Mount&blade Sword Of Damocles

Squirrel (Die Bergkatze)


Ernst Lubitsch Film


in four acts: a soldier with a reputation for great deceiver is transferred in a border fortress, and during the journey is kidnapped by a robber who falls in love with him, breaks free, and after an attack on the bandits is almost forced to marry the daughter of the commander of, during the celebration of the victory against the bandits they are introduced into the barracks stealing everything, and the hero realizes that love the robber, the robber bride one of his gang, but when he learns of the marriage of the beloved goes to him, but eventually they will take away from her to leave his lawful wife.

I have dwelt a bit 'about the plot of the film as it is of great importance for understanding the impact it had and the relationship with today. First we must say that Squirrel (the title refers to the robber, but not important) was the first big flop of Lubitsch, the German still in its infancy, though he himself did not consider him as a failure, and because of its poor public success has come down to us very quietly, you misunderstood. In fact one of the most interesting topics to be addressed this is just talking about the aging process, even to say, beyond the technical aspects, very good. The story, as you may have guessed, is the classic one of an impossible love, treated since ancient greek-roman in a thousand sauces, however, is the sort that in recent years (say ten, fortunately, is low) had a lot of dissemination: one could define, not forcibly, a romantic comedy, since the dense parts of hilarity are many, and the love story of the pivot of the film (at the bottom is far Lubitsch stranger to the genre that, to put it mildly). In the various romantic comedies, often of poor quality, are often, if not always, the elements that distinguish the genre, such as forced marriage, one of the two lovers out of the reach of the other, the gag erotic, often banquets; it ' The squirrel 'Lubitch perfectly able to mix all these elements together to obtain a formula very funny (hard to hold at least a smile when the protagonist, who is leaving his country, being chased by a hundred women's cries invasive and a' Thanks for us happy, 'and he said' I did what I could, 'and then a forty children and the cry' hello dad! ') and at the same time full of action, as the attack of the soldiers to the gang of bandits, fought mainly snowballs, or the incursion of these bandits in the fortress while they are all drunk, where they join the party. Another scene worth mentioning (even to emphasize the particularity of the female image of the robber played by Pola Negri, far from being subdued, almost a femme fatale), takes place in the camp of the robbers, soon after they themselves have tried to kill their leader, father of the robber: a whip with this backside of these stresses for punishment, but these do not seem to disdain, and her father says, 'Do not spoil them too'. Also note the great sets, which help to give a fantastic atmosphere (some are almost abstract architectural form), the only element of immaturity in a very pleasant film, Beyond the artistic, perhaps using some tricks to reduce the visual field and include it in various forms, to escape the problem of environmental perspective, but you can forgive a silent German film of 1921 (there is still some years to see Lang's Metropolis, 1927). Stumble resetting to the recent Mark Dalpane, which contributes to a more sparkling.

How Do Flaming Hot Cheetos Affect Academic

Religiolous up again, in reply to a comment

haha. After this review I could not wait even personal attacks, however, accept that. Premise that is just my opinion, not an absolute truth (otherwise, I figure the type of film), I would drop the attention (which seems rather ambitious) on the very concept of science and reason, that which comes from Descartes del'800 until the end, and that the twentieth-century epistemology, derived from mathematical and physical crisis (see the relativism of Einstein) has in fact destroyed. It 'obvious that in the review it seems that I should justify religions, but is secretly my criticism here. Can I still share that the documentary has not scientific claims (otherwise it would seem a book Odifreddi), but this, according to me, not by prejudice based on a method that does not personally agree with.

PS: I wanted to post something like that anyway, so I do not wish to contradict anyone's remarks were only a catalyst.

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).

Biology Lab 6a Answers

Against Coca-Cola spot



I think everyone has had a reaction, perhaps different from each other, seeing this advertisement. At a first glance it might seem cute, funny, even intelligent. Then it is natural turn up your nose that is seeing a commercial for coca-cola, with the obvious consequences that come to mind, that is a corporation, that those who commissioned the advertising is certainly not in those conditions, etc.. etc. ..
In fact the problem is more serious: here there is a natural post something that is not.
The financial crisis that has become widespread in the real economy we are told as a natural fact, so terrible, but inevitable. The thought of the big lobbyists so dominates uncontested by brainwashing the masses of workers who are paying all before. At the corporate suits who think that the economic crisis is a fact with the same randomness characteristics of a volcanic eruption, so that as the great manager and the corporation, just like the coca-cola, can continue with their speculations and their exploits (remember that the coca-cola has interests in many fields, to weapons). The poor people in this way can not complain, complain, think they can do something, do not think to blame the big industrialists who caused the crisis, at most will think that all this has God
We wanted to make sure that this indoctrination through the medium of television has stopped!
We can not allow the great bourgeois require us to endure and suffer for the disasters caused by them, in the sole name of enrichment wild!
Workers must free themselves from the chains of oppression and capitalism no longer accept that this system continues to exist!
Contrast this spot that tells us to be good and suffer, rebel now and the effect will be immediate!
Against Coca-Cola, against capitalist exploitation!

Sic hic finem iocus Habet.

Printable Multiplication Chart 100x100

4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (review)




of Cristian Mungiu (2006)
with Anamaria Marinca , Vlad Ivanov, Laura Vasiliu

Otilia and Gabita , two students sharing a room in a university dormitory, living their lives during the last years of communism in Romania under Ceausescu . Gabita is pregnant but does not want the child, and Otilia contact a man who, illegally, to abortion, but the cost is very high.

Winner of the Palme d'Or at Cannes , 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days is a masterpiece that can hardly be reduced to words.
The environment in which the events take place is perhaps the real star of the film: the places are gray, dark, cold, people are no better, in fact we see the hotel keepers and petty curious, engaged relationships with artificial families hypocritical and false. the mirror of a country in the late eighties, still in the grip of communism, with the consequent alienation of any single individual, who can no longer look for a sincere and immediate contact.
The only chink in the film is the friendship between Gabita and Otilia, who will be sorely tested by the first unwanted pregnancy, and the help afforded it by his friend.
This is not a film about abortion, or better, can become as any action prohibited, under dictatorial rule, which falls in the fundamental rights, when it becomes necessary changes to a trauma, a tragedy. Here abortion, but really could have been anything else.
The pain brought by this event, the maximum amplified by the awareness of being outlawed by guilt and repressed, is dominant in every scene, until the final dissolution, in which the only refuge, the only solution is to try forget: forget the law, forget the violence inflicted on him themselves from others and to others, you forget to be human.
We can say with certainty that the face a neo expressionist film , thus indicating the position of pathos every situation through scientific study, through analysis and staged raw and true. Needless to say, the acting is superb, like almost every other aspect of the work.
A film that changes the way you see the film, a masterpiece.
rating: 10/10

External Temperature Sensor On Mondeo

Halloween - The Beginning (review)



Rob Zombie (2007)
with Heather Bowen, Daeg Faerch

On Christmas night a child of ten years, Michael Myers, is a massacre of his family, sparing only the little sister. Fifteen years later, escaped from the psychiatric hospital where he was interned, will come looking for her.

are a few years now that the live horror film remake of the seventies, or prequels, sequels or remakes. This is indeed a novelty in the field: it is a prequel for the first half of the film, then it becomes a remake. If he felt the need. The original is clearly Carpenter's Halloween, a pillar of the entire horror genre. Following this project was Rob Zombie (here director, writer and producer too), well known person in the genre, the author of the beautiful 'The House of 1000 Corpses' and the excellent 'The Devil's Rejects'. Sorry, and not a little, to see how this time Zombie has done a bad job. Not much to say, the routine we already felt from the first moments: the rhythm is non-existent once you get bored, the actors are quite incapable and even misdirected, missing points particularly compelling (with the exception perhaps for the very last minute film) the script is mediocre, the killings are quite devoid of imagination. In practice, the film is not funny, indeed, some may even be unpleasant. Is saved, in extremis, the director, which expires in platitudes or mannerisms, but not enough. I repeat: I'm sorry, because Zombie has enormous potential and has demonstrated, we hope that this is a temporary fall.
Rating: 5 / 10 (nice)

Best Songs To Run Out To In Basketball

The Millionaire (review)



Danny Boyle (2008)
with Dev Patel and Freida Pinto

Jamal Malik is an eighteen year old orphan raised in the slums of Mumbai. We find, however, to read the final question of twenty million rupees in the popular TV show, despite not having received any education, and he was arrested and interrogated for alleged fraud. So we come to know of his amazing life.

To talk about this movie is good from the end, more precisely during the credits, the conclusion of the events in fact witnessing a dance group in Bollywood style, or, if you will, in musical style. Given that you have seen the movie, if you come to the end credits always surprised means that you understand very little, as is certainly the best scene is the film itself. At this point all depends on what you expect from a film product, whatever it is. With The Millionaire in fact we are facing a mere divertissement, with a facade that masked ignobly illusion that there is some social commentary or a realistic background. The main character throughout the film it tells his life miserable in one of the poorest parts of the world, including religious fanaticism, crime, speculation, but also love and brotherhood. Here is mandatory to mention the floor on which it is represented the story: If any film, without distinction, is meant to represent reality through fiction, then the staging that we are not aware of the true reality. Here Boyle goes further: not a reality through fiction, but it depicts a reality filtered twice from fiction. Basically This is why Boyle appreciate very critical, even as 'innovative'. The problem is that doing so creates a work of good entertainment forcing situations and feelings, and this is very serious when it comes to reality, difficult as that of India. In practice, The Millionaire is a musical without music, a movie that most false false can not be built on illusion and fictitious, it is a great big bubble, only a few have been noticed, partly because of the aspects more formal, such as the director too fast does not leave us time to think and realize that what we are watching is nothing more than smoke. All this aggravation, and here I think we all agree, by a construction too cumbersome and artificial, sometimes repetitive (application-event-life application ...). That's not how you do cinema.
Rating: 4.5 / 10

Calculator Of Phosphate Buffer

Gomorrah Excluded from Oscar



Even with the defeat to the Golden Globe could guess that Gomorrah was not then a lot of opportunity to aspire to some Oscar, perhaps because the Academy would not support a film many awards in Europe could be so in their country (never judge someone before them something nice). What it does reflect, however, is more the importance given to The Millionaire, the mediocre movie Boyle, who, after having dug out the Golden Globe is the clear favorite at the Oscars. Just really a bit of dust in the eyes to convince a jury of film?