pollocka
Iscritto in data lug 2002
Distintivi2
Per sapere come ottenere i badge, vai a pagina di aiuto per i badge.
Recensioni4
Valutazione di pollocka
A fun short film, some crazy manoevres, but not as fast as it makes you believe.
On the Champs Elysee the car is (according to the soundtrack) running close to max revs in 5th gear which means it should be doing about 150mph, yet it takes 67 seconds to cover 2 kilometres which puts its average speed at 67mph on a dead straight road with supposedly almost constant full throttle.
By taking the 'racing line' through corners, mounting the camera close to the road and dubbing the sound it gives a good impression of speed, but other cars pass by too slowly and most of the pedestrians barely notice what is supposed to be a 4 litre V12 Ferrari bellowing through a city at full chat.
What C'etait un Rendezvous aspires to, Getaway in Stockholm achieves.
On the Champs Elysee the car is (according to the soundtrack) running close to max revs in 5th gear which means it should be doing about 150mph, yet it takes 67 seconds to cover 2 kilometres which puts its average speed at 67mph on a dead straight road with supposedly almost constant full throttle.
By taking the 'racing line' through corners, mounting the camera close to the road and dubbing the sound it gives a good impression of speed, but other cars pass by too slowly and most of the pedestrians barely notice what is supposed to be a 4 litre V12 Ferrari bellowing through a city at full chat.
What C'etait un Rendezvous aspires to, Getaway in Stockholm achieves.
I watched the DVD for the first time last night, and I have to say I was not impressed at all. The film has nothing to say, it seems to be a few different stories that are either linked by very tenuous or confusing links, or not linked at all. I agree films should make you ask questions, but this is ridiculous.
After watching the film I noticed that in the DVD case it gave you a list of ten clues to help you understand the film. Well what's the point in that? Surely you wouldn't expect to have to read a summary of a book to help you understand it, it should be self contained.
Furthermore, when watching the actor interviews they hardly mentioned the film, all they could talk about was David Lynch, David Lynch, David Lynch, as though the fact he made a film was such an amazing thing. The film offers no insight into life, but a whole heap of insight into the mind of David Lynch and it seems to me that he is very egotistical. When you watch a film be Spielberg or Stone you don't sit through it thinking "What is the director saying?", with Mulholland Drive you are constantly thinking "This is a David Lynch film, and it is typically insane."
It seems he was trying to make a more insightful Magnolia right down to using an LA Road name for the title and having interweaving plots and characters, but Magnolia said everything it needed to and Mulholland Drive said nothing.
After watching the film I noticed that in the DVD case it gave you a list of ten clues to help you understand the film. Well what's the point in that? Surely you wouldn't expect to have to read a summary of a book to help you understand it, it should be self contained.
Furthermore, when watching the actor interviews they hardly mentioned the film, all they could talk about was David Lynch, David Lynch, David Lynch, as though the fact he made a film was such an amazing thing. The film offers no insight into life, but a whole heap of insight into the mind of David Lynch and it seems to me that he is very egotistical. When you watch a film be Spielberg or Stone you don't sit through it thinking "What is the director saying?", with Mulholland Drive you are constantly thinking "This is a David Lynch film, and it is typically insane."
It seems he was trying to make a more insightful Magnolia right down to using an LA Road name for the title and having interweaving plots and characters, but Magnolia said everything it needed to and Mulholland Drive said nothing.
