Chiefbukowski
Joined Jan 2010
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.
Badges4
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews11
Chiefbukowski's rating
I'm sure this was a fine film back in 1957 but it does not age well at all. How anyone can give it a high rating in this day and age is beyond me.
Other than the great Laughton, all the other main actors chew the scenery to bits with their OTT hammy over-acting. That people of the 1950s were fooled by the 'twist' makes me question the average IQs of the time.
Dietrich was distractingly awful, no matter what accent she was trying, she was terrible. Tyrone Power was even worse, miscast and possessing the acting chops of a middle school child acting as a tree in a nativity play.
Worth the watch from a film history point of view if only to see how far things have progressed and how much acting has improved over the years.
Other than the great Laughton, all the other main actors chew the scenery to bits with their OTT hammy over-acting. That people of the 1950s were fooled by the 'twist' makes me question the average IQs of the time.
Dietrich was distractingly awful, no matter what accent she was trying, she was terrible. Tyrone Power was even worse, miscast and possessing the acting chops of a middle school child acting as a tree in a nativity play.
Worth the watch from a film history point of view if only to see how far things have progressed and how much acting has improved over the years.
First off, I'm not going to rate the animation style. It is so subjective that it's up to the individual whether they like it or not. It's not my cup of tea, I felt it was a bit all over the place and no consistent theme, but hey, some people will like the style or lack there of and good on them, enjoy!
However, an animated film can literally be 2 stick figures in a blank void and it will be good if there is a good story... and unfortunately this one doesn't have a good story. It's a cliched story, no twists, no fresh look at anything. There is never any sense of jeopardy and very little (nothing actually) in the way of clever humour or dialogue. I can understand if it was on the Nickelodeon channel in the under-5 year old's programming, it's simplistic and colourful. But to be getting nominated for major film awards? Very odd, not sure where that is coming from. So many other animated films more deserving.
The acting is pretty shoddy too but in an animated feature that is down to the editor and director so not blaming the actors. I'm pretty sure there were quite a number of looped/repeated lines from Sean Bean in there, it brought back memories of the Hard Rain video game glitch (Shaun!... Shaun!... Shaun!)
So, overall, a decent distraction to plonk a 4 year old down in front of. Simple, no frills toddler entertainment. No hidden meanings, no reading between the lines, no moral or environmental messages to be gleaned, no lessons learned by any character nor the audience. Sure wolves have been extinct in Ireland for over 200 years, it could have at least mentioned that.
If you are over 5 and are giving this movie a high rating, you are either related to someone in/on the movie, or you have the mental capacity of a 5 year old. In which case, well done on using a computer! Proud of you lil buddy. Please seek an education and realise what a good movie actually is.
However, an animated film can literally be 2 stick figures in a blank void and it will be good if there is a good story... and unfortunately this one doesn't have a good story. It's a cliched story, no twists, no fresh look at anything. There is never any sense of jeopardy and very little (nothing actually) in the way of clever humour or dialogue. I can understand if it was on the Nickelodeon channel in the under-5 year old's programming, it's simplistic and colourful. But to be getting nominated for major film awards? Very odd, not sure where that is coming from. So many other animated films more deserving.
The acting is pretty shoddy too but in an animated feature that is down to the editor and director so not blaming the actors. I'm pretty sure there were quite a number of looped/repeated lines from Sean Bean in there, it brought back memories of the Hard Rain video game glitch (Shaun!... Shaun!... Shaun!)
So, overall, a decent distraction to plonk a 4 year old down in front of. Simple, no frills toddler entertainment. No hidden meanings, no reading between the lines, no moral or environmental messages to be gleaned, no lessons learned by any character nor the audience. Sure wolves have been extinct in Ireland for over 200 years, it could have at least mentioned that.
If you are over 5 and are giving this movie a high rating, you are either related to someone in/on the movie, or you have the mental capacity of a 5 year old. In which case, well done on using a computer! Proud of you lil buddy. Please seek an education and realise what a good movie actually is.
Don't believe all the other confused reviews. This is the best episode so far, perfectly setting up a plethora of characters and actually telling a story rather than the previous cliched "quest" episodes. I was wary when I saw it was the worst rated episode but pleasantly surprised that the series has finally gotten into its stride. Actually looking forward to the next few episodes...