
kim-de-windter
Joined Aug 2011
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings6.3K
kim-de-windter's rating
Reviews8
kim-de-windter's rating
A deluded hodge podge of historical inaccuracies and montages of "good old Hollywood "
Trying to keep the ending under wraps is probably the only way anyone will watch this next installment in Tarantino's barrage of violent hallucinations.
The first 60 mins could be cut without "diminishing" the thin plot, the rest of the movie , which feels like another 180 mins is.. well.. forgettable, slow, violent, disgusting, dull and a simple waste of time..
Definitely not for fans of Sharon Tate, whose portrail is admittedly better than in other movies touching on a dark chapter in history, yet doesnt rise above mediocre and remains deliberately two dimensional throughout the movie.
And, yes, the (highly inaccurate) depiction of drug use is sure to induce some misguided attempts of emulation by severval people who will surely share those in the respective online message boards with the world soon.
Considering Tarantino's popularity, another byproduct will likely be a whole generation of misinformed fans, who will never know the real facts, therefore living an existence mercifully free of the ravages of truth.
When a movie about one of the most grisly events in recent history is made, and theres laughing in the movie theater, it's obvious something is amiss.
As intentional as this might be, it leaves one in utter disbelief that in today's world this will be hailed the next cinematic masterpiece.
Trying to keep the ending under wraps is probably the only way anyone will watch this next installment in Tarantino's barrage of violent hallucinations.
The first 60 mins could be cut without "diminishing" the thin plot, the rest of the movie , which feels like another 180 mins is.. well.. forgettable, slow, violent, disgusting, dull and a simple waste of time..
Definitely not for fans of Sharon Tate, whose portrail is admittedly better than in other movies touching on a dark chapter in history, yet doesnt rise above mediocre and remains deliberately two dimensional throughout the movie.
And, yes, the (highly inaccurate) depiction of drug use is sure to induce some misguided attempts of emulation by severval people who will surely share those in the respective online message boards with the world soon.
Considering Tarantino's popularity, another byproduct will likely be a whole generation of misinformed fans, who will never know the real facts, therefore living an existence mercifully free of the ravages of truth.
When a movie about one of the most grisly events in recent history is made, and theres laughing in the movie theater, it's obvious something is amiss.
As intentional as this might be, it leaves one in utter disbelief that in today's world this will be hailed the next cinematic masterpiece.
real pity
this movie could have been rather good. they had Kay Francis and Brian Aherne, even Nils Asther..
10 minutes into the movie its painfully obvious that this has something of a Helen Keller Musical.
there's no direction, the plot is dull and stupid and the actors don't seem to have been given a script before shooting.
they should have simply made a romance with Kay and Nils in the leads.. that i would have liked to see.
this movie is an infuriating waste of talent, time and money
this movie could have been rather good. they had Kay Francis and Brian Aherne, even Nils Asther..
10 minutes into the movie its painfully obvious that this has something of a Helen Keller Musical.
there's no direction, the plot is dull and stupid and the actors don't seem to have been given a script before shooting.
they should have simply made a romance with Kay and Nils in the leads.. that i would have liked to see.
this movie is an infuriating waste of talent, time and money
isn't it romantic.. yes it is..
i was quite surprised by this movie. its not a milestone, nor the greatest movie ever made.. but it is good. the whole plot is not highly original, and the whole 30 minutes in the middle are quite forgettable. Sari Maritza, well, don't be surprised if you never heard of her, in her case there's a good reason for it.
anyway, there's Herbert Marshall and Mary Boland. the scenes between them are fresh, modern and interesting. Herbert Marshall, well, i never knew how attractive he was, until i saw him in this movie.
some impressive camera work and the MOST BEAUTIFUL MOVIE KISS that i ever hope to see make this movie a definite must.
i was quite surprised by this movie. its not a milestone, nor the greatest movie ever made.. but it is good. the whole plot is not highly original, and the whole 30 minutes in the middle are quite forgettable. Sari Maritza, well, don't be surprised if you never heard of her, in her case there's a good reason for it.
anyway, there's Herbert Marshall and Mary Boland. the scenes between them are fresh, modern and interesting. Herbert Marshall, well, i never knew how attractive he was, until i saw him in this movie.
some impressive camera work and the MOST BEAUTIFUL MOVIE KISS that i ever hope to see make this movie a definite must.