dav07dan02
ene 2004 se unió
Te damos la bienvenida a nuevo perfil
Nuestras actualizaciones aún están en desarrollo. Si bien la versión anterior de el perfil ya no está disponible, estamos trabajando activamente en mejoras, ¡y algunas de las funciones que faltan regresarán pronto! Mantente al tanto para su regreso. Mientras tanto, el análisis de calificaciones sigue disponible en nuestras aplicaciones para iOS y Android, en la página de perfil. Para ver la distribución de tus calificaciones por año y género, consulta nuestra nueva Guía de ayuda.
Distintivos2
Para saber cómo ganar distintivos, ve a página de ayuda de distintivos.
Reseñas75
Clasificación de dav07dan02
DIRECTOR, Peter Joseph
I have never thought that intolerance or extremism of any kind to be healthy. This documentary film is without a doubt aimed at the far right conservatives and to promote libertarian causes.
I do believe that whatever a person's beliefs, one should have an open mind. For example, if a Christian knows about the beliefs of Jews, Muslims etc. and still believes that Christianity is the true religion, they will at least have some credibility when defending their beliefs. This goes for ALL religious beliefs. I also believe that ALL forms of extremism to be dangerous. This includes ultra liberals as well as conservatives. I personally do not acknowledge the difference between ultra conservatives or liberals. Both are closed minded extremists. This documentary brings out some very interesting points about the origins of the bible and Judeo-Christian religious beliefs and our government. However, one needs to watch this with the understanding that the film maker is using the film as a vehicle to promote his own views.
The film is divided into three sections. The first segment is about religion, the second 911 conspiracy and the third the Federal Reserve Bank. The first section is trying to discredit the authenticity of the bible and the existence of Jesus Christ. It makes the claim that Jesus Christ never actually existed but was a mystical figure. It states that much of the bible as well as its central figures are based on the Precession of the Equinoxes (a period of about 25000 years) and an astrological age (a period of approx 2100 years). The 12 apostles represents the 12 constellations of the zodiac. This theory states that Christ represented the beginning of the age of Pices, the age we are still currently in. The end of times is interpreted to be the end of the age of the Pices and the beginning of the new age, the age of Aquarius. The film also gives reference to many other central figures in the bible. It tells how the story of the birth and life of Moses is identical to the story of King Sargon which evidently predates the story of Moses.
The second part of the film discuses 911 and the possibility of a conspiracy. They claim that 6 of the hijackers are still alive. They mention the possibility that the steal support columns on the WTC were cut prior to the buildings being hit. This is backed up by interviews with some structural engineers. They mention the close association between the Bush and Bin Laden families. It is mentioned that George Bush had a Carlyle group meeting with Shafig Bin Laden (a relative of Osama) only shortly before the 911 incident.
The third segment of the film talks about the Federal Reserve Bank (the central bank of the U.S government). They talk about the origin of the central bank, how it evolved and how it controls our economy today. The film states that the Federal Reserve is a predominately private organization. The central bank loans money to the U.S. Government with interest charged on each dollar loaned. Thus, the U.S. Government is forever in debt to the central bank. They mention John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan's involvement with the central bank and how they have profited from it. They link the Federal Reserve System with all the major wars of the 20th century. They also mention the IRS and its unconstitutional practices. They also discuss the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security and how the government is using 'terrorism' as an excuse for the Homeland Security department to violate our civil rights.
I don't believe everything this films claims, but it has made me want to do more research on the Federal Reserve Bank and the Homeland Security Department as well as this 911 conspiracy theory.
I have never thought that intolerance or extremism of any kind to be healthy. This documentary film is without a doubt aimed at the far right conservatives and to promote libertarian causes.
I do believe that whatever a person's beliefs, one should have an open mind. For example, if a Christian knows about the beliefs of Jews, Muslims etc. and still believes that Christianity is the true religion, they will at least have some credibility when defending their beliefs. This goes for ALL religious beliefs. I also believe that ALL forms of extremism to be dangerous. This includes ultra liberals as well as conservatives. I personally do not acknowledge the difference between ultra conservatives or liberals. Both are closed minded extremists. This documentary brings out some very interesting points about the origins of the bible and Judeo-Christian religious beliefs and our government. However, one needs to watch this with the understanding that the film maker is using the film as a vehicle to promote his own views.
The film is divided into three sections. The first segment is about religion, the second 911 conspiracy and the third the Federal Reserve Bank. The first section is trying to discredit the authenticity of the bible and the existence of Jesus Christ. It makes the claim that Jesus Christ never actually existed but was a mystical figure. It states that much of the bible as well as its central figures are based on the Precession of the Equinoxes (a period of about 25000 years) and an astrological age (a period of approx 2100 years). The 12 apostles represents the 12 constellations of the zodiac. This theory states that Christ represented the beginning of the age of Pices, the age we are still currently in. The end of times is interpreted to be the end of the age of the Pices and the beginning of the new age, the age of Aquarius. The film also gives reference to many other central figures in the bible. It tells how the story of the birth and life of Moses is identical to the story of King Sargon which evidently predates the story of Moses.
The second part of the film discuses 911 and the possibility of a conspiracy. They claim that 6 of the hijackers are still alive. They mention the possibility that the steal support columns on the WTC were cut prior to the buildings being hit. This is backed up by interviews with some structural engineers. They mention the close association between the Bush and Bin Laden families. It is mentioned that George Bush had a Carlyle group meeting with Shafig Bin Laden (a relative of Osama) only shortly before the 911 incident.
The third segment of the film talks about the Federal Reserve Bank (the central bank of the U.S government). They talk about the origin of the central bank, how it evolved and how it controls our economy today. The film states that the Federal Reserve is a predominately private organization. The central bank loans money to the U.S. Government with interest charged on each dollar loaned. Thus, the U.S. Government is forever in debt to the central bank. They mention John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan's involvement with the central bank and how they have profited from it. They link the Federal Reserve System with all the major wars of the 20th century. They also mention the IRS and its unconstitutional practices. They also discuss the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security and how the government is using 'terrorism' as an excuse for the Homeland Security department to violate our civil rights.
I don't believe everything this films claims, but it has made me want to do more research on the Federal Reserve Bank and the Homeland Security Department as well as this 911 conspiracy theory.
Director: Victor Halperin, Script: Garnet Weston, Cast: Bela Lugosi (Legendre), Madge Bellamy, (Madeleine), John Harron (Neil Parker), Robert Frazer (Charles Beaumont), Joseph Cawthorn (Dr. Bruner).
This 1932 classic is considered to be the first zombie film. A young couple go to Hatti to get married at the estate of Charles Beaumont, a wealthy plantation owner that Madeleine met on a boat trip. Beaumont, however, wants Madeleine for himself so he turns to the "zombie maker" Legendre (Lugosi) for help. Madeline ups and dies the day of her wedding to Neil. Legendre and Beaumont exhume the body of Madge. Legendre gives Beaumont a potion that guess what------makes her a zombie! Beaumont realizes that he does not like the new "zombiefied" Madeline and wants her back the way she used to be.
This is quite an amazing little film. Although well known among fans of the genre, it was never a film that generated a mainstream audience in its day. It was a low budget independent film made my the Halperin brothers. In spite of its low budget, it rivaled many big studio films of the day such as the Universal monster movies and was much-much better made than other independent films of this time (which were rather rare)such as Maniac. The double exposure and other camera effects seem rather advanced for its time. Even though it is shoot in a back lot, the whole Haitian voodoo zombie theme gives it a genuine creepy atmosphere.
I have always thought of Lugosi as a good character actor. I like his work in several of the Universal monster movies (he played the lead part in the English version of Dracula,character parts in all others) but I have never cared for him as a lead actor. White Zombie is the big exception. His persona and accent is perfect for this role. Madge Bellamy did great in her role as well. She was rather attractive and I believe a fairly sought after actress of the day. The movies one weak point was its romantic subplot but that was common for the time. This really is one of the best horror films of the 1930's. It paved the way for many other zombie films to follow right up to Romero's 1968 classic Night of the Living Dead.
This 1932 classic is considered to be the first zombie film. A young couple go to Hatti to get married at the estate of Charles Beaumont, a wealthy plantation owner that Madeleine met on a boat trip. Beaumont, however, wants Madeleine for himself so he turns to the "zombie maker" Legendre (Lugosi) for help. Madeline ups and dies the day of her wedding to Neil. Legendre and Beaumont exhume the body of Madge. Legendre gives Beaumont a potion that guess what------makes her a zombie! Beaumont realizes that he does not like the new "zombiefied" Madeline and wants her back the way she used to be.
This is quite an amazing little film. Although well known among fans of the genre, it was never a film that generated a mainstream audience in its day. It was a low budget independent film made my the Halperin brothers. In spite of its low budget, it rivaled many big studio films of the day such as the Universal monster movies and was much-much better made than other independent films of this time (which were rather rare)such as Maniac. The double exposure and other camera effects seem rather advanced for its time. Even though it is shoot in a back lot, the whole Haitian voodoo zombie theme gives it a genuine creepy atmosphere.
I have always thought of Lugosi as a good character actor. I like his work in several of the Universal monster movies (he played the lead part in the English version of Dracula,character parts in all others) but I have never cared for him as a lead actor. White Zombie is the big exception. His persona and accent is perfect for this role. Madge Bellamy did great in her role as well. She was rather attractive and I believe a fairly sought after actress of the day. The movies one weak point was its romantic subplot but that was common for the time. This really is one of the best horror films of the 1930's. It paved the way for many other zombie films to follow right up to Romero's 1968 classic Night of the Living Dead.
Director: Leslie Goodwins, Script: Leon Abrams, Dwight V.Babcock, Cast: Lon Chaney Jr. (Kharis), Dennis Moore (Dr. James Halsey), Virginia Christine (Princess Anaka), Addison Richards (Pat Walsh), Kay Harding (Betty Walsh), Peter Coe (Dr. Ilzor Zandaab)
This was the fourth and final mummy movie from universal. The original Mummy film came out in 1932 around the same time as Dracula and Frankenstein right during Universal's heyday. The first sequel was made in 1940 and all the rest were made between 1940 and 1944. Other then the fact that it is about a mummy, the sequels have no resemblance to that original film. The mummy doesn't even have the same name. The four sequels do,more or less,run in a continuum.
The story takes place 25 years after the first film in the bayous of Louisiana. Kharis,the mummy, and the mummified Princess Ananka went down in this swamp as we know from the previous film. This film has one exception to the otherwise continuous flow from the previous three films. In the prior film, they went down in a swamp in Massachussetts. Somehow they end up in a swamp in Louisiana! We have men with too different motives here. Mr. Walsh, the head of an excavation company that is draining the swamp and the archaeologist,Dr. Halsey, who wants to use this opportunity to recover the mommy from the swamp. Mister Walsh does not believe in the 'curse of the mummy' mumbo jumbo and doesn't want Dr. Halsey and his crew to interfere with his work.
Meanwhile, little does Dr. Halsey know that his assistant,Dr. Ilzor Zandaab, is actually a high priest who revives the mummy with tana leaves. In the process, Princes Ananka also rises from the mud of the swamp. This is actually a rather impressive scene! The curse is lifted from her and she once again becomes a normal women. She does not know where she is or what had happened to her. The mummy kharis goes after her and kills anybody that gets in his way. Dr. Halsey defeats the high priest and falls in love with Mr. Walsh's niece who works as his secretary.
The first mummy film was a classic right up there with Frankenstein, and Dracula(I personally like it better than Dracula). The sequels are not a classic like the original but they really were not meant to be. They were 'b' films. That being said, they are still enjoyable to watch. If one takes it literally, it is hard to believe that this took place 25 years after the previous film. If one follows the chronology of the four films, they would be in the 1990's. Probably not too convincing.
This was the fourth and final mummy movie from universal. The original Mummy film came out in 1932 around the same time as Dracula and Frankenstein right during Universal's heyday. The first sequel was made in 1940 and all the rest were made between 1940 and 1944. Other then the fact that it is about a mummy, the sequels have no resemblance to that original film. The mummy doesn't even have the same name. The four sequels do,more or less,run in a continuum.
The story takes place 25 years after the first film in the bayous of Louisiana. Kharis,the mummy, and the mummified Princess Ananka went down in this swamp as we know from the previous film. This film has one exception to the otherwise continuous flow from the previous three films. In the prior film, they went down in a swamp in Massachussetts. Somehow they end up in a swamp in Louisiana! We have men with too different motives here. Mr. Walsh, the head of an excavation company that is draining the swamp and the archaeologist,Dr. Halsey, who wants to use this opportunity to recover the mommy from the swamp. Mister Walsh does not believe in the 'curse of the mummy' mumbo jumbo and doesn't want Dr. Halsey and his crew to interfere with his work.
Meanwhile, little does Dr. Halsey know that his assistant,Dr. Ilzor Zandaab, is actually a high priest who revives the mummy with tana leaves. In the process, Princes Ananka also rises from the mud of the swamp. This is actually a rather impressive scene! The curse is lifted from her and she once again becomes a normal women. She does not know where she is or what had happened to her. The mummy kharis goes after her and kills anybody that gets in his way. Dr. Halsey defeats the high priest and falls in love with Mr. Walsh's niece who works as his secretary.
The first mummy film was a classic right up there with Frankenstein, and Dracula(I personally like it better than Dracula). The sequels are not a classic like the original but they really were not meant to be. They were 'b' films. That being said, they are still enjoyable to watch. If one takes it literally, it is hard to believe that this took place 25 years after the previous film. If one follows the chronology of the four films, they would be in the 1990's. Probably not too convincing.