection and social consciousness. This was too distinct from either of the other two moods to feel as if it were even part of the same picture.
Each mood, each theme, each general strain could have been very good on its own -- but, as a package, the film felt ill-blended. And, as much as I enjoy paradox and even confusion, they are not, in of themselves, sufficient criteria for a good film.
It had a lot of potential, but it kept drowning in itself. It took me a while to understand this. The plot itself wasn't overly complex -- so why did I still have the feeling of unpleasant confusion. What I finally realized is that *M*'s downfall is that it can't decide what it is.
I went into it with a general understanding of what it was going to be about, and knowing Peter Lorre's work I had certain expectations. The parts of the movie that were most satisfying to me were those which fit those expectations: a tense, shadowy atmosphere made all the more eerie and suspenseful by the skillful use of, "In the Hall of Mountain King."
Other parts of the movie felt more like a police procedural. There is certainly a place for the Ed McBain's of our world, but that place is not being mixed in with Robyn Cook. These segments felt out of place, and they jarringly interrupted the mood created by the spookier, more emotionally taut scenes.
The much-applauded ending had the same problem for me: it suddenly introduced yet another mood -- that of introspection and social consciousness. This was too distinct from either of the other two moods to feel as if it were even part of the same picture.
Each mood, each theme, each general strain could have been very good on its own -- but, as a package, the film felt ill-blended. And, as much as I enjoy paradox and even confusion, they are not, in of themselves, sufficient criteria for a good film.