Goldilocks and the Three Bears: Death and Porridge
- 2024
- 1h 22min
CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
2.2/10
2.2 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Ricitos de Oro y los tres osos viven juntos en una casa aislada en el bosque. Cuando un grupo de amigos entra en su casa, Ricitos de Oro, líder de la manada, decide deshacerse de los intruso... Leer todoRicitos de Oro y los tres osos viven juntos en una casa aislada en el bosque. Cuando un grupo de amigos entra en su casa, Ricitos de Oro, líder de la manada, decide deshacerse de los intrusos.Ricitos de Oro y los tres osos viven juntos en una casa aislada en el bosque. Cuando un grupo de amigos entra en su casa, Ricitos de Oro, líder de la manada, decide deshacerse de los intrusos.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
This cinematic catastrophe should have been buried deeper than the bears' porridge. "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" is a muddled mess of a script, stumbling through the narrative like a blindfolded bear in a china shop. The acting is so abysmal, it's as if the performers were plucked from a community theater's reject pile. The pacing is excruciatingly sluggish, stretching what should be a charming tale into an endurance test. Special effects are reminiscent of a child's finger-painting, utterly failing to suspend disbelief. Craig Rees' direction is a textbook example of how not to helm a film, lacking any semblance of creativity or competence. His choices seem to actively sabotage the story's potential. The dialogue is cringe-worthy, filled with lines that induce involuntary eye rolls and groans. It's as if the script was penned by someone who had never heard human speech before. This movie is a disgrace to the art of filmmaking, disrespecting both its source material and its audience. Avoid it like a bear trap if you value your sanity, for it's not just bad-it's an affront to the very notion of cinema.
This film serves as a prime example of how not to make a movie, failing on every conceivable level. The plot is a chaotic mess, lacking coherence and direction, which alienates the audience from the outset. The acting is so dreadful it feels like the performers were deliberately sabotaging the production, showcasing a complete lack of casting and direction. The pacing is excruciatingly slow, turning the film into a torturous slog that tests the viewer's patience. Special effects are laughably amateurish, resembling a low-budget student project, which detracts from any potential immersion.
Directorial choices are baffling, with disjointed scenes and confusing transitions that disrupt any narrative flow. The dialogue is cringe-worthy, failing to elicit any genuine humor or emotion, highlighting poor writing and lack of creativity. This film is an insult to the original tale and a waste of time for the audience. It demonstrates the importance of coherent storytelling, competent acting, skilled direction, and polished production values in filmmaking. Avoid at all costs.
Directorial choices are baffling, with disjointed scenes and confusing transitions that disrupt any narrative flow. The dialogue is cringe-worthy, failing to elicit any genuine humor or emotion, highlighting poor writing and lack of creativity. This film is an insult to the original tale and a waste of time for the audience. It demonstrates the importance of coherent storytelling, competent acting, skilled direction, and polished production values in filmmaking. Avoid at all costs.
Craig Rees's "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" is a prime example of having all the gear and no idea. This film stumbles through its plot like a bear in a china shop, with direction as unfocused as a squirrel on a sugar high. Despite his extensive, albeit lackluster, career, Rees fails to bring any semblance of coherence to this classic tale.
The plot, thinner than Goldilocks's excuses for breaking into the bears' home, meanders aimlessly from scene to scene. The actors, some of whom barely speak English, deliver lines with the clarity of bear growls, adding an unintentionally hilarious layer of confusion to the narrative.
Even with a valiant effort from the cast, their performances can't save the film from its own ineptitude. What should be a charming retelling feels more like a disjointed and laughable mess. If you're looking for a movie night treat, "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" is one fairy tale better left unread. Save your time and seek out a story that knows where it's going.
The plot, thinner than Goldilocks's excuses for breaking into the bears' home, meanders aimlessly from scene to scene. The actors, some of whom barely speak English, deliver lines with the clarity of bear growls, adding an unintentionally hilarious layer of confusion to the narrative.
Even with a valiant effort from the cast, their performances can't save the film from its own ineptitude. What should be a charming retelling feels more like a disjointed and laughable mess. If you're looking for a movie night treat, "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" is one fairy tale better left unread. Save your time and seek out a story that knows where it's going.
This film ruins a good concept by failing to execute the fundamental elements that make a story engaging and coherent. The beloved tale of Goldilocks and the Three Bears offers a rich narrative ripe for modern adaptation, yet the filmmakers squander this potential at every turn.
First, the plot is a chaotic mess. Instead of providing a fresh take or adding depth to the original story, the narrative wanders aimlessly, lacking any clear direction or purpose. This robs the story of its charm and coherence, leaving the audience confused and disengaged.
The acting further sabotages the concept. Rather than bringing the characters to life, the performances are so dreadful they feel like deliberate acts of sabotage. This is a critical failure, as strong acting is essential to immersing the audience and making them care about the characters.
The pacing is another major issue. The film drags on with excruciatingly slow pacing, turning a potentially captivating tale into a tedious slog. This makes the viewing experience painful, rather than enjoyable.
Special effects and production values are shockingly poor. Instead of enhancing the magical elements of the story, the amateurish effects break the immersion and highlight the film's lack of professionalism.
Finally, directorial choices and dialogue ruin any remaining potential. The scenes are disjointed, transitions are jarring, and the dialogue is cringe-worthy and devoid of genuine humor or emotion. This lack of cohesion and creativity turns what could have been a delightful retelling into an insufferable viewing experience.
In summary, the film fails to capitalize on a good concept by delivering a poorly executed, confusing, and unengaging adaptation that disrespects its source material and disappoints its audience.
First, the plot is a chaotic mess. Instead of providing a fresh take or adding depth to the original story, the narrative wanders aimlessly, lacking any clear direction or purpose. This robs the story of its charm and coherence, leaving the audience confused and disengaged.
The acting further sabotages the concept. Rather than bringing the characters to life, the performances are so dreadful they feel like deliberate acts of sabotage. This is a critical failure, as strong acting is essential to immersing the audience and making them care about the characters.
The pacing is another major issue. The film drags on with excruciatingly slow pacing, turning a potentially captivating tale into a tedious slog. This makes the viewing experience painful, rather than enjoyable.
Special effects and production values are shockingly poor. Instead of enhancing the magical elements of the story, the amateurish effects break the immersion and highlight the film's lack of professionalism.
Finally, directorial choices and dialogue ruin any remaining potential. The scenes are disjointed, transitions are jarring, and the dialogue is cringe-worthy and devoid of genuine humor or emotion. This lack of cohesion and creativity turns what could have been a delightful retelling into an insufferable viewing experience.
In summary, the film fails to capitalize on a good concept by delivering a poorly executed, confusing, and unengaging adaptation that disrespects its source material and disappoints its audience.
Craig Rees' "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" is an abomination in the realm of filmmaking. It's a travesty that makes a mockery of the cherished fairy tale. The script is an incoherent mess, and the acting is so wooden it makes cardboard look expressive. The pacing is torturous, turning a short story into an endless slog. Special effects are laughably bad, rivaling those of a subpar high school project. Dialogue is painfully awkward, as if written by someone who has never heard a real conversation. Rees' direction is devoid of any vision, creativity, or competence. This film is an insult to viewers and a disgrace to the story it tries to tell. Avoid it like the plague.
¿Sabías que…?
- ErroresThe cameraman is visible when they initially gaze through the front door of the house.
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Goldilocks and the Three Bears: Death and Porridge?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Sitio oficial
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Златокоса и три медведа: смрт и каша
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productora
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 4,493
- Tiempo de ejecución
- 1h 22min(82 min)
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.39:1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta