Rezensionen von jmrecillas-83435

Frankly, I don't even know where to start.

If you chose the book as your first option, you made the right choice. Extremely long, boring at times, or almost always, difficult to follow, and from the beginning, it promises something that will never deliver: the supposed truth behind the Manson Family murders.

If you chose the documentary, you also made the right choice. Its brevity doesn't make it better than the book; on the contrary, it makes it more chaotic and absurd, more gratuitous. Its "journalistic investigation" nature, which in the book is disguised through interviews, is completely lost here, and it seems more like a History Channel program than a professional investigative work.

The comparison with alternative theory programs about the official history of any subject covered on the History Channel becomes even more evident when Tom O'Neill says, like Giorgio Tsoukalos on his shows, that he doesn't believe that the story told by the prosecutors who brought the case against Manson and his girls is true.

Basically, that's his argument, both in the book and in the documentary: he doesn't believe Manson manipulated a group of psychologically helpless and mentally immature girls to commit the atrocious crimes against Sharon Tate and her guests. And since psychological manipulation is something O'Neill believes is impossible, he prefers to explore the entire absurd and irrational, unprovable world of MK Ultra conspiracy theories, even though in doing so he insults the memory of the true victims, Sharon Tate and her friends, and attempts to present the manipulative killer Manson as a victim of a larger, hidden plan operating in the shadows.

O'Neill should be reminded that this strategy is not only insulting to the real victims, who didn't kill anyone. Manson cannot be presented as another victim of the evil shadow government that framed him for his mind-control experiments.

When specifically questioned by the documentary filmmakers, O'Neill confesses that he doesn't believe Manson was manipulated into committing the murders, into ordering them to be carried out. Why does he say this? Not only because he can't prove it, but because, just like in the book, he is actually the true opportunist, the con artist, the one who writes a book knowing it contains nothing but lies and lacks any solid evidence or testimony, which is what he accuses the prosecutor who wrote the book "Helter Skelter: The Truth About the Manson Family Murders."

As we say in Mexico, quoting a Chespirito character, "La Chimoltrufia," a ridiculously caricatured woman, O'Neill "como dice una cosa, dice otra" - "as he says one thing, he says another."

His absurd investigation stems from an almost ridiculous and laughable fact: he doesn't believe in the prosecution's theory. He believes that information was withheld, and that this information, hidden and buried under seven seals, contains the truth. Where is that information? Why doesn't he present it? Because as with every conspiracy theory, the absence of evidence confirms the evidence. If we don't see what we want or what we believe, it's not because it doesn't exist, but because it's hidden somewhere.

In the book, every time O'Neill follows a "lead" that could lead him to the big revelation, to a key witness whom a third party is talking about and knows, and whom he claims has access to privileged information, every time he follows that "lead," time and again, inevitably, the witness suddenly disappears, refuses to talk, "turns a blind eye," misses the appointment, etc. Why? Not because he's hiding something, or because the power of the CIA and the shadow government pressured him. Because he actually has no proof, because he's just someone else looking for notoriety, his five minutes of fame, just like O'Neill himself. But that "someone" knows deep down that he has no basis in fact to back up whatever he might reveal, because his testimony would be inadmissible in any court of law in the United States.

O'Neill's voluminous book is disappointing in every way, but primarily because it fails to deliver what the cover claims it will reveal: the truth behind the Manson Family murders. There is no other truth that hasn't been proven in a court of law, which is where things matter and count, not in the washed-out pages of a tabloid or in a nonsensical book.

O'Neill confesses at the end of the book what any moderately informed reader would know: that he didn't find the big truth that would refute the prosecution's case. Oh, but what about the royalties from the sale of the book and the documentary? There, the guy didn't even blink.

It's a shame that O'Neill is unaware of the psychological manipulation exerted by political cults (Hitler), religious cults, or pseudo-religious cults (Scientology) and is unaware of the brutal damage they inflict on their victims, which is sometimes impossible for them to heal or overcome, as one of the Manson Family girls confesses years after the events.

I'm sure that, like O'Neill, many believe these conspiracy theories: because they lie, they hide things, they didn't follow this or that lead, they didn't interview that key witness, or because they were slow to react, or because they released this or that person earlier, or because they took so long to arrest or interrogate them, without understanding the complexity of a true police investigation, which must be based on hard, tangible evidence, as prosecutors and the American judicial system themselves say, that is beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt isn't that they didn't interview Juan Pendejo, or that they took so long to do this or that, or that they ignored what the parole officer did or didn't do, said or didn't say, or whether he scratched his butt with his index finger or his thumb, as O'Neill repeatedly claims. None of that is evidence of anything, except for people wasting their time on peripheral matters that have nothing to do with the only real, tangible fact. There was a gruesome murder in 1969 committed by a group of girls sent by Charles Manson in revenge for not getting a recording contract. That is the concrete, undeniable fact. Was the CIA, the FBI, or my uncle who went bald half a century ago involved in that crime? The answer is "NO."

Manson was the mastermind behind a heinous and vicious crime. He wasn't a victim. He got what he deserved: to live like a dog and never see the light of day again. That's the least he deserved. There's no mitigating factor in his atrocious behavior.

What O'Neill is up to is as heinous as what Manson did, but at least it's not a crime, a crime that deserves jail time. He only deserves our contempt. That's all.

This was not by any means necessary an original saturday night softcore movie, since there was hundreds of films with the same plot. Literally, you pick a stone from the ground and you will find a movie just the same as this. Shannon Whirry did a better one and an absolute classic of this kind of plot and era, and in the field of non erotic cinema, there are tons of stories like this, even Isabella Rossellini did it one.

In all this films, no matter what name you chose, there are one point you have to have it well: a good looking female lead actress, and like Metallica's song, nothing else really matters. If you have a good looking girl, nobody would pay atention to anything else. It could be or couldn't be nudity, you need a good looking female lead actress, even if she can't act, or act like Kramer on Seinfeld.

This is one in a zillion films over the same subject and more or less the same plot in more or less the same period of time, so you only have to ask your self one, and only one question. Do you like the girls depicted on screen? That's the only quiestion you have to have on your mind.

For what is my concern, I liked Sara Suzanne Brown in this paricular movie, but she never done anything more that could atract me besides this movie and another installment of the series starred by the one and only Shannon Whirry. A pretty decent girl, not even close to be the star of the year or something. Even in this, her best performance, is quite above average, much under what you can see on the same plot on Animal Instincts with Shannon Whirry or the other Shannon, Tweed, who played the exact same character on I can't remember what film, but who cares?

And, adding to this, for what I can recall, there is a brief scene with Janine Lindemulder and Lene Hefner on a parking lot, and since I have always a some kind of crush with Lene, that's enough reason to watch this film.

So, don't bother to use your brain, juts enjoy the girls.

Although this series has its values i.e. Production, and the background history it ca be denied, also has its flaws. My principal objection is that it has not to be necessary to embelish the events with such a sloppy script. The real drama we live as Mexicans back in the day it would be just enough.

I personally work as a volunteer in rescue tasks for the University, as many other Mexicans that days, and we all know that there was no such a ridiculous story of a newspaper reporter such as portayed here. I guess that for a non Mexican audience this could be easily compared with some kind of US reconstruction or representation of the Nine-Eleven events, the heroism that many saw and lived that days, and in terms of cinematic adaptation, that's make sense, there are plenty of stories that show more or less the same behaviour. But for me, is an insult that the writers take such a liberty on the portrait of characters involved. Not all what happened in that day involved class media people. For the Mexico city size and the hour of the earthquake, early in the morning, many of the people involved belong to virtually all kind of social origin, not only those who lived in affected areas. Specially many female workers in Colonia Obrera, for example, was poor women, in a very popular sector of the city, away from residential zones. Tlatelolco itself was not at the time a very nice zone to live in, just to mention two zones and kind of people not portrayed with adequacy in the series.

I remeber I was at the school, far away from the epicenter, and I was in disbelief of what news report that morning. I guess new generation of audience, millenials, need to see what happended that day in a new light. But I don't. I lived every hour, I was involved in rescue tasks, almost one month, during the emergency on which Mexico city almost stop at all every activity not involved in rescue.

So, I recommend that if yo not live those days directly, avoid the series. As usual with almost any recent Mexican production (no matter if its from Apple, Netflix or any other streaming service), it's made of bad acting and a sloppy script, not to mention a poor camera work. Its so obvious that this new Mexican producvers and filmakers doesn't know how to make the camera lens work not only as a credible whitness but also as a narrator, framing and using creative solutions for the POV.

Yes, the story is mindblowing, but what we see in this series is kind of an open disregard for the people who lived and died that days in Mexico city. As a Mexican who lived that days in the flesh, this series insult my memory, and the memory of those who died.

Some subjects would be treated with more professionalism and for people who really understand the tragedy and the pain lived by those who really lived those days, and not only write and produce some show for selling tickets or views on streaming.

This crappy movie, which lasts just one hour and twenty minutes, is a Mexican soap opera, with Mexican soap opera actors, and the acting resources of a Mexican soap opera, which is bad acting, making faces to "express" emotions, and filmed in an amateurish way. None of that makes it better.

The "action" shots are pitiful, poorly choreographed, slow, and do not produce the slightest emotion. The outdoor shots are so poor that it's grim. The extras are clearly focused on the camera, but at least they act better than the "actors" who are supposed to star in this piece of crap. There are scenes that are hilarious, like the motorcycle chase in a garden and they end up crashing into a pile of boxes in the middle of the street, which are clearly empty. Wondering why someone put those boxes in the street, why put them in the street if they have nothing inside, why do they do that? Why didn't the guys on the motorcycle see the boxes while they were fleeing if they were like twenty or more meters away and there was no vehicle on the street that forced them to crash into them, couldn't they go around them because the invisible man was next to the boxes but they saw him, or what the hell? That's how every scene in this garbage goes.

Not to mention the regrettable nude scenes, which remind us that it doesn't matter if they are dressed or naked, the acting result is the same: regrettable.

Comercial Mexican contemporary cinema produces pure garbage since almost half of century. Unidimensional characters, ridiculous stories, with out any relationshipo with reality, disconected of how women are and presented as ridiculous stereotypes outing from classical Mexican soap operas. This actual comercial Mexican cinema produces pure and simple garbage since decades, is absolutely insulting to any decent inteligence, showing the worse and most superficial qualities of stereotypical characters that not exist in real life.

This ton of cynematic manure is worse than have cancer in the brain. Avoid this garbage at any cost if you value your brain.

Considering that this is a Porn film, anyone who put his or her eyes on this has to consider that the most important part of this is the actresses, many of them at her best of their careers, such as beautiful Celeste (her scene and final consumation has to be one of the hottest ones ever captured on tape, an incredible and memorable final scene, if you know what I mean), the lovely Dyanna Lauren (when she still made at that era very impressive roles on very good films) and, last but not least, the always supremely beautiful and gorgeus Julia Ann, one of the most incredible actresses in the porn industry. For the rest, the plot, if you want to name that way the argumental excuse to present the girls in action, is quite predictable and quite idiotic: a girl who see television gets horny and sooner or later gets involved on what she see on screen. Wow, a never seen before plot! Enjoy the girls if you like porn films, buy forget the plot, as usual.

I guess all those folks complaint about the slow pace of the movie are that kind of moronic audience that expect running car chases and gun fight all over the place, some slow budget version of Die Hard or The Dukes of Hazard, so they don't look and ask for what happens in the film. Is good to see an American film that escapes of that cinematic non-sense violencewich all the time presents on every film.

The film is on the surface a film of criminal chasing a witness. I guess that explains that negative reaction of some morons. Well, thewy have to deal with that, and move on to the next chasing-cars-and-shooting-firearms piece of crap film.

At the bottom, the film is about crisis and redemption. Crisis of the legal sistem and corrupt officials, familiar crisis of the several characters involved: Boon (Neil McDonough) has lost his mother and nevertheless he has to pursue a witness, Motley Adams (Dash Melrose), who not only saw how a mafia lord, Jay Haywood (Michael Cudlitz), kill his brother, Danny Adams (Dominic Scott Kay), but how local Sheriff Quincy (Jason Douglas) is coluded with Haywood, who also has to deal with his new born grandson, and so on.

Yes, is not Road to Perdition, but is a good one flick, and the story has to be the way is told, slow and away from today mainstream violence films of American cinema. If you aren't a moron, you will enjoy this film by what it is, instead of waiting for spectacular car chases and all that ridiculous and unbelievable stuff Hollywood give to the audiences everytime.

As Kramer would it say it, "That's was my idea". Really, as a joke, I think that with during the pandemic we all have trurned like if we live in the Wild West... And I doesn't even live in the US. This film is a pure garbage as a film, and even as a joke doesn't work. Low budget film, amateurish photography, pathetic amateur actors and film directing.

I don't understand this kind of very low budget projects. How they get money to filming and editing it? How the get the "actors" for this kind of boring and stupid film? They do really think they gonna get some money back from this crap? What is the logic behind this kind of very low budget films? Because I don't get it. It's a way of laundry money or something like that?

This Korean series is a poor, lame adaptation and actualization into a bloody pop Korean culture context, of a short story ("El premio", The prize) by Julio Cortázar. Only in a iliterate culture such as actual you can explain why people became fans of such a lame tv series. If you hace read Cortázar's shor5t story, you will know immediatlñy that that's the major spoiler you can recieve from this schow.

Since I saw Stana Katich on Castle (2009-2016), I remember think that she was a little under the top, but this is understandable because the star of the series was Nathan Fillion. At that time I think that she deserve a better character and a better plot. And then it appears Absentia (2017-2020), a very solid three season series on wich she shows all her skills as actress.

Basically is a little-over-the-top action-thriller series in wich Emily Byrne (Stana Katich), an FBI special agent suddenly re-appear after being kidnapped and declared dead in absentia; this triggers an elusive manhunt about who commited the kidnap that involves Boston PD detectives and FBI special agents alike in the search.

The themes of the series change in the first season from to solve the kidnap to a more spy genre in the second and a global conspiracy on Syrian refugees, human traffic, medical experiments, and economical lust, to the third. It's a good thematic arch wich leads the series from the US to Austria and Bulgary, and by the thir season, almost all the crew of the show is Syrian, or Arab, wich is a good thing considering the theme of the third season.

Her kidnapp affect her former family, whose husband, Nick Durand (Patrick Heusinger), married with dr. Alice Durand (Cara Theobold), is also an FBI special agent too, and involves another SA, Cal Isaac (Matthew Le Nevez) and SA Crown (Christopher Colquhoun).

Most of the series is a thriller with decent good fight action scenes, but maybe they abuse a little about twists and more twists in the plot, wich make from time to time hard to follow.

The cast is solid (even when I only know Katich) and they played their roles with efficacy and a very good performance, and for one time is good to see credible FBI agents on screen that are not telling ridiculous jokes or remarks, or making ridiculous smiling everytime, as if the feel like a Bruce Willis of petatiux.

One thing I love is that the series is not an eternal season after season. It has an end in the third season, a good end (although I think is a little rushed and shows some holes in the plot), and as an spectator you care about the characters. It has a lot of good suspense and action is not overused, as other series. But the most important thing is about the role of Stana Katich.

She delivers a solid performance, good at action scenes, better in the thriller scenes. Her character is a strong female leading character away form the pamphletarism of the contemporary feminism. Her agenda is personal, not a gender one, and that makes her character believable and lovable at once. She has a genuine feeling of revenge but also of justice, and even when she sometimes is over the top in some action scenes, is not driven too far in that sense. Her character is not flawless, and she doesn't blame men or male characters for what she has been pass through. She evolves, as character, from a defeated agent to a one who overcome her problems and emerge renewed and stronger. This means she travel the classic way of inner revelation that changes a character from weaknes to inner strong, even whe Katich character is not exactly a weak one from the beginning.

Most of the European values are the solid script, and not the action, wich makes the series maybe a little slow for American standards, and for that, is not for those who want to see actio, and destruction and killings and explosions by the minute as American films and series has (mis)educated most of today audiences. This is not a F&F spinoff.

This is the worst Amityville film ever. It's a new low, even for bad films, B class movies and cheap movies. Pure garbage. Don't waste ypour time with this piece of crap.

The father is a masterpiece. Period. If black comunity is angry because the Academy doesn't give the Oscar to Chadwick Boseman is because Antonhy Hopkins' performance on this film is just superb. Sorry. Boseman doesn't deserve an Oscar for a just right performance. If you can't deal with that, sorry. In a scale of 1 to 10, Boseman has a 6 or 6.5. Hopkins is beyond 10. This is the lifetime performance on which every actor would like to arrive in his silver years.

The film is about an old man who starts to lose control of his mind, and what mr. Hopkins delivers is just impressive. Not only the world of confussion, regression, and halucinations, but the very frailty of human condition are portrayed with supreme craftmanship, but with a big understanding of what all these means in the eyes of the surrounding familiars and the spectator. The most oustanding feature on Hopkins displayed is the absolute dignity and humanity of his character. The most impressive thing about the film is the slow crescendo on which Anthony (Anthony Hopkins) is involved, which ends with that astonishing monologue on which he claims for her mother. I can say that that is one of the most incredible scenes I have ever seen in my entire life. I almost burst in tears when look the absolute loniless and frailty of his character. I came back to this at the end of mi review.

Is an impreessive accomplishment from one of the most relevant actors of the last half century. Doesn't deserve that performance the highest acknowledge from the Academy? That's what what's happened in the 2021 Academy ceremony. Few awards reward such oustanding performance, and that's hasn't to be with racial issues but with a supreme actoral craftmanship.

Nevertheless, I have to say that The Father barely rose the real ordeal on which patient and family members have to get through on this illness. BTW, senil dementia is not anymore an accepted term in psychiatry, because normalize something that is not normal. Instead, modern psychatry suggest Brain damage with 3 levels: minimun, medium and great or severe brain damage, since not all the ancients suffer from this. Other thing on which the film fails is in the treatment to release the patient from this condition on hallucinations, confusion and mental regressions. That's not cure or relief with pills but with haloperidol, wich stabilizes the brain and help the patient to avoid suffer from this symptoms. It's so obvious that the film doesn't want to deeper on this condition, instead it suggest the part on wich all involved in this condition suffers. In that, Anthony Hopkin's performance is absolute devastating. The film accomplish in show us how frailty is our humanity and the suffering both the patient and the family, portraying both with such respect and human dignity that very few films attempt.

By personal experience, my mother recently has that kind of episodes, everyone is a truly nightmare with a length from ten to 16 hours on wich my mother and us, her family, were driven, I can say that the film doesn't explore that nightmerish experience. The final scene on which Hopkins cry for her mommy is an exactly portrarit of the ordeal on which my mother was driven by this illness, and is absolutely devastanting, one of the most impressive and painfully scenes I have ever watched.

Never an actor has deserved more an award that the 2021 Oscar for mr. Anthony Hopkins. There is no point of comparison between his performance and that of the late mr. Chadwick Boseman. Just can't be compared. It's not a racial issue, but an artistic all in all, and in that field, mr. Hopkings delivers his most impressive performance. A masterclass in acting. Best male (or female) acting of the XXI century by far. Period.

Someone says that if you reunite some old actors to make a comedy you will find with a piece of crap, a bad movie with tons of bad jokes, bad lines and lousy performances. This is not the case. If you avoid fart and sexual jokes, that's a point to count it, since almost every Hollywood comedy from the last decade just repeat that formula. This days it's hard to find in a comedy a masterpiece, and this is not one of that category, but is a pretty decent one, and is genuine funny and worth to watch.

Robert De Niro make a good old failure Hollywood B class movie producer in search of a last great movie, as those criminals the look for a great last job, and that comparison is good enough to make you laugh. His character is ridiculous enough, without exagerate the tone. Morgan Freeman make a great mafioso type of bad guy, even when his character is secondary. Tommy Lee Jones is great as an almost retired old western actor. Zach Braff is just hilarious as De Niro's character nephew's.

All in all, is not a bad movie. Is a good and decent comedy that just make you laugh and forget your problems for a while, make you have a good time. And that is more than many other comedies can do this days. It's a comedy, for Christ sake!

This is pure and simple crap, and must be called CRAP-itus.

This is a beautiful film about music, classical music, in a world on wich pop culture reigns like there will be no tomorrow. Of course, Nieztsche is present since the beginning, without being a philosophical film. German culture is all about, specially German composers, like says Henry Cole (Patrick Stewart) on some point of the film.

What is amazing is the way music is interconnected with the story, how is not only an ambiental music, but a kind of companion and most of the time it gives a clarity to the scenes. Is like a movie inside the movie, but full of sound, full of stories, full of meaning.

This is a film that only could be the way it is: slowly, meditative, almost poetic, against the hurries and rushes from today cultural mainstream. A very beautiful and meaningful film that deserves a better qualification on IMDB, but I guess many of the reviewers doesn't understand the nuances and little twists here and there, and less about classical music, so at least they loss a half of the meaning of the movie when the doesn't get that message. I'm pretty sure that many reviewers doesn't know anything about classical music, so probably they only identifies the first piece of music when are transcurred 24 minutes, and many other pieces were played and telling things they don't understand.

So, this is not a film for people immerse on today's pop culture.

I have great excpetctations when I saw the names of Burt Reynolds and Clint Eastwood, and that this is a kind of historic period movie when prohibition was working all over the US. It has a comedy tone that not always wok as used to be. Reynolds fit perfectly the character he embodies, but Eastwood character is not so good. Comedy is not his thing, so most of the jokes or punch lines vanishes as soon he says them.

The historic background is not bad, but the screenplay and the mise en scene faisl to deliver all the posibilities that this story could give to the audience. Most of the shots reveal lack of imagination and of budget. The story is very shallow, and has so poor develope that it seems made by amateurs. Everything is so ridiculous, that almost get the big prize, but they missed it.

This is like that serial from History chanel on what a bunch a morons believe that Hitler survive and went to Argentina to live undercover. The same idiotic plot, but with Sasquatch. Avoid at any cost like covid.

If you are going to judge any writer or artist since a moral standard, a contemporary politically correct moral standard, you can rid off almost all the great art of the past because if you are looking for saints, people who love cats and feed birds, that people could be your type of friendly person of today, but they never will produce a piece of art, you are looking on the wrong part of humanity.

What make great Hemingway is not he was a admirer of bull fights, like millions of others. Was not he hunt animals like millions of others. Was not he use rifles and guns, like millions of others. Was not he get drunk every single day of his life like millions of others. He could be one piece of crap like million of others. But he created some of the most fascinating and important books from the last century, on any language. He could be like your sorry and politically correct and double standard ass of today, but he wasn't. He could have a farm with beautiful little animals. Nobody cares for someone like that, unless he finally write something absolutely marvelous, like all the great books he wrote. If you like animal care, you can retire to a farm and watch over piggies, cows, bulls, chickens and worms, and wait for someone film a biopic about you.

But Hemingway wrote some of the most important and memorable books of the past century on any language. Some of those books are brutal, because he live a brutal life, someone who ends by took his own life the way he lives. Millions of people has done that, too. But if you write The Oldman and the Fish, A farewell to arms, From whom the belss tolls, Death in the afternoon, Green Hills of Africa, The Snows of Kilimanjaro, and win the Nobel Prize, man that's a life worth to live and worth to be told and retold.

I'm not American, but Mexican, but Hemingway is one of the most important writers not only from the US, but from the entire world. If that doesn't ring a bell, Moralists, you can go away to Gilligan's island. This is a biopic of an absolute admirable man, who could be like millions of others, like I just have said. Instead, he left a literary corpus that still is one of the American true treasures of their literary history, someone that can make you feel proud to be part of his nation, proud as human being, and also proud of reading him and find someone extraordinary, and not a poor drunk failure who liked to kiss cows and chickens in a remote farm.

If you like that, be my guest. But before that, please, read his books and if you doesn't end admiring his intelectual stature and his brilliance as a writer, then you don't know to read, and you deserve to live in the Fantasy island. This biopic is a masterpiece, well worth for the men who inspired it.

Very few times we see a "documentary" that is blalantly based on lies and economical propaganda as this. By no means this can be called a revolution, unless you corrupt the original meaning of the word and change for a piece of crap like this "crypto-currency", which is an economical derivate, something that doesn't have any real economical base. It is not strange that this economical fenomenon starts in Africa, were Neoliberalism first apply its nociviness into all African countries, devastating almost all the countries in were it was apply. And to that you call it "revolution"? I call it scam, because that it is. When the snowball will fall, and I can sure you it's going to be big time when that happen, I hope people remember this piece of economical propaganda and acknowledge they were the first on clapping this crime. If you like to hear lies one after another and feel good about it, this is the kind of crap you need.

Of course, yuo have to be a complete cynical to name this a "Bitcoin revolution". There is no such thing as "Bitcoin revolution", and you can see how Africa is sinking in poverty for Western greedy because they can believe anything Western sell. The "Enron revolution" doesn't ring any bell? When all collyde, you will finnally wil listen the names of all crooks and criminal who sold the idea of the Bitcoin as something susteinable.

I rate this crap 1 since I cannot give it negative numbers, but this is an actual crime enveloped as a long advertising of the benefits of something that is clearly a fraud.

I guess this is another example of a "compelling" story that nobody outside the U.S. has been listen to, and nobody outside U.S. matters. This is a perfectly expendable documentary.

The Catalina Five-0 series is a silly porn story based and copied up on the original 1968-1980 Hawaii Five-0 detective series, with some shoots made only to locate de starlets on the island, and some short shoots on some Hawaiian beach, since all the actions happen on some studio pretending to be the headquarters of the PI, embodied by the gorgeous Raven (Vicky Vickers) and Zara Whites, who barely follow criminal cases wich lead to nothing really important, and all is a pretext to have some g/g or b/g intercourse scenes one after another.

The plot is almost inexistent, but the sex scenes are amongst the best sex scenes of that era. One curious thing is that Raven was the star on the Taboo American Style series from 1985, wich was an impressive success, and she star this new series, surrounded by very beautiful starlets such the always neglected Mexican Viviana, who made very few films but let an unforgateble warm image ofher porn persona.

So, the detectives of this series, wich appears with no name at all, Raven and Zara Whites, are lead to a series of meetings and allegedly research in order to "solve" crimes, misteries and so on. But once the sex action begin, nobody cares about the crime or mistery, just to have sex with the next girl or boy on the list.

And so there is barely plot on every film, also barely are related between them, just for Raven and Zara Whites' constant presence on all the five installment of the series. This is not, by any means necesary, a series that deserves a Bafta or a similar award. But is a good golden rate of the golden era of porn, before even porn become an industrialized product without identity.

I guess people expected the usual biopic of a criminal gangster, as Hollywood has portrayed them always: powerful, elegant, merciless, almost if they were role models for people. Since gunslighters of the good old Wild West, American people love criminals, and for that is not surprise that in the land of the excess, Serial Killers and other dispicable people are almost heroes. So when someone presents not a romantic and glamorous perspective on some criminal, they don't like and speak about waste of time and similr terms on this product.

I think that is against this film. This is a film that dares you to look what happen on a criminal mind after imprisonment and years of mental illness. In the end, that is what is about this movie: what happen after years and years of drugs and alcohol abuse in the mind of a criminal. It cannot be romantizised, it cannot be glamorous or full of luxury. It's the sad end years of a despicable man, a criminal that not deserves to be portrayed in such a usual and customized way.

In that sense, this film doesn't have precedents and is understanding that people turn their back on it. Its not the kind of romantic portrate of a gangster. But I think deserve more intelligence and critical appraisal than has received. It is more simple to reject something we don't understand, than use the brain and understand the subject and the way is approaching. Bad guys end bad, and this film shows it brutally. Tom Hardy delivers an impresisve performance of a man who see how he has lost literally his mojo, and his mind wander as if wasn't in control. I guess they want to him in Armani suits like Robert De Niro in Untouchables. Well, this is not the case.

This is not a mastrerpiece, but is a challenge for everyone.

I guess we can say that since mr. Eastwood develope thta that we can name as his Late Style his cinematography went to a lousy state of affairs. He hasn't make a decent film since his lousy "J. Edgar" (2011), but sice his "Invictus" (2009) you can perceive that something went wrong with him. J. Edgar is a film made about disguise all the abuses and crimes commited by mr. J. Edgar Hoover. A poor film about a poor and despicable man, that doesn't deserve other thing than perpetual oblivion.

How can it be "Richard Jewell" a good film if its build upon the same basis that "J. Edgar"? Mr. Eastwood build a film about lie after lie, presenting a b&w perspective, like a fairy tale, from a very complicate theme about a very complicated research on a such issue as homeland terrorism and present all the characters as perfectly good or perfectly bad?

Faced with the very facts of the terrorist attack on the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, Eastwood's film presents us with a fantastic world, divided into the individual voluntarism that pretends to want everything, and the legal, factual, complex world where the events occur. The complexity of the real world disappears not only from the characters but from the story. Eastwood takes the liberty of lying, literally, by introducing agent Tom Shaw (John Hamm) as a ruthless FBI agent hell-bent on locking up Richard Jewell and who until the end still considers him a suspect, which is true, but not It was not for Agent Shaw, but for the director of the FBI, who never wanted to clear Jewell's name or exonerate him post-mortem. Eastwood also lies and deforms the character of reporter Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde) by hiding her dependence on drugs and presenting her at the Jewell press conference at the Marriott Hotel almost on the verge of tears, as if she repented and gave herself up. He realizes that he was wrong in his case, as Eastwood actually claims. And that is false, both the reporter Scruggs and the newspaper she worked for never retracted their false reports. Not only that, Scruggs dies of a heroin overdose in the days leading up to the trial of the terrorist behind the Olympics bombing.

What we can call Mr. Eastwood's Late Style is riddled with a very simple and fanciful morality, unrelated to reality, which has permeated his last nine films. That moral perspective of Mr. Eastwood was not remotely in his films of the previous decade, where he gave us at least three masterpieces. This late stage of his development as a film director has given us discursive and argumentative films, instead of presenting us with solidly constructed characters, which date back to their own nature and the complex reality of the world in which they move.

It is a sad swan song for a once great, great director. What a pity.

I have to say that this is not a horror movie as Hollywood understands. There is no monsters, or CGI all over the place, there is no scaries or shadows moving here and there, just a brutal story about faith and the supranatural. It is not a religious movie also. It is one of the most amazing debuts you can imagine in an actor as Bill Paxton, a remarkable actor and a very fine director. Matty O'Leary makes an impressive chartactrization of the young Felton Meiks, a superb performance of a teenager as you very rare see in a movie. I did not tell the plot, because is just mindblowing, with a very dark tone on the humane nature. If you want to see a horror movie that scares you, this is not your kind of film, but definetively scares the hell out of you like very few films today. This is a masterpiece of a thriller with a remrkable performances by Bill Paxton, Matthew McConnaughy and Powers Boothe. Impressive and breathtaking film! Hollywood does not made this films very often, and this Paxton debut shows some mastery that is difficult to find in big budget films.