itszombietime
Joined Dec 2006
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews7
itszombietime's rating
The story (or legend) of the Runaways is fertile ground for screenwriters and filmmakers. It has all the requisite elements that a good, wild, invigorating drama needs -- LA in the late 70's, some of the sleaziest characters the music industry can conjure up, the "boy band" prototype (in this case, "girl band") taking a new tack and opening up new musical territory, disaffected and angry teen girls from the Valley trying to make their mark in the world, young starry-eyed teens gaining a flittering slice of fame and living the alluring rock and roll life.
This film, unfortunately, follows a self-indulgent, ponderous, "explorative" path that focuses less on the invigorating pace and action of the creative, high energy world of rock and roll in the late 70s, and more (far, far more) on the feelings, conflicts, attitudes and sentiments of the principal characters. It doesn't work. In fact, it fails quite badly.
It's a slow, dull, tedious film that reeks of amateur, quasi-artistic production tones. A character tone piece is a tricky thing to tackle as a director and/or writer. It requires astute artistic instinct and sensibility, the ability to develop and promote scene and setting as principal (and interesting) elements that guide the film, mainly the characters, through the expository journey.
This production failed, and what we get are a bunch of miscast young actors forced to overact and drag out both passive and active dramatic elements, ad nauseum. Again, it's tedious and amateurish, and it completely misses the artistic mark, which is to convey the look, feel, excitement and angst of the music industry in that era.
I couldn't wait for the film to finally, mercifully end.
This film, unfortunately, follows a self-indulgent, ponderous, "explorative" path that focuses less on the invigorating pace and action of the creative, high energy world of rock and roll in the late 70s, and more (far, far more) on the feelings, conflicts, attitudes and sentiments of the principal characters. It doesn't work. In fact, it fails quite badly.
It's a slow, dull, tedious film that reeks of amateur, quasi-artistic production tones. A character tone piece is a tricky thing to tackle as a director and/or writer. It requires astute artistic instinct and sensibility, the ability to develop and promote scene and setting as principal (and interesting) elements that guide the film, mainly the characters, through the expository journey.
This production failed, and what we get are a bunch of miscast young actors forced to overact and drag out both passive and active dramatic elements, ad nauseum. Again, it's tedious and amateurish, and it completely misses the artistic mark, which is to convey the look, feel, excitement and angst of the music industry in that era.
I couldn't wait for the film to finally, mercifully end.
Ah, Star Wars. THE epic film among epic films. An entire multi-billion dollar genre was born the day this film was released.
We can debate the story elements, we can debate the script, we can debate the plot, we can debate the set elements, we can debate the casting. It's not a perfect film by any means in the technical or production sense. But those special effects...those characters...the pure magic of it...all in a galaxy far, far away. It can't be explained, only experienced. And for kids and young people in 1977, there was nothing greater. It was a jaw-dropping experience. There had never been anything like it.
It ran in theaters for over a year, uninterrupted. There were lines out the door for six months to see this film. It was perfectly normal to run into people who had the seen the film 20 or 30 times.
So, what we can't debate is the staggering popularity of this film, and it's profound impact on popular culture and, to some extent, modern society. It's not too bold to say that the light speed advances in digital and computer technology that we take for granted today were accelerated by the intense "high tech" optimism and pursuit of advanced technology that this film inspired, both in terms of its technical special effects and its portrayal of advanced tech devices and platforms that seemed perfectly normal to the characters in the film. Young people saw what was possible, they were floored by it, and they were motivated to make it real, and make it better.
This is the most popular film ever made, and that carries enormous weight. More than enough to offset various shortcomings that critics may find. In all honesty, no other film even comes close to the popularity and impact of Star Wars. Not E.T., not Shawshank, not Private Ryan, not Gone With the Wind, not Wizard of Oz.
Consider yourself fortunate if you're part of the Star Wars generation, those kids and teens of the 1970s who experienced this film when it blew the lid off the industry and wowed the world. It was a very special thing indeed.
We can debate the story elements, we can debate the script, we can debate the plot, we can debate the set elements, we can debate the casting. It's not a perfect film by any means in the technical or production sense. But those special effects...those characters...the pure magic of it...all in a galaxy far, far away. It can't be explained, only experienced. And for kids and young people in 1977, there was nothing greater. It was a jaw-dropping experience. There had never been anything like it.
It ran in theaters for over a year, uninterrupted. There were lines out the door for six months to see this film. It was perfectly normal to run into people who had the seen the film 20 or 30 times.
So, what we can't debate is the staggering popularity of this film, and it's profound impact on popular culture and, to some extent, modern society. It's not too bold to say that the light speed advances in digital and computer technology that we take for granted today were accelerated by the intense "high tech" optimism and pursuit of advanced technology that this film inspired, both in terms of its technical special effects and its portrayal of advanced tech devices and platforms that seemed perfectly normal to the characters in the film. Young people saw what was possible, they were floored by it, and they were motivated to make it real, and make it better.
This is the most popular film ever made, and that carries enormous weight. More than enough to offset various shortcomings that critics may find. In all honesty, no other film even comes close to the popularity and impact of Star Wars. Not E.T., not Shawshank, not Private Ryan, not Gone With the Wind, not Wizard of Oz.
Consider yourself fortunate if you're part of the Star Wars generation, those kids and teens of the 1970s who experienced this film when it blew the lid off the industry and wowed the world. It was a very special thing indeed.
This film is a marvelous technical achievement. The digital animation is outstanding, possibly the best ever achieved. And with a film budget exceeding $170 million, you would expect nothing less.
The basic plot is great and rich with pathos. The beginning of the film is wonderfully done, as we see a "highlight reel" of Carl's life journey with his lifelong love Ellie. It's an ordinary life, like so many, with ups and downs (mostly ups) and one great dream unfulfilled.
The adventure phase of the film then begins, and at first it's great. The characters are presented, the stage is set, the journey "up and away" begins.
Once Carl and Russell set sail and leave the city behind though, the story unravels. The pace, development and story arcs are problematic and, frankly, peculiar. I realize this is a children's tale with all the developmental liberties and assumptions that provides, but some of the gaps and story decisions are outlandish and just don't make sense, and leave you asking, "what" and "how" more than a few times.
A few examples:
In the span of an old man's exhausted nap, the two travel (at a drifting balloon pace) from somewhere in North America to directly above southern Venezuela. Huh? Even kids in the theater were asking their parents, what happened? How much time went by? Is the giant waterfall close to the house? I thought it was far away, but it must be really close, right?
Talking dogs? Advanced "canine interpretive technology" emerging from a remote landscape with no civilization or human presence? Wow. Where did that come from?
And the strangest decision of all, one that had kids (and adults) in the theater thoroughly puzzled --- the heroic adventurer is alive and well, with the agility and stamina of a 25 year old, and the advanced scientific capabilities of engineering genius? If Carl is pushing 80 years old (do the math, watch the beginning of the film, time it out), then the heroic adventurer has to be at least 100, and probably 110 years old or more.
The story arcs have to explain or justify these things. It can be done with just a few transitional scenes, fantastic as it may seem. But you can't just go from A to B to C with big gaps and unexplained progressions. That's basic. Any professional in this industry should understand this. When 8 year olds in the audience are scratching their heads and trying to understand the plausibility of the story, you have a problem.
7/10.
The basic plot is great and rich with pathos. The beginning of the film is wonderfully done, as we see a "highlight reel" of Carl's life journey with his lifelong love Ellie. It's an ordinary life, like so many, with ups and downs (mostly ups) and one great dream unfulfilled.
The adventure phase of the film then begins, and at first it's great. The characters are presented, the stage is set, the journey "up and away" begins.
Once Carl and Russell set sail and leave the city behind though, the story unravels. The pace, development and story arcs are problematic and, frankly, peculiar. I realize this is a children's tale with all the developmental liberties and assumptions that provides, but some of the gaps and story decisions are outlandish and just don't make sense, and leave you asking, "what" and "how" more than a few times.
A few examples:
In the span of an old man's exhausted nap, the two travel (at a drifting balloon pace) from somewhere in North America to directly above southern Venezuela. Huh? Even kids in the theater were asking their parents, what happened? How much time went by? Is the giant waterfall close to the house? I thought it was far away, but it must be really close, right?
Talking dogs? Advanced "canine interpretive technology" emerging from a remote landscape with no civilization or human presence? Wow. Where did that come from?
And the strangest decision of all, one that had kids (and adults) in the theater thoroughly puzzled --- the heroic adventurer is alive and well, with the agility and stamina of a 25 year old, and the advanced scientific capabilities of engineering genius? If Carl is pushing 80 years old (do the math, watch the beginning of the film, time it out), then the heroic adventurer has to be at least 100, and probably 110 years old or more.
The story arcs have to explain or justify these things. It can be done with just a few transitional scenes, fantastic as it may seem. But you can't just go from A to B to C with big gaps and unexplained progressions. That's basic. Any professional in this industry should understand this. When 8 year olds in the audience are scratching their heads and trying to understand the plausibility of the story, you have a problem.
7/10.