When a friend told me about the release of Origin , the new film by Christopher Nolan, I could not help feeling curious about the aroused criticism Filmaffinity , one of the most visited websites about movies. It turns out that just premiered nearly reached a score of nine points, which was then down to 8.2 today. To give you an idea of \u200b\u200bthe scale with which we deal, the films with the highest score on the website are Godfather, with 9.1; The Godfather II, with 8.9, and City Lights with 8.7. Ie Source was for some time among the permanent fixture in the history of cinema.
With a very warm welcome, why not go see it? Needless to say, the forecasts were not met: sorry, but this is not a new masterpiece that gives a twist to this little creative film beginning of the century. As such, the film is not bad. The script is quite correct, very sow doubts and twists, following the trend of this intriguing film the end of 90 which involves both the brain of the viewer that they end up smoking while trying to uncover details of the plot, "though I must say that some aspects of it are a bit out of tune (since when the owner of a multinational risks to "control" the dirty work?) and on a good piece of footage, too many action scenes and explosions very far blockbuster that makes some pieces in a pretty boring hosts festival. Of course, the setting and background are quite original, with all these ideas in the levels of sleep and the possibility of drilling into them.
So what hell is what happened on the Internet? Why do so many people has been launched to give such a high score to the film and why it has been highly praised by critics (according to excerpts of the press that appear on the same sheet Filmaffinity )? We live in a society that tends to glorify the ephemeral, to inflame with something with the same ease with which it is set aside and that is further obscured with bold visual montages and convoluted plots. I would like to see the passion it Source within, say, 10 or 15 years. The same happens to the journalists, who tend to use big words to give ground to some which will not be discussed shortly, exaggerating its importance. E
Internet is the main vehicle of expression of this, where everyone expresses their opinion and word travels like wildfire. We were obsessed with democratic criteria apply to all, and we have to assume that things are not correct because it makes the most (even incorrect eye), but we are to form our own critical vision to distinguish between the different views. This reminds me of that poster that appears in The Simpsons : "50 million smokers can not be wrong!".
Finally, moral: Take with caution first worked-such views and opinions so beware of majority if not gone long enough to dilute the initial enthusiasm sometimes exaggerated.
With a very warm welcome, why not go see it? Needless to say, the forecasts were not met: sorry, but this is not a new masterpiece that gives a twist to this little creative film beginning of the century. As such, the film is not bad. The script is quite correct, very sow doubts and twists, following the trend of this intriguing film the end of 90 which involves both the brain of the viewer that they end up smoking while trying to uncover details of the plot, "though I must say that some aspects of it are a bit out of tune (since when the owner of a multinational risks to "control" the dirty work?) and on a good piece of footage, too many action scenes and explosions very far blockbuster that makes some pieces in a pretty boring hosts festival. Of course, the setting and background are quite original, with all these ideas in the levels of sleep and the possibility of drilling into them.
So what hell is what happened on the Internet? Why do so many people has been launched to give such a high score to the film and why it has been highly praised by critics (according to excerpts of the press that appear on the same sheet Filmaffinity )? We live in a society that tends to glorify the ephemeral, to inflame with something with the same ease with which it is set aside and that is further obscured with bold visual montages and convoluted plots. I would like to see the passion it Source within, say, 10 or 15 years. The same happens to the journalists, who tend to use big words to give ground to some which will not be discussed shortly, exaggerating its importance. E
Internet is the main vehicle of expression of this, where everyone expresses their opinion and word travels like wildfire. We were obsessed with democratic criteria apply to all, and we have to assume that things are not correct because it makes the most (even incorrect eye), but we are to form our own critical vision to distinguish between the different views. This reminds me of that poster that appears in The Simpsons : "50 million smokers can not be wrong!".
Finally, moral: Take with caution first worked-such views and opinions so beware of majority if not gone long enough to dilute the initial enthusiasm sometimes exaggerated.
0 comments:
Post a Comment