South Carolina Trailer Title

Watchmen

Zack Snyder
With Malin Akerman, Jackie Earle Haley, Carla Gugino, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Matthew Goode, Billy Crudup, Patrick Wilson, Stephen McHattie, Matt Frewer, Carrie Genzel

We are undoubtedly facing a particular job, certainly worthy of note. This does not mean that it is a masterpiece, and unfortunately it is hard also to say that it is a good movie.
But let's start from the positive side, those who make a movie to see: every great work (and, as already stated, that it is difficult to define it) has several floors, or levels of reading, you can also read Watchmen least three ways, all interesting: the first, the simplest, most direct, the direct to the general public is obviously purely narrative, which relates the story and characters. This is perhaps the most successful, and even more unusual and less trivial: first, the characters are very special (of course many of the advantages due to the film are first and foremost qualities of the original graphic novel), we see the usual hyperactive and superheroes intent on saving the world, but men and women, tired, disillusioned, recognizing the impossibility of obtaining a ransom by a company which for many years now does not want them more (Nixon , in his umpteenth term, banned the masks). And even when some of them seek a return to the glories of the past know that nothing is as before, except perhaps that he knew from the beginning that this beautiful world has never existed (the U.S. won the Vietnam War, but it seems that just from there has started an inexorable decline). E 'from here that the public understands that the film is a mature audience, not children and adolescents. Reflections on life's questions are not spared, and if you are interested in this type of film may be too boring (considering the general work).
The second level is the social one, and that is what has made the critical success of the film, on closer inspection, however, its strength will stop when it senses that are simple considerations included in a critical way about America ( little) superhero comics. The world is in the midst of the Cold War in the 80s is getting more dangerous, and the U.S. and USSR to limit the conflict, Nixon is in his fifth term, on city streets is death and destruction, and the police no longer has any power, can no longer hope even in the masked heroes, bright in the Second World War. The social aspect is, as mentioned above, when considered extremely valuable functional scope narrative, but got itself shows some uncertainty.
The third issue, the more complex, it is purely metaphysical, and flows directly into nihilism and relativism (which sorry, but can not be criticized here). Obviously this is generic and fake, but interesting as a metaphysical argument in a film of this kind is at least rare.
In a nutshell these are the interesting aspects, and apply the vision widely. Regarding defects, I will be brief, there is not much to say. The film is very long (two hours), and if not seen in cinema will be hard not to get distracted ever, the characters are too many, and we understand how the project was too ambitious in wanting to keep all the contents of balloon. Finally, it is certainly too many irons in the fire, there are many interesting topics that are barely mentioned (but perhaps is more valid is the character ...).
Are you tired of the usual fumettone year 50 (and also of the darker but still good like the last Batman), this alternative post-punk cynicism peppered with and without a happy ending for you.
Rating: 7.5 / 10

How To Clean Dry Sperm Spot

Religiolus - Seeing is Believing

directed by Larry Charles

with Bill Maher

A guy goes around talking to strangers and saying random things and then says have made a will document on religion.

There are movies that you can not see? No. Other than that, maybe. This film should be a documentary on religion, absolutely part (which is not a defect), a skeptical and scientific point of view. Unfortunately you do not save anything. First you need to see who is the protagonist: Bill Maher would, as mentioned above, a film critic on religion from a scientific point of view, the problem is that he knows nothing about it 'religion will' of science: as seen since the beginning of the film holder is in fact a failed comedian of the '80s. The only
notions about religion are pure American style, seem directly taken from a fourth-rate website, obviously out of context and without logic. I can not really grasp a coherent argument in everything that is said.
So far we have already identified a bad product, but still you could do a few laughs in the face of this kind convinced of what he says, and that, it is clear, says nonsense.
Think that will not get anywhere near a discussion with experts on the subject (God forbid!, The tenant would not hold even a second!): In fact the first to be interviewed, the topic of truck drivers (absurd but true) and so on between committed religious tourists to gift shops and many American-style plastic reconstruction of the Holy Land (even an actor playing Jesus, who knows, maybe they thought he was talking to the real one), all known to experts in theological issues (...). OK. But here comes the best part, everything falls here, and you'll fatigue while seeing to believe: to illustrate the guidelines of a religion minor American films is a bum (!) in London (London, what does?) delirious screaming in the middle of a square for a piece of bread and cited in this case religion. But let's move on. Another topic is the interview, in Amsterdam, a type of 'fact' that claims to have created a religion (the name does not even know him, there are followers, not tell us anything, there is no doubt that is a farce), and the entire interview was conducted while the guy is under the influence of drugs: here, as in all (everyone) the other dialogues, are mounted in video subtitle disparaging (but the interviewer could not speak ?) TV-style trash.
When he feels that 1) Maher does not know the famous Galilean interpretation of the Bible, that it was written without scientific criteria and should be placed in a specific historical context (the Bible is true to the spirit, not about the science) that is reiterated in a brief interview with a clergyman of the Vatican: the interviewer makes a face numb and can not say nothing (do not get it?), 2) do not even know a word of philosophy, sees a mile away who has never read a book to life (see the mentioned sites decontestualizzanti), from Augustine to Thomas Popper regarding the Holocaust, let alone the Greeks; 3) has no concept of the Trinity in the One, from a logical point of view you could explain to a child of 10 years (again, maybe we do not get) 4) use as evidence for the nonexistence of God that not see (unfortunately I'm not exaggerating), then the doubts are growing.
But at some point you realize that the film can be dangerous: the author does not try something, and convinced you are right: people often laugh in your face (but joking!?), Comes to be explicitly racist against Jews and Muslims portrays, this is unacceptable, all (everyone) Muslims as fanatical terrorists and suicide, apportions all (all) the evils of the world religions. The final scenes do come
shudder: we see how Maher can not in any way to distinguish between religion and politics, and it says explicitly that if religions are not uprooted the world will end.
not let the world fanatics. Let us not allow the information to the ignorant. This film is a warning.
OVERALL: Do not judge ignominy (less than 0 / 10).