mest overvurderet film?
2.0
Dette er hvad en amerikansk anmelder mener om A history of violence, jeg kan personligt ikke være mere enig.
It took me two times to realize how bad this movie was. The first time, I found it slightly compelling. I couldn't wait to find out where it was headed. When it went no where -- and I do mean no where -- I was disappointed. The second time I really saw it for what it was: A piece of violent pornography gussied up as art. Commonplace dialogue fills up the spaces between Tom/Joey beating people to a pulp. A couple of sex scenes fill up the spaces where screenwriter Josh Olson ran out of commonplace dialogue.
A History of Violence is a 10-minute short padded out to a 90 minute feature film. At 10 minutes it would be the kind of movie to win prestigious awards at college film-festivals, where people are still too self-absorbed to know any better. Why do some of the most respected film critics out there praise the movie? Its complete lack of story must have them convinced that it's something "deep."
Who points it out when the Emperor is wearing no clothing? I guess in this case, me. A History of Violence is an education in bad filmmaking. It's sad that all Hollywood has to do to cater to the upper-crust yuppies is release a film that has the appearance of being "different." The movie is a novelty and in 10 years it will be all but forgotten.
It took me two times to realize how bad this movie was. The first time, I found it slightly compelling. I couldn't wait to find out where it was headed. When it went no where -- and I do mean no where -- I was disappointed. The second time I really saw it for what it was: A piece of violent pornography gussied up as art. Commonplace dialogue fills up the spaces between Tom/Joey beating people to a pulp. A couple of sex scenes fill up the spaces where screenwriter Josh Olson ran out of commonplace dialogue.
A History of Violence is a 10-minute short padded out to a 90 minute feature film. At 10 minutes it would be the kind of movie to win prestigious awards at college film-festivals, where people are still too self-absorbed to know any better. Why do some of the most respected film critics out there praise the movie? Its complete lack of story must have them convinced that it's something "deep."
Who points it out when the Emperor is wearing no clothing? I guess in this case, me. A History of Violence is an education in bad filmmaking. It's sad that all Hollywood has to do to cater to the upper-crust yuppies is release a film that has the appearance of being "different." The movie is a novelty and in 10 years it will be all but forgotten.
14/11-2005
