El stop motion para mí es un arte, la constancia y perseverancia para hacer que figuritas de arcilla/plasticina sobre un esqueleto articulado como con máquinaria otros de alambres de aluminio, siendo esto que su trabajo más complejo aún, eso es lo que me fascina, el amor que entregas al realizarlo es fantastico, siendo eso lo que uno aprecia, yo lo apreció.

La película parte en un gallinero donde aparecen ginger una personaje rebelde, que siempre busca la libertad, interpretando el papel de líder de la fuga del gallinero, donde a mí parecer representa lo que todos buscamos en nuestra vida, es la libertad, es como una persona encasillada en el sistema y ya está determinada su destino, poner huevos y ser un puto pollo asado, y al no querer ser lo que ya está determinado y ser libres en su pensamiento llega un pollo que es libre, y a mí criterio ese es el punto de infracción, donde uno busca su libertad está a un solo un paso y los motiva a dar todo para sobrevivir, dónde al final cuando sobreviven o escapan ves como la libertad está condicionada a ser limitada por la gente o por estigmas, yo siempre pienso y digo cuando podré huir de esta puta mierda de vida y viviré mis sueños. A modo de conclusión está película retrata la libertad de una persona cautiva por sus pensamientos/su destino y si no has visto stop motion velo y te darás cuenta de lo precioso que puede ser.

Honestly, starting something from scratch isn't easy. I thought my friends would be the first to support me, but things don't always go as expected.

Still, I'm not giving up.

All I ask is that you take a moment to check out my content. If you genuinely enjoy it, please like, share, and subscribe.

I'm putting real effort into CCC, and I promise to keep bringing you quality content, honest reviews, interesting perspectives, and something different from the usual.

I don't expect support just because you know me. I just hope the content speaks for itself.

Certified Couch Critic (CCC) 🎬

Give it a watch. If you like it, help it grow! ❤️

This is my insta page

https://www.instagram.com/certified.couch.critic?exln=MWVnbDJrZ2lqZG13Yg==

Buenas! Por acá Fede.

Comparto con ustedes el primer cortometraje con el que me estrené en este mundo de la producción y dirección de proyectos audiovisuales.

Ecos desde el fin del mundo es un cortometraje basado en la transformación de residuos en la ciudad de Ushuaia y su posterior utilización como escenarios flotantes.

La historia fue filmada en el punto más austral de la república Argentina.

Agradezco si me pueden dar una opinión en los comentarios del vídeo.

No olvides suscribirte y compartir si te gusta el contenido del canal.

Muchas gracias.

Federico González

I wrote a piece on my Substack recently that has echoed in my mind for a minute about the state of film criticism, especially as it relates to auteur-driven risk-taking films. Films that lay it all on the line for the sake of art and expression. Films like Megalopolis, Babylon, and most recently Digger. I'm thinking the hundreds of million dollar risks that get pounced by critics who complain of their "excess" that are "doing too much". That's the general hostility and vibe I get from critics with these kind of projects.

The films I mentioned are all different films, and I'm not suggesting they're all successful. I've disliked ambitious auteur projects myself. But I've noticed how quickly conversations around these films become dominated by their budgets, box-office failures, and whether they were worth the financial risk. The films themselves almost become secondary to the spectacle of their failure. That there's a sort of glee that the critics take in a major Hollywood risk failing, as if they're parroting the tune of the top brass of Hollywood studios who don't want to fund expensive art in favor of sure-fire moneymakers.

A critic obviously isn't obligated to like a film, and I don't think filmmakers should be immune to harsh criticism just because they have an ambitious vision. But should critics have some responsibility beyond evaluating individual works? Shouldn't they also advocate for the continued existence of a film culture where filmmakers can take enormous creative risks, even when those risks don't pay off commercially? I mean on some level critics should endorse projects that fit the vision for the landscape they want to see, instead of punishing films that contribute to that. Especially, when the reaction to mediocrity is uneventful.

As I mentioned, I wrote a longer piece about this in relation to the violent responses to Digger that I felt were completely unwarranted. But, I'm genuinely curious if other people here have thought about this dynamic in modern film criticism. Please let me know your thoughts. I will also gently put my substack link if you want to read more of my thoughts:

https://abhinavyerramreddy.substack.com/p/why-do-critics-punish-creativity?r=38m95e&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=post%20viewer

can we PLEASE talk about how predictable the actual storyline was??? 😭 bear literally makes a wish for nikki to love him more than anyone in the world and suddenly she becomes obsessively attached to him. like wow, who would’ve thought a supernatural wish would have consequences???

nikki starts acting possessed, watching him sleep, freaking out whenever he leaves, literally TAPING THE DOOR SHUT, and we’re supposed to be shocked that things get progressively worse??? the second she started acting weird it was obvious she wasn’t herself. there was barely any mystery to unravel.

TW: this is where bear lost me. after the restaurant scene, where he basically confirms that nikki’s personality has been completely altered by his wish, he STILL chooses to have s3x with her??? mind you, the real nikki never consented to any of this. she never chose to fall in love with him, never chose to be in a relationship with him, and certainly never chose to have her bodily autonomy stripped away. the version of nikki he’s sleeping with is literally a product of HIS wish.

and the camera focusing on her face during that scene??? her expression is practically EMPTY, and you can literally see tears running down her face. it’s heavily implied that the real nikki is still conscious somewhere inside her own body, forced to experience something she never agreed to. that’s not intimacy, that’s SA. and the fact that bear KNOWS something is terribly wrong with her but continues anyway??? disgusting. also why was it so aggressive?

what makes it even worse is that he doesn’t seriously attempt to undo what he’s done until the consequences start affecting HIM. like are we supposed to sympathize with this man??? he literally took away someone’s free will because he couldn’t handle the possibility of her not loving him back.

and the whole dead cat situation??? her feeding bear his own CAT was disgusting, sure, but since when does throwing in disturbing scenes automatically equal good horror? 😭 it felt like the movie was relying on grossing people out instead of actually building suspense.

then nikki kills sarah, and later ian gets shot. was i supposed to be sitting there with my jaw on the floor??? by that point they’d already established that she was dangerously obsessed and willing to hurt anyone who got between them. the violence was graphic, but the escalation itself was SO easy to see coming.

and don’t even get me started on the ending. bear realizing his death could undo the wish, taking the pills, nikki using the last wish to make him love her back, and then the original nikki finally returning after he dies??? the whole ‘be careful what you wish for’ message was practically being screamed at us from the beginning.

i’m not saying every single detail was predictable, but the MAJORITY of the movie followed exactly the direction i expected. and that’s coming from someone who barely watches horror. 💀

also, can someone explain what was supposedly so revolutionary about this plot??? because to me it was basically a supernatural obsession story stretched into almost two hours, with a few disturbing scenes thrown in to convince everyone it was terrifying.

i genuinely want to know what part had everyone so shook because i must’ve watched a completely different movie. 😭

A video essay arguing that Ted Lasso’s shallow writing and simplemindedness have worked against its potential as an effective comedy, drama, or moral lesson from the beginning.

👏👏👏⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

“Mortal Kombat” walked so “Street Fighter” could run. Unfortunately, “Street Fighter” forgot to tie its shoes and tripped, tearing its ACL.

I don't think I spoiled anything, but I flagged it just in case.