Scientific and philosophical perspectives on life, and the quest for immortality.
You may also like
Life Extended torrent reviews
Darren C (gb) wrote: someone deserves a pat on the back for creating the dinosaurs as it looks like some effort had been put into bringing them alive, alas it seems that all the budget of the movie must of gone on that, as it's cast weren't the most convincing of actors often being very wooden and emotionless, also the Blair witch project video camera style ruined the viewing experience for me
David C (au) wrote: An amazingly well crafted thriller that keeps you on the edge of your seat, Unthinkable proves to be an immensely powerful movie with amazing performances from the cast, particularly Samuel L. Jackson's character portrayal of H, a brutal interrogator with little remorse for any of his actions committed. A definite must watch for anyone who hasn't. -ACR Recommended & Approved
I am A (es) wrote: I know its a bit cheesy but if you let yourself get into it can really be quiet freaky, its more supernatural than a horror.
Cooper C (fr) wrote: I wasn't as obsessed with the TV series like everyone else was, but holy hell, this movie was fantastic. I thought Firefly was solid, but Serenity is like the series finale people wish they got. I can't remember a movie that got me so involved after coming off of a so little TV show. I gasped, got choked up, and even uttered "holy sh*t" at a certain point, but at the same time it captures the essence of the original TV series while having plenty of laughs & memorable moments. I'm so glad I was able to this in the theater, but I don't know why I was the only one who clapped when the movie ended. It was the perfect ending for the Firefly series.
Byron T (ca) wrote: A terrible Species rip-off. It tries to be a teen sex-comedy sci-fi flick, but skimps on the nudity and the good dialogue. Very bad dialogue.
Melissa D (de) wrote: Must see this, if only because of Colin Firth.
Sean C (es) wrote: Initially released at the Sundance film festival in January of 2003, the HBO produced bio-picture American Splendor tells the story of the underground comics scene of the late 1960's and early 1970's America through the personal story one of its major creative voices, Harvey Pekar. In the film, Pekar's life story is told via a career defining performance from actor Paul Giamatti, juxtaposed with sequences where the dramatized portions of the film fall away to green screen sequences of Harvey Pekar himself speaking openly to the viewer amid a backdrop reminiscent of the very comic book panels dramatized by the film's artifice. This meta-fictional aspect of the film's cinematic artistry is a large part of what makes American Splendor work so fantastically well, ingeniously mixing documentary and drama in order to more accurately represent the film's subject and his art simultaneously. For Pekar, his comic book panels were a way of commenting on his life and the world around him through narrative and imagery, immortalizing his own anguish and gloom in a way that was accessible and literary. For directors Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini, using documentary footage of Pekar and his family and friends, alongside dramatized sequences of Pekar's life from well known Hollywood actors, Berman and Pulcini are able to visually analyze and interpret the real Harvey Pekar's singular worldview through the very same autobiographical, meta-narrative techniques that Pekar himself employed over the course of his life and career, marking American Splendor as one of the most sophisticated dramatizations of comic books from the past ten years. Starting from the opening credits, and continuing through to the final sequence of the film, Berman and Pulcini's American Splendor is an intense study of American Gothic imagery, giving voice to the silenced underclass laborers of working class, rural, and semi-impoverished America. The figure that Harvey Pekar cuts for himself is the figure of the somewhat creepy loner, the kind of person who appears to be in a perpetually bad mood, infecting the air of those around him with his own oppressive melancholia. In the film, actor Paul Giamatti inhabits that role to a tee, skulking around, shoulders hunched forward, and caustic to the bone, with a certain threatening menace not all that unfamiliar from the real Harvey Pekar himself. And yet, watching such an oppressive character on screen is not depressing; on the contrary, the film feels inspired and filled to the brim with a genuine openness and sentimentality towards its loner anti-hero and the dreary world that he inhabits, bringing it to life without overstating anything to the point of an overtly fabricated fiction. Instead of draping the film's Cleveland, Ohio in the apocalyptic overtones of a more Hollywoodian melodrama, Berman and Pulcini pull back, letting the actors and their live and breathing counterparts speak for themselves, just as Pekar's comic book has done for years in its own plain spoken and unadorned illustrations and comic book panels. Like the American Splendor comic book series from which the film is based and inspired, Bergman and Pulcini's film is defined by its deadpan style of both humor and drama, an atypical narrative structuring that inflects the film with a certain amount of levity simultaneously rooted in deep amounts of skepticism and despair, a la Harvey Pekar. In one moment, the viewer may be laughing along with the solipsistic and pseudo-absurdist landscaping of the world around Pekar. In the very next moment, and more often than not in the very same scene, the viewer is confronted with Pekar's despair and anguish over a world that appears to treat him as an afterthought, worth a disparaging chuckle or two, but ultimately as disposable as any other modicum deigned worthy of popular culture and late night television. In more ways than one, Harvey Pekar appears to be the precursor to the better-known and wildly popular American comedy writer Mike Judge. Like Pekar, Judge specializes in giving voice to the tragically unhip and destitute, inflecting humor and humanity into the more mundane and unattractive characters of plebian America, albeit without any of the more self-effacing and unremitting realism of Pekar's unadorned honesty. If Judge is a mere satirist, working in clever but unoffending situation comedy, then Pekar is a premier social critic, dramatizing the world in which we live in all of its unappealing entirety. And yet, while Pekar would seem at first glance to be an entirely unredeemable and unsympathetic protagonist, Berman and Pulcini's direction, coupled with some of the very best performances from an all star cast of actors, ensure that the viewer cares for and relates to Harvey Pekar as a both a real person and a fictional character. Paul Giamatti has never been better as Bergman and Pulcini's fictionalized Pekar, inhabiting the role of the film's subject, and walking the fine line between reality and fiction that defines the actual Harvey Pekar's life and work. In addition, Hope Davis and Judah Friedlander are brilliant as Joyce Brabner and Toby Radloff, the real Harvey Pekar's second wife and close friend respectively, breathing warmth and humanity into two roles that would have been undoubtedly lifeless and thoughtlessly looked over in a lesser film of the same type. Every character in the film, from Pekar's prickly boss Mr. Boats (Earl Billings), to fellow underground comic book demigod Robert Crumb (James Urbaniak), is brought to life through the collaborative effort between the actors and the directors, resulting in a representation of the film's real life counterparts that holds up even when the actors sit side by side with their subjects in the film's green screen documentary sequences. By the end of the film, Giamatti's portrayal of Pekar begins to take on the tones and subtleties of the ways in which various artists have represented Pekar on the pages of his comic book for years, as if the film were yet another artist's rendering of Pekar's manic depressive dreamscape. Ten years after its initial commercial release, Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini's bio-picture is still as intensely vital and unbelievably relevant as ever. Even after repeated viewings, American Splendor is still endlessly appealing in its eccentricities, outlasting the constrictions of its biographical narrative, and surviving on its own visual tenacity and sharp satiric edge. Watching Harvey Pekar on screen is still fascinating, as he is a character for the ages, intimately relatable despite himself and funny as hell. On July 2, 2010, the real Harvey Pekar died, which makes Berman and Pulcini's film all the more significant, serving as the final word from one of America's finest creative voices. Berman and Pulcini's American Splendor ranks among the best films of the past decade, outlasting most others due to its superior intelligence, intense depth of feeling, and unapologetic sincerity.
John D (au) wrote: I really like the looks of this. I see two very edgy characters in an Historical film genre. Though based on my research, it is based on the events that was happening during the French Revolution as what they called it the "Beast of Gvaudan". Even so, both of the protagonist are still fictional, but story wise I think they did an impressive job throughout the entire film. One Indian descent from Canada (Marc Dacascus, and a Knight named Grgoire de Fronsac (Samuel Le Bihan) as they were hired by the French government to hunt this enormous beast. I really like the setting, the beautiful landscape and its green pastures. The entire cinematography is fantastic, the costume and production design fits the movie very well.The fight scenes are enjoyable, you can see the simplicity of its choreography yet it is still perfect to me. However, if we talk about French films in general, this would be one of my all time favorites. Perfect action / horror flick. 4.5/5
shai l (nl) wrote: I can't believe 2 hours of my life are gone just like that.This is one crappy flavoured chocolate.
DJ P (it) wrote: I put half-and-half in my popcorn watching this.
Nicole M (ca) wrote: One of my all time favorites
THOMAS S (au) wrote: Well with this film it had some decent acting but that was about it. The plot was just awful I can see why it only took a few years to remake it into something much better...
Chris W (us) wrote: In 1996, Woody Allen decided to write and direct his first musical comedy, which happens to be this overwhelmingly charming piece of work.Set across New York, Paris, and Venice, this is a look at a large group of comfortably well off people and their various romantic endeavors, both successful and otherwise. Taking a different approach compared to a lot of musicals, Allen decided to take the approach of common people just randomly breaking into song and (sometimes) dance numbers. As a result, most of the cast do their own singing, with the exception being Drew Barrymore who convinced Allen she had no musical ability whatsoever. Apparently Goldie Hawn may have been dubbed as well, supposedly because Allen told her that her singing was too good, and she should sing worse, as she sounded too good to seem like like a regular person breaking into song. Having some musical training myself, I must say, the cast do a good job. Alan Alda and Edward Norton are pretty terrific, Tim Roth is surprisingly decent, and everyone else proves moderately passable at the very least. And there is a star studded cast here. Aisde from who I've already mentioned, there's also Woody himself, Natasha Lyonne, Julia Roberts, Gaby Hoffmann, Natalie Portman, lukas Haas, and, very briefly, Liv Tyler and Billy Crudup. If there's anyone I missed, I'm sorry.The performances in general are fine, pretty much what you'd expect from this kind of thing. The story and style are typical of Woody, but, having it be a musical elevates the proceedings.The song and dance numbers are well staged and executed, especially the final dance, and, in general, this is a very funny, fun, and charming film that is really kinda hard to dislike. In the grand scheme of things, this isn't, by and large, a standout entry of Woody's filmography, but there's just something about it that I found to be really irresistible, so yeah, give it a watch.
Michael T (br) wrote: As is usual with horror anthologies like this one, there are more misses than hits.