clurge-2
Iscritto in data apr 2000
Ti diamo il benvenuto nel nuovo profilo
Stiamo ancora lavorando all'aggiornamento di alcune funzionalità del profilo. Per visualizzare I loghi, le suddivisioni delle valutazioni e i sondaggi per questo profilo, vai a versione precedente.
Recensioni23
Valutazione di clurge-2
Well, I've either died and gone to heaven, or just died. I can't really tell at this point. "Ladybugs" is an odd film. How could I have sat down and watched this film on three non-consecutive occasions? I guess the allure of Rodney Dangerfield is like a horrible, twisted automobile accident. No matter how much you want to move along, you just can't turn away.
Jackée Harry's voice alone would make any man flee the area, and never return. Tommy Lasroda appears near the midpoint of the film to remind us that he should never be cast in feature films EVER AGAIN. Then factor in Jonathan Brandis...as a girl! No, not just Jonathan Brandis. HE'S ALSO DRESSED LIKE A GIRL. Go now. While you can. Run for your life.
Once you watch a bit, you'll be hooked. I'm warning you.
Dangerfield is no threat. If you've seen this film, or "Easy Money" or "Back To School" or anything else he's been in, you know his role. "A wise-cracking (blank)". Here, the blank is filled with "soccer coach". If you're seeing it for the sole purpose of "The Rod", go see "Meet Wally Sparks". A much better effort.
Sometime in the near future, a professor from a large university in Norway will release a thesis paper drawing parallels between "Ladybugs" and it's Hollywood soccer film equal, "The Big Green". The paper will go on to comment that Hollywood cannot make a decent "Big Budget Soccer Picture", and films of the sort should be left to the much more soccer-movie-inclined Icelandic film producers. Just a prediction.
Please take heed. This movie is like a cult. You watch it once, and it will never let go. You'll have to call in sick to work, and cut out your social life because of this film. "Ladybugs" will attach itself to you an never let go...until your eventual demise. Then it will move on to it's next unsuspecting victim that says, "Hmm...Rodney Dangerfield, Jackée Harry, AND Jonathan Brandis...sounds good..."
Jackée Harry's voice alone would make any man flee the area, and never return. Tommy Lasroda appears near the midpoint of the film to remind us that he should never be cast in feature films EVER AGAIN. Then factor in Jonathan Brandis...as a girl! No, not just Jonathan Brandis. HE'S ALSO DRESSED LIKE A GIRL. Go now. While you can. Run for your life.
Once you watch a bit, you'll be hooked. I'm warning you.
Dangerfield is no threat. If you've seen this film, or "Easy Money" or "Back To School" or anything else he's been in, you know his role. "A wise-cracking (blank)". Here, the blank is filled with "soccer coach". If you're seeing it for the sole purpose of "The Rod", go see "Meet Wally Sparks". A much better effort.
Sometime in the near future, a professor from a large university in Norway will release a thesis paper drawing parallels between "Ladybugs" and it's Hollywood soccer film equal, "The Big Green". The paper will go on to comment that Hollywood cannot make a decent "Big Budget Soccer Picture", and films of the sort should be left to the much more soccer-movie-inclined Icelandic film producers. Just a prediction.
Please take heed. This movie is like a cult. You watch it once, and it will never let go. You'll have to call in sick to work, and cut out your social life because of this film. "Ladybugs" will attach itself to you an never let go...until your eventual demise. Then it will move on to it's next unsuspecting victim that says, "Hmm...Rodney Dangerfield, Jackée Harry, AND Jonathan Brandis...sounds good..."
I'm one for artistic films, and films that are different. Pictures that others in my age group (18-25) may find boring and at odds with, I love. But "Proof Of Life" really is a dull, someone-shoot-me-in-the-head, drawn out feature. And to those who don't know me will assume that I'm saying that because I'm a product of American cinema looking for sex, nudity, and drugs.
I went into the film blind, not knowing any more than Russell Crowe and Meg Ryan were top billing. Sure, I realize hostage negotiating is a drawn out ordeal, but the movie took it to the tenth degree. It clocks in at two hours and fifteen minutes. I don't mind long films. But there has to be enough story to carry it for that long! "Proof Of Life" didn't have it. A hostage negotiator comes in, negotiates, then gives everything up to take the hostage using force. Simple as that. Crowe drives here and drives there, and talks with this person and that person. A big waste of time. It all could have been done in ninety minutes.
And Meg Ryan might as well have been replaced with a hatstand. She played a weak, often braless, wife that had nothing to do with the main plot of hostage negotiating. She got top billing for that? Meg Ryan is, loosely speaking, a good actress, and her talents were basically wasted here.
During the last half hour, I could not stop laughing, because of the amounts of film they could have chopped out and still had a watchable movie. The only good thing I could take solace in, is that we were at a cheap-o theater, and only paid $2.50CAD to see it. Let's put it this way, the film took so much out of my viewing companion and I that we had no patience to go and see "Vertical Limit" showing immediately after.
Whether that's a blessing in disguise or not is a different story.
Bottom line here is one of boredom. "Proof Of Life" seemed to get lost in the Christmas Movie Rush of '00. And a good thing too. Saved quite a few people from getting mighty angry. Looks like for once the masses picked which ones would float, and which would sink. And "Proof Of Life" was rightfully deep-sixed!
I went into the film blind, not knowing any more than Russell Crowe and Meg Ryan were top billing. Sure, I realize hostage negotiating is a drawn out ordeal, but the movie took it to the tenth degree. It clocks in at two hours and fifteen minutes. I don't mind long films. But there has to be enough story to carry it for that long! "Proof Of Life" didn't have it. A hostage negotiator comes in, negotiates, then gives everything up to take the hostage using force. Simple as that. Crowe drives here and drives there, and talks with this person and that person. A big waste of time. It all could have been done in ninety minutes.
And Meg Ryan might as well have been replaced with a hatstand. She played a weak, often braless, wife that had nothing to do with the main plot of hostage negotiating. She got top billing for that? Meg Ryan is, loosely speaking, a good actress, and her talents were basically wasted here.
During the last half hour, I could not stop laughing, because of the amounts of film they could have chopped out and still had a watchable movie. The only good thing I could take solace in, is that we were at a cheap-o theater, and only paid $2.50CAD to see it. Let's put it this way, the film took so much out of my viewing companion and I that we had no patience to go and see "Vertical Limit" showing immediately after.
Whether that's a blessing in disguise or not is a different story.
Bottom line here is one of boredom. "Proof Of Life" seemed to get lost in the Christmas Movie Rush of '00. And a good thing too. Saved quite a few people from getting mighty angry. Looks like for once the masses picked which ones would float, and which would sink. And "Proof Of Life" was rightfully deep-sixed!
I'm not big on John Waters, and I absolutely detest Melanie Griffith, but I figured that any movie that stands up against mainstream Hollywood cinema has gotta be good...right? Uh...no. To the power of ten.
I viewed this movie and thought to myself, "Geez, the story is about the overthrowing of mainstream cinema by the underground...yet this movie is exactly the same as any other teen angst film from the past twenty years!"
But then I thought, "Are they doing THAT on purpose? Is there irony in the fact that a film preaching the coolness of the underground cinema is following all of the standard Hollywood ideals and benchmarks needed to put together a movie such as this?"
Either way, the movie, in my opinion, comes off horribly. "Demented" sticks to the guns of past teen angst films by having a large central teen cast, each with specific quirks (there's the leader, the bad girl with black hair, the hussy, the nerd, and so forth) getting fed up with the "system" and revolting against stuffy grown-ups. However, Waters adds a new senseless twist...killing! That's right Teenage America! If there is something you don't like, grab a bunch of your stereotypical buddies and shoot up as many as you can!
Melanie Griffith is horrible, as usual, and Rikki Lake proves once again why she has a trash talk show and NOT a career in low-budget films. The only redeeming factor of the film is the potshots it takes at Hollywood features, like "Lake Placid" and "The Flintstones". But it's got a lot to make up for. For example, the group orgy at the drive-in where half the characters are offed while performing their sexual duties within the last five minutes (what was that all about ANYWAY??). Or how about the character of Cecil himself climbing into a wheelchair, lighting himself on fire, and "saving the day". Just complete and utter stupidity.
If you feel the need to stand up against Hollywood (like I did), and look to "Cecil B. Demented" for salvation, you'll be very disappointed. The film you thought would make up for the sins of Hollywood in the past year (see "Gone In 60 Seconds", "Hollow Man", "The Art Of War", etc.) only proves that you've once again been duped. This anti-Hollywood picture is just another bad Hollywood picture in disguise. Your money would be better wasted on "Empire Records" or any other film made in the last ten years that promotes teen unity and revolution.
I viewed this movie and thought to myself, "Geez, the story is about the overthrowing of mainstream cinema by the underground...yet this movie is exactly the same as any other teen angst film from the past twenty years!"
But then I thought, "Are they doing THAT on purpose? Is there irony in the fact that a film preaching the coolness of the underground cinema is following all of the standard Hollywood ideals and benchmarks needed to put together a movie such as this?"
Either way, the movie, in my opinion, comes off horribly. "Demented" sticks to the guns of past teen angst films by having a large central teen cast, each with specific quirks (there's the leader, the bad girl with black hair, the hussy, the nerd, and so forth) getting fed up with the "system" and revolting against stuffy grown-ups. However, Waters adds a new senseless twist...killing! That's right Teenage America! If there is something you don't like, grab a bunch of your stereotypical buddies and shoot up as many as you can!
Melanie Griffith is horrible, as usual, and Rikki Lake proves once again why she has a trash talk show and NOT a career in low-budget films. The only redeeming factor of the film is the potshots it takes at Hollywood features, like "Lake Placid" and "The Flintstones". But it's got a lot to make up for. For example, the group orgy at the drive-in where half the characters are offed while performing their sexual duties within the last five minutes (what was that all about ANYWAY??). Or how about the character of Cecil himself climbing into a wheelchair, lighting himself on fire, and "saving the day". Just complete and utter stupidity.
If you feel the need to stand up against Hollywood (like I did), and look to "Cecil B. Demented" for salvation, you'll be very disappointed. The film you thought would make up for the sins of Hollywood in the past year (see "Gone In 60 Seconds", "Hollow Man", "The Art Of War", etc.) only proves that you've once again been duped. This anti-Hollywood picture is just another bad Hollywood picture in disguise. Your money would be better wasted on "Empire Records" or any other film made in the last ten years that promotes teen unity and revolution.