standardbearer

This movie had a terrific premise: The father of an isolated, poor family dies, so the family tradition is passed down to the children: the tradition of consuming human flesh!

I was expecting either a very campy horror flick, or a balls to the wall docu-drama, but all-in-all, a powerful movie.

I'm pretty objective about recent movies, so I'm not a wee bit personal, when I'm saying that this movie not just ignored all my expectations, but gave absolutely nothing instead.

Let's get one thing out of the way: the acting was terrific. Great casting choices, great performances. I admit that. But to what end?

There is so much wrong with this movie, it's easier to tell what was right. Besides the acting, the music was also pretty moving. It was terrible in this movie, but on it's own, it was pretty good music. ... Now for the bad parts: literally, everything else.

The plot. So we have this family, with a fiendish agenda. Why are they determined to eat people? did they really eat them before? If so, why do they want to stop now? What do they want to accomplish with cannibalism? What are their reasons? We never get to know.

The personal stories. What do the 3 kids want? Is Alfredo really gay? What's his history with his parents? And Julian? What drives Sabina? And the mother? Why does she think they should not eat prostitutes but something else, and why does she hates her children? Why does she do all the things she does in the movie? There's no logic in her motives. The only two characters who were remotely interesting and entertaining (two workers at the local morgue), had about 5 minutes of screen time only.

The gore. Alright. This is supposed to be a cannibal movie. It's okay to have no gore, if we have a strong story, or the movie takes a turn, and just starts to show the story from a different perspective. Which it doesn't. Also, no consumption of human flesh is shown. There are some very violent scenes, but since there is no one to care about in this movie, they are absolutely weightless.

The cinematography. Good god. There were some pretty nifty camera movements, and they didn't even come off as gimmicky, self-righteous idiotism. Respect for that. Too bad, the lighting just destroyed all of the shots. Seriously, I don't think I ever seen a movie as badly lighted as this one. It wasn't just dark, most times it was pitch black, with a very short depth of field. It was confusing to say the least, and stupid to be fair.

The direction. What were you thinking? No, that is not just a theatrical question. I'd like to know what was the aim of this movie? What were the reasons behind it?

In this movie, We know nothing, we see nothing, and we care about no one.

I rarely say this, but probably this was the most eventless 90 minutes of my life.

First of all, I'd like to state, that I'm a huge fan of the original movie 'Let the right one in', thus I was very skeptical about this remake. In the end, however, this film turned out to be really good. I'm pleasantly surprised! On the other hand, the first one is still better, in my opinion. Though it shows the story from an entirely different angle, comparing the two is inevitable.

The American version is much more concentrated, and compact than the Swedish original. This can be a good thing, or a bad thing, it only depends on the personal taste. This means 'Let me in' operates with a seemingly smaller cast, which means it is more focused on our heroes, Owen and Abby. Or at least it should mean, because I don't get the feeling that we get to know them much better than in 'Let the right one in' (but more on them later). We see most of the supporting cast from a greater distance also, which makes the bullying a more pivotal point of the story, but also makes other story lines weightless (for example, the neighbor who got bitten by Abby, is quite an unnecessary part in this remake, while in the original movie, we get to know the neighborhood a lot better). Also, the bound between Abby and her "feeder" is much more in focus, which is a good thing, but leads to some gimmicky (though well made) scenes, which distracts from the story.

Another difference is that this version shoves everything in your face. It takes place in the 80's, so they go to an arcade, listen to 80's music all the time, and such. It's a coming of age movie, so Owen spies on the couple next door, and watches people kissing at the store. It's a horror movie, so turning into a vampire results in some over-the-top effects, and we get to see a lot of blood everywhere. The same goes to the main dilemma of the story, which in the Swedish version came together in the head of the viewer, but here, it is shown in the form of a photograph.

But the biggest problem I had with this version is on casting choice. Namingly: Chloe Moretz. Owen and Oskar are almost entirely the same, but the character of Abby and Ely couldn't be more different. Don't get me wrong, I really like Ms Moretz (she was probably the best thing about 'Kick Ass' in the first place), but this is really not her role, in my opinion. While Eli at least seemed to be innocent, and a victim of her nature (again, what goes on behind that doe-eyed face is entirely up to the viewer in the original), Abby is openly manipulative, aggressive, and very intimidating. I think I can see what they were going for with this change, but unfortunately, this kills the chemistry between them. Moretz, though a year younger than Smit-McPhee, seems way older and stronger than him, making this 'romance' unlikely, and unpleasant to see.

In the end, this version might be more focused on them, and their fate, eliminating other plot lines, but their relationship is just not as subtle, as it was in the Swedish film, making this remake just a tiny bit more weightless than the original.

Still, highly recommended. I agree, that the story is good enough to deserve a worldwide recognition, and for those of you who have problems reading subtitles, this is a must see.

Karateguard was intended to be a comeback-short by the original creators of Tom and Jerry, namely Joseph Barbera, and William Hanna. It was written and directed by Joe Barbera himself (Since Mr Hanna passed away in 2001), with the help by Spike Brandt. Back to the old formula! Sounds great, doesn't it? Unfortunately, this cartoon just doesn't live up to the legacy of the original MGM theatrical series, made by Hanna-Barbera.

It's not a terribly bad film on it's own, it's just uninspired, unoriginal, surprisingly unfunny, and incoherent, compared to to the old series. However, the comparsion is inevitable, since it's been directed by one of the original creators, who's already proved his genius in animation. But not this time.

The story starts with Jerry, practicing Karate. Why? we don't know. There's not much build-up. Since it doesn't work out against tom, the spirit of his old master appears (who?), and gives him a magic gong, which summons a huge samurai dog. Pretty much the same stuff, as "The bodyguard", or "Fit to be tied". Only this way, there's no emotional connection between Jerry and his guard. He's stiff and distant, which is kind of funny, due to it's animation, but not very likable or interesting. There's also a segment, where they go into a toystore, and fly some toy-planes... Why not use only one or another? We've already seen whole episodes built up on each concept, and they worked out wonderfully.

But that's only one of the problems. The whole film has that very weird kind of pacing that many early 90's series had. It's fluid, it's followable, but has a few bumps, which ruin the rhythm (this has to be credited to Brandt). The problem with this, that it makes the jokes less funny. The timing is just not right with most of them. And even the jokes aren't that creative. There are just so many ways that dog could beat up Tom, and we only get a handful of them.

The colors are bizarre, again, they resemble something from the 90's, which is a huge step back, compared to the cozy, tasteful and elegant colors of the 40's and 50's. Same goes to the character design.

Camera movement seems to be senseless, and thoughtless sometimes. Where it doesn't wave to move, it shouldn't.

The music is okay, but still doesn't quite match up with the originals. All in all, a huge disappointment. Too bad, this was Joe Barberas swansong. It should've been spectacular, but instead it's unbearably mediocre and underwhelming.

First of all, I'd like to point out, that I respect the will in the filmmakers, to even bother to do anything, when seemingly they have had to work with the lowest production values possible.

And I mean "Brazilian TV-soap" level. It looks like they tried to make something decent and serious, but with this kind of equipment, it's hard to do better.

And with this kind of source material, it's almost impossible. See, the string of short stories take place on the vast Hungarian Puszta, where we follow the heroic struggles of the honest, hardworking and simple folks, who lived there, about 150 years ago.

In case you're not Hungarian, you probably wont understand what's wrong with this. See, it's like the French had made a low budget movie about their famous revolution, in which they would't say anything particularly new, but would present it in the most clichéd and simple way possible. "The poor city folks defeat the evil king". Try presenting this synopsis with a straight face.

The Hungarian equivalent for this, has actually made it to the TV screen recently, and it's called "A hortobágy legendája".

The actors try very hard to seem convincing, but the harder they try, the worse they look in this low-budget uber-patriotic kitch-fest.

Okay, maybe I went a bit over the top. It's not THAT bad of a straight-to-TV film, but it's just way too cheap to be taken seriously, yet, it still acts way more serious then it should

This film is short enough to be painless to sit through, but eventful enough to make it memorable. Basically the whole movie takes place in a cafeteria, where we get to take a peek into the personal life of all the customers, from the way they interact (or not) with each other.

The waiter, however, seems to obtain the knowledge of a magical desert (thus the title), with which he can change the mind of all others, and change the upcoming events drastically. This, by the way shouldn't be taken by word, it's not entirely clear how this works, but it does.

Not a very complicated film, but heartwarming, fun, and a little bizarre. If the acing, and strange twists of events doesn't bring a smile on your face, the closing musical number surely will.

(on a side-note, this film was shown before screenings of Triplets du Belleville, I guess due to it's tongue in cheek, satiric attitude)

Alright, about my rating first: I realize that this movie is not 10/10 quality, for it is a good one, but we have all seen better. However, in it's own category, it shows some qualities, that are rarely seen at cinema.

Namely: Well done sex scenes.

People, seriously, why is it so hard to make them? In most movies you see, they're either toned down and flat, or over the top and out of place. This one's on the other way taking it to the extreme. The whole film is about two young people on a one night stand in a motel room. There are no other actors, and no other set. Just these two, who came to have sex. And to have it as many times as possible. The night is long, and they already paid for the room, so it's perfectly understandable.

The story is about the two getting closer and closer, until their relationship turns from 'total strangers' to 'uncomfortably close, for a one night affair'. And that's another interesting thing about this one. I bet everyone of you has memories of sitting through a movie with a larger audience, coming across an unexpected, kinkier scene, which makes all of you feel embarrassed. Well, this movie doesn't screw around, that's for sure, and maybe because you know what to expect, and because of this film is well written and executed, you'll never once feel that cringe. As a matter of fact, the dialog parts may be much more tense, and uncomfortable. Why? Because a one night affair is not about talking. One might bump into things he or she doesn't want to get involved, or let the other get involved in.

Let's get back to the sex. I really didn't count it, but they're having sex about five times throughout the movie! It's quite a big number for a 85 minutes movie, which tries to tell story actually. But all of them work just fine. It's due to the cast of course, both the actors come off as really likable, good looking, young and fresh, and a strange kind of chemistry is present. As they getting to know each other, slowly, their relationship changes. And here comes another reason why these scenes work so well: good timing and direction. See, it's not just a movie, where these two screw five times and then they talk. The sex scenes are fully integrated into the plot, the have reason to be where they are, and they're executed and played out in a manner that reflects to the actual mood, events and dialog. It means we get about five completely different sex scenes in one movie, on about every significant point of the plot, where they are more than needed.

Deepest regards to the director, for this is truly an accomplishment, not too many could've pulled off.

Contemporary french horror seems to work like this: let's rip off some already overused American horror-cliché, add some twist, some surreal, and interesting details, and make the whole this violent as hell.

The story basically about a girl who accidentally gets captured by a secret society, which tortures people. Pretty much like Hostel, yes.

So what about the twists? There are some, indeed. This secret society has a strict reason behind it's activity, and it's not about just feeding the perverted senses of the sadist members. I wont tell you that reason, but is shakes up the plot a bit, which is unfortunately still paper-thin. The characters are flat (though the casting is great. The child actors really resemble the adults who they supposed to grow up to be), the story insists, that there is some kind of character-development (and spirituality), but i really don't feel it. the whole "endgame", if i may call it that way, is a bit rushed, i just doesn't seem very believable. And since this film is not a B-movie (it is indeed very well made), and we're not in the 80's anymore, I'd like to see a bit more over-thought details in the story also. The whole movie is VERY serious from beginning to end, and this requires a more coherent, and immersing plot.

What's with the original details? All the little things that makes this movie worthwhile. I like the look of the torture chamber. It's not dirty, rusty, or even old (the stereotypical look you got familiar with from all the classic horror movies or even music videos). It's high-tech, and clean. It's makes much more sense. If anyone would decide to build one, i assume he'd take time and effort to make it convenient to use. I already mentioned the casting, it's just great. Most of the effects are very well executed, so you can see everything in their gory details (there are some anatomic errors, but i guess most people wouldn't even realize them).

And the violence? Whew... This movie is brutal. Over the top brutal. As in most french horrors nowadays, the violence comes from the realistic and serious approach. The gore never gets cartoony, or comic. Even when there's not that much blood, it's just so mean spirited... Others pointed out, that the movie suffers from something which i'd like to call a "Passion of the Christ - symptom" it is just so insanely violent, it makes you numb after awhile. Maybe, but i didn't feel that. I think the movie makers were smarter in this one, and they always managed to top each scene with an even more repulsive one. The earlier mentioned endgame is a strange exclusion, that part (though not very long), makes the movie sit down a little.

All in all, Martyrs a good horror movie, even in the classic horror way, it's very tense and it often made me jump. The gore is very strong also, so gore-hounds should also be pleased by it. Just keep in mind, that it's not that kind of film you'd like to see in the middle of a fun, horror marathon. It's dark, it's serious, and very sad. Thanks for reading.

I can't really decide if this is brilliant movie or not. I got quite attached to it, so i just cannot be objective enough. And if I'd have seen this one at the proper age, I swear, I would've fallen in love with it.

Because however disturbing this movie might seem at first, it is a movie for the youth. I would recommend it to people around 13. Seriously. At that age kids wouldn't get really freaked out on anything, so i can't imagine someone would find this movie truly disturbing. Parents, stop being overprotective. I makes you look really stupid.

It may seem a violent, horrifying film on the surface (it has just enough gore to keep everyone entertained), but really it is just a movie about two 12 year old kids. One of them a vampire, and even has some more... complications, but that's really just a different WAY, to tell the same story over again.

Let the right one in is a simple, but subtle movie. The characters, the plot, none of those things are overtly complicated in this one, but it changes enough things to keep it fresh, and exciting. Once the film starts, and sets the mood, you'll know exactly what to expect... Or as you would think. The last half hour of the movie has some pretty nasty surprises and the ending is way more tragic if you start to think about it, but they all blend into the rhythm of it so well, you wont feel that bad about them (you may cringe however... There are some things you wouldn't be prepared for sure!). So, as I said, on the surface, this is not a very deep, or controversial movie. Or is it?. It seems to be an entertaining and touching youth-film, about a young boy and a... erm... "girl"...

The best thing about this movie however is the chemistry between the two protagonists. We see this relationship mainly from Oskar's point of view, and through his 12 years old eyes, this seems to work just fine! There is a certain innocence about them, as they slowly get closer to each other, which makes the outcome of the movie even more baffling. It's up to you, the viewer to draw the consequences, and even though everything you've seen between the two seemed sweet and honest, their fate is more likely sealed to lead to a tragic end. Does Eli know this? Does she think about it, which makes her a manipulative monster or she isn't even aware of her destructive nature which makes her also a victim, but even more dangerous? It's all up to you to decide.

So if you, like me had way more than enough of kidsploitation nowadays (seriously, whats the reason why every movie-maker thinks that from the age of about 12, kids only obsession would be having sex with everything that moves???), just pop in this obscure "kids movie", and enjoy! And be hasty because the American remake (yuck!) is on the way, and without the courage and charm of the original (and we can be totally sure, that it'll gonna lack these two things) that movie's gonna blow... So sad.

I see that only people from India has reviewed this movie yet, and generally, they all liked it. However, I am not from India, and I didn't like it much.

I don't know if my opinion only a matter of cultural difference, or is there something beyond that, but i assume it's the later.

When I saw it at the Animaton festival at Annecy, there were a tremendous hype around it. There was even a kind of wager about it. It seemed as the movie makers were really prod about their work, and wanted us to see them as the pioneers on Indian cartooning, which has (thanks to them) became a cultural force to reckon with...

On the other hand, one of my friend told me, that this movie is beyond horrible, and I will leave the screening before the the film reaches it's half.

...

Well, since I trust my friend more, than strangers at wagers, I had really bad expectations when I actually decided to watch this movie. ..but it wasn't all that bad! I wouldn't call it good, but I'v seen much worse! Unfortunately still, this movie is pretty bad, somewhat beyond mediocre. Don't forget that I'm talking from an European point of view, so there might be some cultural references I just didn't get. But there ARE some things you can measure to international values. I'm only gonna talk about those things.

What did I expect when I went to the screening? A lush, exotic looking film, with a storyline that might make sense, but I surely wont understand due to major cultural differences. What did I get? A film that looks like crap, with an understandable plot which however doesn't make any sense.

Really this film looks as it has been designed and animated by Jetix channel animators. And if you know Jetix, you know it has pretty low standards. This is just inexcusable in a full feature movie. The 2d and 3d parts doesn't blend well, the editing is boring and uninspired. That's especially true for the action sequences. I mean, come on!!! A matrix spoof in 2007 ?! And a so badly executed one! The character designs could also be better, they're generic, boring, and looks as if they were made for separate movies.

The story consists from way too much story lines and characters, and none of them has enough time to develop properly. There is a little boy, who's getting his ass kicked by bullies, there is Hanuman, a monkey-looking god, who transforms into a little boy, to help out the earlier little boy, and later on they discover some mafia activity, and there is a war going on between heaven and hell, and there is some sort of a natural disaster at the end, due to pollution. Again, less would be much more. And all these lines trigger some totally unimportant characters with needless roles (for example, Ghandi makes a really out of place cameo. That's another problem, none of the puns and spoofs blend into the story well enough. At most of the jokes, I could almost feel the director nudging my side and winking at me saying: "hehe, good one! get it?") The story is followable, but falls apart due to the lack of a proper editor and scriptwriter, who should've CUT the movie heavily. If they'd have cut the majority of spoofs and at least two of the plot lines (or add two more to make it even wackier), this would be a really good family movie.

I still say, there might be vast amounts of cultural reference I missed out, since I don't live in India. But that's exactly the point! I saw this movie in France, at an international animation festival! The movie makers seemed WAY too overconfident about the international release of their work. It falls short on international expectation. This is just not enough to make us notice Indian animation. It's not a bad start (way better than for example " a Fox's Tale " which were also made to international release, but flopped everywhere, with a good reason), and I'm really looking forward to upcoming Indian animated movies, but it's gonna be a long, and hard road until Indian animation reaches the level of international recognition.

'Freddie as FRO7' is really an enjoyable little film. It might be a bit chaotic, and even weird, it has its very own, very different kind of charm. What's that you're saying? That this movie is a stinking bowl of manure? Wait just a second, and answer me this:

WHICH VERSION ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

This is a vital question in this case, because if you're talking about the USA version, i must point out, that I'm talking about the original version. And both of us are totally right about each opinion.

With this unfortunate little movie, American editors have gone way too far. While at some points I understand the concept behind their motive to chop this poor cartoon into shreds, but at many times, there doesn't seem be any kind of concept to talk about.

For example, I can see why they cut the two jokes about Daffers' (a female secret agent) breasts. One of the jokes consisted of the main role gazing at her boobs while taking a comment about them, in the other one however she shows them off to Freddie (not to the audience). I was around nine, when I first saw this movie, and found the first joke funny, and the second one quite weird. But none of them offensive. Men are attracted to boobs. I don't have any problem with that, neither did back then. But okay, it's not children's material, so I can accept that it's been cut. Next thing: dancing soldiers. The problem with these evil minions lies in their appearance. They do look a bit like Nazis, and some of them wear KKK uniforms. As a nine year old kid, I knew quite a few things about WWII, but I knew how Nazis looked like, and I already knew many things to hate them for. So evil soldiers portrayed as Nazi look-alikes felt appropriate. But maybe i only knew these things because I'm European... but wait! I even understood the KKK references! Still, I may understand why the cut HALF of the song featuring these guys. At this point however, those enthusiastic US editors really got themselves into editing! Geesh, what to cut next? What to cut next? And there goes the fight scene at the end. I don't get it. It's not that they cut out the more violent parts. They've just erased half of it with no reason! Why? Were they short on celluloid? Anyway, this is a painful cut. It makes the ending totally anti-climatic, and makes the rest of the fight-scene entirely pointless.

But why stop here? Let's trash out a whole plot line! Why? Seriously, WHY? You see, there is this guy at the yard who's always turning his eyes, snickering in a very slimy manner, and so on. He is just the evil slime-ball stereotype. In the original version he turns out to be a spy for the evil ones, and gets arrested at the end. In the US version, he doesn't turn out to be a spy, and doesn't get arrested. He just does his evil looks, eye-turnings, and snickering, and thats it. WHY???? Now he's a character that's not just totally useless, but also clearly insane! What was the point?!

That's nice, the movie is in ruins now. But oh, we aren't finished yet! The original version starts off with Freddie cruising through France in his weird car, arrives at his apartment, starts feeding the fish, which gives him a flashback about a pond in France, where he spent his childhood. This neat touch gives the movie a needed framing. In the US version, the film starts with random medieval castle-parts. I really got confused at first, and thought the DVD might have the wrong film on it. Again, this edit makes absolutely no sense.

No, that's not all, really that's only the tip of the crap-berg, but I think you got the idea.

For the original version the score would be 7/10, While the American version barely lives up for a mere 3/10.

Take my advice: If you really want to see this, DO NOT BUY THE US VERSION, which appears to be the only version for DVD. You better off with buying a VHS player and a copy of the original on tape.

Really not much more left to mock about this title, but because it's a fine tutorial how NOT to make a film (or anything else!), I think, I should gather the scraps and flush them too down the toilet.

I really tried to watch this from beginning to end. I tried hard, but I failed. From the first time I saw the trailer of this disaster, I was sure, I really gonna enjoy watching it while simultaneously beating its every aspect... But it's just too much. It's not possible to sit through this movie.

The movie begins with a bunch of ugly bunnies jumping through a horribly rendered forest. No anti-aliasing can be seen, nor motion blur, or anything. My eyes begun to hurt. They begin to whine, which is annoying, and you can see the credits nailed onto the trees, which looks like manure, and then a truck comes. Or goes. It's moving, that's for sure, but one couldn't tell where it goes, because the storyboard artist was a dead skunk. So this truck comes, and almost hits the bunnies, but i really don't know how the hell they saw it coming, and they jump down the road and run into the forest. The virtual cameramen work already made me nauseous, but this is the point where someone shoots his balls off with a salt-gun. The picture starts to move rapidly to totally random directions and I begin to feel sick. They bump into another bunny, which at least stops the seizure of the cinematographer, but then, this butt-ugly, and badly rendered crow starts to do his rap... That's quite bad already, but I cant even make a word out of it!!! It supposed to be a children's movie! In the forest our eyes must deal with the horrible high contrast shadows of the branches, which makes the characters blend into the similarly messy background... If something looks quite okay, you can be sure its a stock object. And you already witnessed a lot of free stock sounds too! And now we are at the fifth minute of this "experience"... I couldn't ever watch through 00:20:00.

Some people compare the look of this movie to mid 90's video game intros. Now that's just a misunderstanding. Pre-rendered (and even in-game) movies on those consoles has been based on real movie clichés, therefore all our perceptions of movies met, and we enjoyed them even despite the primitive technology they used to make them. People who made Kis Vuk are clearly NOT professional filmmakers. Not one of them ever worked on a film (being credited doesn't mean a thing). And even worse: they don't have a clue about how a movie works!!! Even if you watch the original Star-Wars trilogy just once, and you never watch any other movie in your whole life, you already have far more information about film-making, than to get a way with a mess like Kis Vuk!

Before someone gets the idea, that I'm being too harsh, I must tell, that nothing can prepare you for this. Even I was surprised, despite I'm one true b-movie fan! It's really that incredibly bad! Final word: if you want to find out all things that could go wrong while making a movie, witness this disaster. Really enlightening.

Update: I was being forced to sit this through recently, so now I've seen the whole movie from the first frame to the very last of the credits. And it always managed to amaze me. Once I got used to all those problems listed above, and managed to look below the surface which as I said is hideous, all i saw was a pretty awful children's movie, with a plot that makes no sense... I'm saying "pretty awful", and not the "stinkiest pile of manure"!

I begun to feel quite ashamed for being that harsh earlier... "you know it is really bad, but hey, I've seen worse..." But every time I started to think like that, something horrible happened on my screen which proved that this movie deserves the beating it got. And the worst part is this: despite the movies concept to stun me with its horrendousness whenever I start to accept it, it was incredibly boring (and it's less than 90 minutes long!)!

The credits are a treat. They knew this movie's gonna suck, and people gonna yell at the screen: "What the hell did you do during the production you lazy morons?!?!?!". So beside the scrolling list of names, we get a little "making-of" montage on the other half of the frame. "See? We worked hard! You can't say we didn't! We have video evidence!" I'm just speechless. And not because I'm convinced. And for now, let me part with the last few sentences I heard at the end of the credits: -Little Vuk is frightening! Everyone is afraid of Little Vuk!

In 2004, there was a movie, called "Supersize me". It came out right at the same year as (you can call it famous or infamous) Fahrenheit 9/11. Supersize me was unmistakeably inspired by Moores style of film-making, and it proved it's statement much better.

The statement: In McDonalds, the super-size menu is so enormous, that if you eat all of it, you're gonna get fat.

Simple, isn't it? Maybe a little too simple for my taste. I mean we all at least suspect, that some weird crap is going on with fast food... You can here rumors, that they make it out of rat-meat, plastic-bags, etc... So, when Linklaters movie, Fast food nation came out in 2006, and promised to reveal all these filthy mysteries, I became quite excited.

I was expecting some really twisted, thought provoking movie, which wrenches my guts so much, I'd never even think of eating fast food again. And what DID we got? A film with all these rumors about Fast Food. Okay, We were expecting that, but really is that all? According to this film, factories, are not very clean, workers aren't very well trained, restaurant workers are assholes, corps are evil, and there's manure in the meat.

That doesn't sound very thought-provoking. Really that's all? Well yes. oh... And Mexican immigrants are treated worse than crap. Wow.

And the most shocking fact is: We know all that. This fictional movie (based on a book, which I haven't read, but I'm not interested in anymore) tells you exactly what you already thought was true.

But the worst thing about it is the way it tells all these stuff. Imagine this: We'd like to make a movie about... let's see: Famine in Africa. We're gonna entitle it "No food nation". In the story, random people will meet, one would say, that the famine is horrible, and something should be done, while the other wouldn't care because he's a jerk. And we should have some very thin natives too, and some should die at the end. And we should cut back sometimes to see fat, white politicians. That'd be the story. And let's hire some random Hollywood superstars, to show off their faces in cameos.

Honestly, would you like to watch this movie? Nope, I don't think so. It'd be a disaster, and an insult for YOU, the viewer. The only people who could learn anything new from this story, would be elementary school first graders.

So, here we got the most clichéd story about fast food imaginable, premised, as some groundbreaking work. And we have some clichéd characters too! Fast food corp boss (naughty) His employee, who has a mission to find out how did the poo get into the meat (nice), Girl, who works at a fast food diner, but wants to go to college, then quits her job, because she hates this evil corporation (nice), her colleague who spits in the burgers,

(naughty) Farmer, who had his whole farm screwed because of fast food (nice), College dude+dudette Who don't like fast-food, but doesn't actually do anything about it (naughty, but later nice), Rebel college dude, with long hair (nice), Poor Mexican immigrant girl, treated like crap (nice), Her evil boss, who treats her like crap (naughty). So basically, it's good versus evil, but without the Death star and light-sword fights, it isn't very convincing.

And there's Bruce Willis.

Of course his role is as banal, as it gets, but he is a great actor, and a very likable person. So, when he's trying to play some redneck idiot, who is very cynical, and doesn't gives a dime about whether there is crap in the beef, or not, you realize that there's something about this character, which doesn't make you sick immediately! Wait, shouldn't he play a naughty character? Like the boss the the factory? Whoa! I'm so confused! I've already got used to all this thin, paper cut-out figurines, I didn't expect a character which almost comes close to be almost not that much fake. And we just should NOT talk about A. L. No. Not a word.

Lastly: about the shock factor. It's in another movie. They tried quite hard, so now we finally know: Being an undereducated, Mexican immigrant sucks, and being a dead cow sucks even more... Watching this movie sucks the most. If you thought the story was lame and banal, wait till you get to the slaughterhouse scene... OH MY GOD!!!! They're... GOD... They're BUTCHERING COWS!!!! I can't believe my eyes! And there's blood! Blood everywhere! And the cows are dying! And they're turning them into... BEEF! Did you know THAT???!!!!!

Seriously did they want to shock me with THAT? I DO eat meat. I DO know where it comes from. My grandparents lived out in the country, and they had a bunch of animals, like chicken and some pigs. I know precisely how they cut up each of them, and it was only shocking the very first time I saw it. And when I see a movie, which tries to taze me in a way this cheap, I feel quite mad. And this movie does it so bad, even Cannibal Holocaust had more effective animal slaughters, and that wasn't by any mean a "serious" film like this. That was just a Jungle adventure/horror flick!!!

I give this film a 3, because I really like Bruce Willis, and I had a few laughs at some scenes.

If you eat meat, You wont be convinced not to. If you are a vegetarian, you wouldn't like to watch cows being slaughtered, so you shouldn't watch this movie either. Anyway, I would not recommend this filmed fable to anybody above the age of seven... But would you recommend dead cows to a little kid?

Not at all. They deserve better.

First I have to tell you that you shouldn't believe in extreme criticism (good or bad) about this movie. It's simply not as good or bad. Just a quite entertaining afternoon cinema experience.

The main problem with this film, that beyond everything, it wants to be a sequel. Not a standalone movie, but just a sequel. I find pretty unfortunate to see ALL the characters from the first movie, for that means, We have to compare the two to each other, and if one hasn't seen the prequel, the legendary "Cat City", he/she wont understand a word.

Anyway, the story goes like this: Stanley, the journalist mouse takes a journey into the deepest jungles of Pafrika, to find professor Livingstone. He finds the professor, and takes his way back (a really funny part of the movie), but gets captured by savage cats! If you've seen Cat City, you know, that all cats are brainwashed, and under mouse-control. If you haven't, Stanley's gonna tell you. The savage cats then summon Moloch, a cat-demon from cat-hell, who leads their cat uprising against the mice. Moloch and the savages wake the cat population from their former slumber, and of course, war breaks out. Stanley, and his new jungle-friend Torzon rushes back to Cin City, to alert the Intermouse and Grabowsky again. Grabowsky (former super agent from the first movie, now the owner of a gigantic spinach-farm), knows that the only way to stop the cats from revolting (and killing everyone), is to start up the good old "Cat-Catcher" again...

This movie is just as violent and crazy most times, as the first one, but the jokes which this behavior brings, are just out of the movie. You'll never get immersed. Although it's quite entertaining at some parts, you'll always be reminded, that you're just watching a movie. Most likely from one of the main characters. This way, it all gets really weightless, and you find yourself not caring about the characters, and forgetting all the good jokes, and quotes (wich is a pity, because it has many).

And it's not just the story that falls apart. Another thing that annoyed me much, is the unaware way it's mixing all styles of cartoons. For example: Moloch looks like a Disney character, and it has computer animation, half of the character looks exactly like they did in Cat city, half of them look much more simple, and cartoonish. The same thing can be discovered in animation, for all characters move VERY differently, and sometimes they even switch the technique as the film advances. And again, the 3d installments are a bit confusing too. Sometimes, they look gorgeous, and sometimes... well they don't. It really looks strange, and not very sophisticated.

That is a major pain about this film. I think If they'd have one more year to work on it, and think everything over again, it could be a great movie. I hope they make a double DVD pack from this and Cat City and this time they REALLY fix the sound and the picture digitally.

"I am Dina" tells us a romantic story, which takes place in the romantic era of Europe.

When I'm saying romantic, I think of the the original meaning of the word, which means something like: emotions at a cosmic scale and importance.

Dina is a joyful child, until a truly unfortunate accident, which scars her soul for eternity, and makes her grow up to be a very troubled woman. On the other hand, she is beautiful, and witty, so men find her very attracting. Now she has to choose herself a man, and a life.

I've always been in trouble with the typical romantic setting (and this film is a fine example for that), for mostly it makes the most illogical (yet, stereotypical) plots, and the best acting performances come together in a film.

And that's the exact same case here. Characters in this movie are endlessly ruining each others life, just because they feel like it. They never think. Never learn. They're all passionate, stubborn, selfish, arrogant people, with a high emotional level, and absolute no sense of reality. And that's what it makes all performances very strong, yet very melodramatic. And since it's a pretty long movie, all this kind of approach, and all the suffering gets a bit too much, too overreacted, and too monotone as the movie flows, and you find yourself waiting for the end. Te tension is always in the air, but it makes you numb after awhile.

But technically, this film is flawless. That's the way it should go. Only a bit shorter maybe.

(I didn't have any problems with the accents of various actors. And since American dubbing voices for foreign movies mostly turn out to be failures, I think this is the best way they could execute this film)

When I saw the very first trailer, I was already sure that this film wasn't going to be one of my all time favorites. I went into the movie with rather low expectations, but still i came out totally disappointed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a raging fan of the original books, to be honest I've never read one... I don't even who who the hell this Lemony Snicket is (and after watching this movie, i don't even care)!

So, I'm not saying that it is a bad adaptation, I'm saying it is a BAD FILM.

Right after the film boosts off, we can hear the gentle voice of Jude Law whining annoyingly about some kids, we don't even know yet. You better get used to this whining, because mostly that is gonna be what you hear during the rest of the movie. Then we finally meet those kids. Two little boys, a bit elder sister, with their mommy and daddy. Mom and dad dies right away, so the kids dig up their relatives all around the world, and ask them, to take care of them children. All of them answer "Yes! Gladly!", but the evil Count Olaf kills them one by one, to get his hands on the kids' legacy. Just when this monotonous method gets very tedious, the movie ends, and you can watch some very well made cartoon end credits (surely they wanted to make up for the rest of the movie).

What the hell was this all about??? Who the hell were those kids, and why should we, or that Lemony Sicket guy care about them? And who the hell is Lemony Snicket, and why is it necessary for him to whine during the whole movie? Why should I sit through a movie, which has NO ENDING?

This movie is a miserable attempt to ride the waves of the adaptation-frenzy.

That's it. And the most unfortunate event about this movie, is that it succeeded somehow. I could tolerate all the stupidity, and dumbness in the movie versions of Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter, but in this case they failed to put together a standalone movie.

Even more unfortunate, that some of the staff really tried. Techincally, the film looks marvelous. The costumes, the scenery, the colors, they all come together really well, and we can see the hard work in it (I don't understand though, why a story with basically NO wondrous elements should get a so out-of-this-world scenery). I feel pity for this group of the filmmakers, for having to take part in a mess like this. They deserve better. Better than the director, the writer, and the main actor in this movie. Yes, I'm talking about Jim Carrey.

I can't see why most people melts down from the performance he does here. It's hysterical. Count Olaf in Carrey's role is a raging idiot, with no real character, and a stupid fake beard.

As far as I know, there's no attempt to make a sequel, so this movie remains a torso forever. A money-monging pile of crap. But if a sequel comes around soon, I'm sure it wouldn't be more either than an attempt to feed some fat producer.

Though this movie is still watchable, it doesn't even come near the brilliance of the original. For starters: 1981 was a defining year in french popular-cinema. That was the year when "Le Professionnel" and "La Chévre" was released. "Pure Luck" is an American remake of the second one, made ten years later. I sometimes really hate way American film-making works: when they got so tired of their own clichés, they do a remake of a foreign film, which has foreign clichés. That was the element that made these two french movies great. European clichés. When they made those movies, they were totally aware, that they are only using the old recipes, which already worked well. The french humor in La Chévre is hilarious, and goofy. The scenery gives you a nostalgic feel, and the actors are just plain brilliant. Never over-acting, just plain funny. The strong, and aggressive Depardieu, and the always unlucky Richard made an unforgettable duo. NOW this movie... It doesn't have ANY of the elements listed above. Danny Glover and Martin Short are raging idiots, screaming through cities and jungles, acting so bad, it makes even your average stand up comedy actor look pretty sharp. The story is the same, almost word-by-word, yet the jokes don't work. Okay, I am a bit too hard on this one, but the original La Chévre was a generational masterpiece. And this is not. Just an average American early nineties comedy, with not too many things to remember for. Not that bad, but hey, if you take time to dig up this one, search for the original instead!!!

Mr T. really wants to help! He really does! Does he succeed? Well... urm.. not really, but as you could've seen in his TV show "I pity the fool", his energetic character struck like lightning into the pitiful situations where the families in that show sank into a long time ago. But where should the education start? Of course at childhood, ya foo'! "Be somebody..." was aimed at children in the 80's. On this tape Mr T shares us his experiences, and ideas, how to become somebody. For he is the one to ask!!! He's really done it! The film goes on, and Mr T. is getting more and more embarrassing, and I really don't know if it is due to the 80's era, or his very own personality. Honestly, this film, is pretty horrendous. Very cheap, very silly, and dated. ...But you still gotta love it! You gotta LOVE Mr T. ! He's so overwhelmingly serious at "educating" those children, you wont doubt it for a minute, that he does it totally honestly.

So, despite it's a B video, give Mr T. a chance, I'm sure you'll like it. And if not, you still gonna crap yourself from laughter:)

This film is an all time classic. Everyone's seen it, so I wont bother with the plot. (If you haven't, you lack the very basics!!!) It's light as a feather, yet professionally crafted. The cast is excellent: Woody Harelson and Wesley Snipes are always a winner duo, but the star of the movie is doubtlessly no other than Goldie Hawn. I don't know any other actresses, who could be this funny, lovely and sweet through a whole movie. And It's the young Goldie Hawn you'll watch during the playtime, so she has an additional amount of cuteness enforcing her personal sexual charisma. AND there is a scene where she's totally naked. It has nothing to do with the plot, it only meant for our pleasure. This move represents the happiest segment of the 80's:)

I'm pretty sure that the makers of this film has seen the legendary 'Mondo Cane' at least once. And they liked it much! Why shouldn't they? Mondo Cane was the most controversial mockumentary of its time, and as a film, it had some real values, which still makes it remarkable. On the other hand, The staff behind 'Faces of death' didn't realize any of them. They just wanted to make their own version, built around one theme: DEATH. With both movies, we travel around the world, collecting scenes, for our theme. The only thing this one surpasses Mondo Cane is the consistence to it's theme. Mondo Cane didn't really had one. It just wanted to show, that people are total idiots, wherever you go on the globe. Contrarily, examining death could be a base to a very strong documentary theme. I mean everyone is interested in death, and this film promises us to fulfill our thirst for knowledge. Unfortunetley, it doesn't tell you anything new, if you're over 14 (or 12). All you can see is random death-scenes linked together with narration by the dumbest lobotomist ever (with a beautiful tone of voice). I Can't imagine that people back than could take this seriously. And I can't decide if the FILM takes itself seriously or not! That's the point I need to point out another similarity with Mondo Cane: the music. At some of the most "disturbing" scenes, you could hear a cheerful score of dixieland or something like it. At Mondo cane, it worked. Here, it feels totally inappropriate. Why, you ask? Well, Mondo Cane was a good movie. It has many scenes, that were so bizarre, it made you laugh. It told a story about dumbness around the world, with a HUGE dose of irony and sarcasm. The narration was cynical, and funny, and the music was awfully sentimental, but on a purpose. That film laughed even on itself. It was a sensationalist crap-pile, and they knew that while they were making it. And they've made it VERY well! Faces of Death is a different kind of cake. The narrator is philosophizing around death in the most redneck way ("... car accidents happen everyday. When I look at this horribly shattered body, it makes me change my view of life and death..." Congrats sherlock!), without a sense of it's own stupidity. It doesn't tries to be funny. It struggles to be clever, emotional, and strong, but it comes out as plain dumb. Feels like the crew wanted to outdo Mondo Cane's crew by making this film very gross, and disgusting. And this proves, that they really didn't understand anything from the previously noted one. About grossing us out: we might get sick of some stuff we find on the internet, but definitely NOT from this movie. It shows very little, and when it shows more, then most times, it's just make up, and bad special effects. Maybe it shocked the audience back then, but no way, to get anyone sick with this one. Faces of death is an amateurish attempt to make an American style of Mondo Cane, with both real, and obviously fake footages of death scenes, which fails to it's predecessor in every possible way. It even lacks the scene where I bore myself to death on this one.

The main problem with this one, is clearly the script. The story is about two young man (and their aid, a teenage girl), who are living for their passion: their own pirate radio station! What rebels they are! They even set up the whole station in a van, so they couldn't get calibrated by the authority. For they are pirates! They have to be! They do rebellious things, like playing music... and... maybe thats all they do. Sometimes they speak some words, but as good boys, mostly they don't want to disturb us listening to their favorite bands. Well, ONE band: "Jazz+Az".

Jazz+Az was an extremely over-hyped, therefore quite popular Hungarian pop band in those days. They were: László Dés (a jazz saxophonist, and one of the most popular song composers of that time), Péter Geszti (showman, rapper, actor, advertisement manager, and songwriter, head of the lighthearted, yet very big hit, hip-hop band of the early 90's called "Rapülők"), and three choir-girls. Anything but a band, a REAL pirate would listen to. That was the time of rise for many Hungarian alternative music groups, so there's NO WAY, that the heads of a pirate station would listen to Jazz+Az.

In fact, this movie is not much more, than a really long music video for this group. The treatment for this film must've looked like this:

blablalbalblalba, Then Jazz+Az plays a song, blablalbalblalba, ThenJazz+Az plays a song, blablalbalblalba, Then Jazz+Az plays a song, blablalbalblalba, Then Jazz+Az plays a song, blablalbalblalba, Then Jazz+Az plays a song, blablalbalblalba, Then Jazz+Az plays a song, blablalbalblalba. ...

The story itself would be interesting, but it's been really messed up. Many scenes are totally out of place, and the better ones are cut short because we need more time for another Jazz+Az performance. After some time, Pipi (Attila Király) leaves his his good friend to do commercial radio, where he can get get his own show, and play some more tracks of Jazz+Az. What a conflict! Okay, forget the story.

Attila Király's performance is really quite strong, for this VERY bad movie. He really worked with full heart on this one. Other people? Forget them. They do their weakest. They don't even try, and I don't blame them.

If you LOVE Jazz+Az, than grab this one at once, if not, don't bother.

Update: I was just reading back my old comments here on IMDb, and ran into this one... How memorable could a movie be, if in TEN YEARS it has only one comment, which states it's totally forgettable? :)

I wont try to calm myself down, and NOT over-hype this one. I simply cannot say anything bad about this. It's a pity, some people can. Don't believe them. The entertaining quality of this one depends only on YOU!

First of all do you know these two guys? Nick Frost and Simon Pegg? They've done a series called "Spaced", and a movie called "Shaun of the dead". Much more too, of course, but these are the major titles. If you haven't seen any of them, you probably don't know much about their style of comedy, which features satire, irony, and over the top PARODY elements. I really don't know how these guys doing it, but they're a bit like the comedy-duo version of Tarantino himself! I mean the way every single shot made in their films, has so much observation, sense, talent, and cynicism. Even when a character is drinking beer looks like a parody of a film, where someone drinks beer. Every moment has a breathtakingly professional touch, and wit, you probably wont find elsewhere.

Every single frame in Hot Fuzz is a parody. Every one of them. But don't except parody in the way you got used to it. It's nothing like scary movie (no crap/puke jokes. you may call the filmmakers prude, but after you've done that, PLEASE GROW UP!), or the similar turd, you can see, and it even differs from Melk Brooks, and OLD Zucker bros. comedies. The main reason is that every single joke is a coherent part of the well written plot! You'll be afraid to even blink, for one moment is for a hilarious joke, and the following one starts building up a new one. And thats it. Not a single second goes to waste. And like I said, all most them is quite important for this precisely put together parody-film. Even the story might remind you of some of the most classic action-movies.

Nicolas Angel (Simon Pegg) is the most effective policeman in London. Whatever he does, turns out to be immediate success. He's fast, strong, intelligent, strong-willed, obedient. With all these strong points, he brings shame to all other local police officers, so his superiors send him to Sandford. A little village far being the back of god. A place, where "Nothing's going on". The deepest, darkest hell for Nicolas... Fortunately strange accidents are following each other, but officer Angel cannot deal with this mystery on his own. He needs the trust and help of the local law enforcement (whose only duties were eating pudding, and drink stout until this time) to bring down the most crooked conspiracy that can happen in a peaceful village like Sandford!

This story sounds stupid, and it's even more stupid, to see on film:) The other main character is Officer Butterman (Nick Frost), the son of the local chief inspector, and later on, Angels best friend ever. The best thing about the Pegg-Frost duo, is that they incredibly likable. I don't know how good as actors they are, for it was enough to play themselves in every project the made: childhood friends (in hot fuzz, they're childlike:) ), Pegg is the stubborn, yet miserable one, and Frost is the fat, good-for nothing one, teaching Pedd some valuable lessons about the brighter side of life. Alright, this sounds really gay, but it is not:) They are as good to laugh at, as to feel with.

That leads to the only aspect of the film, i think people MAY find unappealing: dryness. Even the most emotional scenes are made with full self-awareness, and a large dose of irony. You'll even laugh harder at this ones.

All-in-all, the funniest, wittiest, most intense, and intelligent comedy nowadays. If you're into action, comedy and parody, and seen at least five dozen movies in those genres, you'll find this movie very good, If not, you might have to see more films.

We all know it, and they surely knew it during the making of this one, that it will be the worst movie ever be made. The story is about two experienced assassins (sure they are. One looks 25 and he's your average metal-fan rocker-guy, the other doesn't look older than 20, and looks like my neighbor), getting a job, where they need to kill a young woman, when she visits her grandpa. Seems like an easy task, ain't it? If only old gramps wouldn't be friggin' leather-face himself!!! Alright, not leather-face, but something like that. The old man likes to chop people up, and keep the parts at his house in the middle of nowhere. From that moment, I cant really tell what the hell is going on... I wouldn't tell you anyway, for it'd be a spoiler:)

The story sucks. But since it's a horror movie, thats okay. This is a no-budget, amateur zombie-romp, so a coherent story would be quite a surprise.

Even more surprising is the amount of just below average-and-badly made special effects and gore props. There are several rooms full of different body parts, drenched in blood. Seems like the effect-guy took his time. If only he'd spent more time with each of the props, they'd surely look better.

I really don't want to mock this movie that much, since I love horror-flicks, and I respect every attempt for making one from scratch. BUT! This movie is so poorly executed, it's almost impossible to sit through although, Its less than an hour long! Every mistake, error possible to make on a film, is present in this one. Everything that could go bad, goes bad. If I'd ever start writing in the goofs section, this film would make at least a thousand lines.

This film is so bad and amateurish, you should watch it at least once:) (even its definitely something the filmmakers have never done before:))

This movie is an Australian musical, and as far as I know, Its meant to be played in cinemas. Although it never rises above a "Hallmark Channel" quality at no point.

The story goes like this: Our hero, Billy is an ordinary guy between 50 and 60. He works at a shop (or wherever he works), and has a daughter. He's divorced, and her daughter hates her, for being a major embarrassment. But billy has a secret talent. He can imitate the voice of Billie Holiday (well, not exactly, but some old woman voice)! On the top of that, he sings quite well, so when people find out his ability, there's no stop till Broadway!

Yes, it is a stupid plot. What else could make a movie good? Breathtaking visuals. Nope, you wont find any here. The music parts look like they're from a music-video from the 80's. What else? Grabbing acts. Well, you might not share my opinion, but I find Max Cullen the most annoying actor, I've ever seen on screen. Imagine this guy. This old and chubby guy. He looks a bit like and old lady too (maybe just because those really big eyes of his)! And he's acting through the whole movie with that "oh, I'm just a miserable little old dick, please shoot me in the head, for I don't have the balls doing it myself!" look of his face. When happy, he looks like a Pedophile on a playground. Really a guy, you just want to ignore. And THEN, he starts singing in a female tone. In the end, the film is painfully kitchy, and it's totally tasteless. One of the most forgettable musicals I ever seen.

It was a looong time ago when I last saw this cartoon. I accidentally switched to the right channel at the right time, I guess... I saw this movie only ONCE, but i still remember it so well. Not the story itself, nor the characters really, but the atmosphere, the meaning, and the power of it.

The story tells Hans Christian Andersen life, all the joys and sorrows of it. Yet it's as surrealistic as it can get. Andersen is haunted by his very own dark spirit, which is represented by a thin, shady figure, called the "long shadow". It follows His owners every step, and leaves him restless. He lives, and actually "dies" with him (the last scenes of the film are quite enigmatic).

This is a story about divided, shattered person. Even though, the characters seem quite normal, the background makes up for it. At night, there's darkness, which makes everything shady and dark, and you don't know which shadow could be THAT one, and the daytime, shadows are just much too sharp (some of these scenes reminded me on the anime: Lain). All in all: not a kids cartoon. Not even for all adults. Its a really sad, surrealistic, slow and combined story (and a truly European one too), and the whole movie looks like it's been filmed in the 80's. But if you're in to these kind of things, and you're interested in a tale, that really holds a grip on you, than give it a try.

Alright! We're talking about high-quality movie-making here! Its experimental way is the films strongest feature. Or its keenness about traditionalism? Its up to you, to decide which pars you like better: the funky, vibrant colors, and wacky-trippy movement, or the heavy use of traditional, middle-European folk ornaments?

The white mare give gives birth to a son once again, who grows to be strong enough, to defeat the evil ones, who keep the three beautiful princess' as captives... and even, to find his long lost, and just as powerful brothers on his journey.

The plot for this one has been mixed together, from folktales all around the globe (but mostly, they're from middle-Europe, and eastern, nomad tribes), which makes the story familiar for almost everyone, from everywhere. It reaches back into our most ancient collective memories, and bring up something, that might even be forgotten.

The new-age look of some aspects of this movie, and the respect for folk traditions, surprisingly makes a totally coherent, and unbelievably powerful whole. Which makes it Marcell Jankovics's best directional work ever. This film earned his righteous place, amongst the "world's best fifty animated-films ever", at Los Angeles' animation Olympic.

Anyone, who likes animation, experimental film-making, or just GOOD MOVIES, simply must see this one. No exceptions!