0 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :- Bad game, 29 October 2007
Author:
ruiresende84 (ruiresende84@gmail.com) from Porto, Portugal
There are three elements i will refer here.
The first one has to do with choosing the actors. Michael Douglas is
casted here to be Nick Curran again. Clearly. Demi Moore is supposed to
perform Sharon Stone. Hot woman (well, in Moore's case it pretends to
be hot, but lacks every psychological qualities that Stone shows), who
likes to lead the game. Douglas can perform the man in the dark being
pup petered well enough (he is almost the noir detective); Moore is
breasts, legs and underwear, not much more. So in this aspect we have
chewed solutions, aiming at getting commercial success from tested
formulas.
In second, we have the story folding. We are told the story will unfold
as a game, which several parts are trying to control (Moore, the
corporation guys, and Douglas running to catch the others). This game
of "real life" is developed with a parallel virtual game, the Arcamax,
a game of virtual reality which comes to be the key to the "real world"
game. This is common theme in story telling, but it is quite clumsy and
denounced here. And not quite intelligent, since the solutions and keys
to the problems always come from little informatics tricks (the "do you
have backups" stuff) or incidental things (the "the phone was on all
the time i was with her" bit). No intelligent or complex construction.
In the third place, we have the cinematic "glue", which is to say, how
all these disperse elements are put together. Here i'm talking mainly
about direction and some other options. This is the best aspect of the
film. We have the interesting element of locating the main action in an
island, it creates the notion of a game field, you get in there and
everything you do is game (in the end prizes are attributed). The
architectural space there is interesting, at least from a cinematic
space exploration point of view. The directing is firm, Levinson is
capable of covering some of the (many) flaws here. We get tension
increasing in some moments, the semi-sex scene is relatively well made.
But this is just what we have positive here.
Watch it at Amazon
Buy it at Amazon Rent it at blockbuster.comDiscuss in Boards More at IMDb Pro Add to My Movies Update Data
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotesOverview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditstv scheduleAwards & Reviews
user commentsexternal reviewsnewsgroup reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guiderecommendationsmessage boardPlot & Quotes
plot summaryplot synopsisplot keywordsAmazon.com summarymemorable quotesFun Stuff
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQOther Info
merchandising linksbox office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specslaserdisc detailsDVD detailsliterature listingsNewsDeskPromotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo galleryExternal Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clipsIMDb user comments for
Disclosure (1994) More at IMDbPro »
0 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
Bad game, 29 October 2007
Author: ruiresende84 (ruiresende84@gmail.com) from Porto, Portugal
There are three elements i will refer here.
The first one has to do with choosing the actors. Michael Douglas is casted here to be Nick Curran again. Clearly. Demi Moore is supposed to perform Sharon Stone. Hot woman (well, in Moore's case it pretends to be hot, but lacks every psychological qualities that Stone shows), who likes to lead the game. Douglas can perform the man in the dark being pup petered well enough (he is almost the noir detective); Moore is breasts, legs and underwear, not much more. So in this aspect we have chewed solutions, aiming at getting commercial success from tested formulas.
In second, we have the story folding. We are told the story will unfold as a game, which several parts are trying to control (Moore, the corporation guys, and Douglas running to catch the others). This game of "real life" is developed with a parallel virtual game, the Arcamax, a game of virtual reality which comes to be the key to the "real world" game. This is common theme in story telling, but it is quite clumsy and denounced here. And not quite intelligent, since the solutions and keys to the problems always come from little informatics tricks (the "do you have backups" stuff) or incidental things (the "the phone was on all the time i was with her" bit). No intelligent or complex construction.
In the third place, we have the cinematic "glue", which is to say, how all these disperse elements are put together. Here i'm talking mainly about direction and some other options. This is the best aspect of the film. We have the interesting element of locating the main action in an island, it creates the notion of a game field, you get in there and everything you do is game (in the end prizes are attributed). The architectural space there is interesting, at least from a cinematic space exploration point of view. The directing is firm, Levinson is capable of covering some of the (many) flaws here. We get tension increasing in some moments, the semi-sex scene is relatively well made. But this is just what we have positive here.
My evaluation: 2/5 very few interesting elements.
http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com
72 comments in total
Add another comment
Related Links