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
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.
"Goldilocks and the Three Bears: Death and Porridge," directed by Craig Rees, is an ill-conceived horror film that falls flat on its face. Attempting to turn the beloved fairy tale into a nightmarish story, the film instead delivers a mess of uninspired jump scares and a nonsensical plot. The characters, including an oddly malevolent Goldilocks, are poorly developed, leaving viewers detached and uninterested. The dialogue is stilted and the acting ranges from over-the-top to utterly lifeless. Rees's direction lacks coherence and fails to create any genuine suspense, resulting in a film that is neither scary nor engaging.
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.
"Goldilocks and the Three Bears: Death and Porridge" is a cinematic disaster that squanders the charm of its source material. The plot is an incoherent jumble, wandering aimlessly without any clear direction. The acting is so dreadful it feels as though the performers were actively trying to ruin the film. The pacing is excruciatingly slow, dragging the audience through an endless series of tedious scenes. Special effects are laughably amateurish, reminiscent of a low-budget student project. Directorial choices are baffling, featuring disjointed sequences and abrupt transitions that only serve to confuse. The dialogue is cringe-worthy, with clumsy attempts at humor that fail miserably. In summary, this film is a travesty that disrespects its source material and insults its audience. Steer clear unless you enjoy enduring two hours of unrelenting cinematic agony.
A child could potentially make this film better than Craig Rees by embracing the core elements of effective storytelling that this adaptation lacks. Children naturally tell stories in a straightforward manner, ensuring a clear beginning, middle, and end. Unlike the chaotic mess of this film's plot, a child's straightforward approach would keep the narrative coherent and engaging.
Children are adept at expressing genuine emotions, something sorely missing from this film's performances. Their unfiltered, heartfelt expressions would make the characters more relatable and engaging, bringing life to the story.
Creativity and imagination are strengths of children that know no bounds. While the film's special effects are embarrassingly poor, a child's imaginative storytelling could infuse the tale with a sense of wonder and magic, creating a more captivating and visually appealing experience.
Children also have a natural sense of pacing, keeping their stories lively and engaging. They understand the need to maintain the audience's attention with constant developments and exciting moments, avoiding the excruciatingly slow pace that plagues this film.
By staying true to the core elements of the Goldilocks story, children would preserve its charm and moral lessons, which this film completely loses sight of. They would also bring a simple, effective humor to the dialogue, replacing the film's failed attempts at humor with genuine, light-hearted moments that resonate with audiences.
In essence, a child's natural storytelling abilities-rooted in clarity, genuine emotion, creativity, engaging pacing, and focus on core elements-would likely produce a more coherent, entertaining, and faithful adaptation of the Goldilocks tale than this disappointing film directed by Craig Rees.
A child could potentially make this film better than Craig Rees by embracing the core elements of effective storytelling that this adaptation lacks. Children naturally tell stories in a straightforward manner, ensuring a clear beginning, middle, and end. Unlike the chaotic mess of this film's plot, a child's straightforward approach would keep the narrative coherent and engaging.
Children are adept at expressing genuine emotions, something sorely missing from this film's performances. Their unfiltered, heartfelt expressions would make the characters more relatable and engaging, bringing life to the story.
Creativity and imagination are strengths of children that know no bounds. While the film's special effects are embarrassingly poor, a child's imaginative storytelling could infuse the tale with a sense of wonder and magic, creating a more captivating and visually appealing experience.
Children also have a natural sense of pacing, keeping their stories lively and engaging. They understand the need to maintain the audience's attention with constant developments and exciting moments, avoiding the excruciatingly slow pace that plagues this film.
By staying true to the core elements of the Goldilocks story, children would preserve its charm and moral lessons, which this film completely loses sight of. They would also bring a simple, effective humor to the dialogue, replacing the film's failed attempts at humor with genuine, light-hearted moments that resonate with audiences.
In essence, a child's natural storytelling abilities-rooted in clarity, genuine emotion, creativity, engaging pacing, and focus on core elements-would likely produce a more coherent, entertaining, and faithful adaptation of the Goldilocks tale than this disappointing film directed by Craig Rees.
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.
¿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