THEgongoozler
Joined Apr 2011
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.
Ratings67
THEgongoozler's rating
Reviews67
THEgongoozler's rating
The plot: 2 out of 10
the production: 4 out of 10
the direction: 6 out of 10
the cast: 8 out of 10
"You Don't Own Me" song and dance at the ending and credit roll: 10 out of 10.
THE FIRST WIVES CLUB (1996) is clean, lighthearted and conveying an message easily understood. A bit silly, yes, particularly the two characters by Maggie Smith and Sarah Jessica Parker. Husbands are all portrayed as sex hungry low-wit. Filled with stereotype and cliché, yet TFWC wins the hearts of million people.
The reason? Well, let me give you three words: Keaton, Hawn and Midler. They are the keys why audience watch this movie, they are the keys why audience LOVE this movie.
the production: 4 out of 10
the direction: 6 out of 10
the cast: 8 out of 10
"You Don't Own Me" song and dance at the ending and credit roll: 10 out of 10.
THE FIRST WIVES CLUB (1996) is clean, lighthearted and conveying an message easily understood. A bit silly, yes, particularly the two characters by Maggie Smith and Sarah Jessica Parker. Husbands are all portrayed as sex hungry low-wit. Filled with stereotype and cliché, yet TFWC wins the hearts of million people.
The reason? Well, let me give you three words: Keaton, Hawn and Midler. They are the keys why audience watch this movie, they are the keys why audience LOVE this movie.
Is the mainstream (of a society) always correct, righteous and entitled to judge/control those "different" from them? This is the question many serious movies tried to ask. The illustration of such matter, through the wholeness of STONEHEARST ASYLUM (2014), is decent, artistic and nevertheless harsh. However, there are masterpieces about or earlier than 4 decades ago which did a better job in confronting audience with inconvenient truth. Of course I'm referring to A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (1971) and ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (1975). Another interesting work, worthy of comparison, would be Werner Herzog's AGUIRRE, WRATH OF GOD (1972).
In terms of luminance of the picture most part of SA is dusky and shadowy, which serves its purpose but really unnecessary. But I do welcome director's arrangement of shooting two groups of people with contrasting framework. The representatives of authority and power, Pike (by Cusack), Salt (by Caine) and Mr Graves (by Kingsley jr), are portrayed in short takes, defocused or being partially covered. The rebellious usurpers or formerly suppressed, Newgate (by Sturgess), Lamb (by Kingsley) and Mrs Graves (by Beckinsale), are portrayed in longer shots, brighter lighting and fuller figures. The exception is Finn (by Thewlis). He is always in the dark, mumbling, the audience is deprived of one clean look of his face. This makes it obvious that he is the only genuine lunatic in SA.
Even though the main, or probably only, message SA conveys is that "patients" in mental institution may be saner than their handlers, yet presenting almost all of them (the protagonists in particular) as well-behaved, non harmful and discretionary is simply unconvincing.
In terms of luminance of the picture most part of SA is dusky and shadowy, which serves its purpose but really unnecessary. But I do welcome director's arrangement of shooting two groups of people with contrasting framework. The representatives of authority and power, Pike (by Cusack), Salt (by Caine) and Mr Graves (by Kingsley jr), are portrayed in short takes, defocused or being partially covered. The rebellious usurpers or formerly suppressed, Newgate (by Sturgess), Lamb (by Kingsley) and Mrs Graves (by Beckinsale), are portrayed in longer shots, brighter lighting and fuller figures. The exception is Finn (by Thewlis). He is always in the dark, mumbling, the audience is deprived of one clean look of his face. This makes it obvious that he is the only genuine lunatic in SA.
Even though the main, or probably only, message SA conveys is that "patients" in mental institution may be saner than their handlers, yet presenting almost all of them (the protagonists in particular) as well-behaved, non harmful and discretionary is simply unconvincing.
The original LORD OF THE DANCE (1997) by Michael Flatley at his peak was, and still is, a spectacle and triumph. The follow-up FEET OF FLAME (1998) managed somehow to reach the same level of success. There are quite a few similar filmed performances by the tap dance legend himself or others. Frankly, not much point to watch them - except the above-mentioned two.
As a stage show, LOTD: DG is not bad at all. It's a colorful light entertainment not much different from Legs & Co., and the audience get to stargaze Flatley who tried very, very hard. The most unpleasant element in it is the video presenting green stuff at the back. They look fake, messy and tooooo green.
As a filmed performance, on the other hand, LOTD: DG is much less exciting than its sources of 1997 and 1998. The music is softer, the dance involves little with the true Lord, the background images interfere with the actions in front. ..... This game is NOT dangerous.
As a stage show, LOTD: DG is not bad at all. It's a colorful light entertainment not much different from Legs & Co., and the audience get to stargaze Flatley who tried very, very hard. The most unpleasant element in it is the video presenting green stuff at the back. They look fake, messy and tooooo green.
As a filmed performance, on the other hand, LOTD: DG is much less exciting than its sources of 1997 and 1998. The music is softer, the dance involves little with the true Lord, the background images interfere with the actions in front. ..... This game is NOT dangerous.