Reviews

It was Friday night, and I noticed some Christian organization at my college had put up this film in an auditorium. The poster promoting the film said 15 scientists with Phd's in different scientific fields, and some of them allegedly ex-atheists, many new groundbreaking discoveries, will explain to us why Darwin's theory of evolution is falling apart. Big words. I feel a little bit embarrassed for having nothing better to do, but I got curious and thought it could be entertaining.

Of course, its always Christians or other religious groups who argues the theory of evolution, and never anyone else, and this is put together by Christians and for Christians, but okay, lets be fair and give it an open mind. The movie isn't horrible in every way. Production-wise its fine. It has some neat CGI-stuff from inside the cells, which must have cost some money to produce, and lot of alright footage elsewhere too, and it deals with lot of interviews with these 15 mentioned scientists. It attempts to be as scientific as possible. I'll also give them credit for trying to make their arguments clear and tidy. Thats not a given in every creationism documentary.

They have divided the documentary in several parts, dealing with evolution from different scientific fields. Natural selection was the first chapter, genetics was the next, the origin of life next, then cosmology and so on, challenging the present scientific world view from different fields. At the end of each chapter they summarize all the points, which I found commendable. People with the will to challenge the claims and double-check can easily look at their claims.

As for the claims, their overall goal was to make the literal interpretation of the Bible seem plausible, even if the consensus of science today says something else. Parts of it was interesting. Its a bit technical though, and I suspect they tried to make it sound a bit difficult to impress. I doubt many Christians understand what these people are talking about, but I suppose the message was that they're the experts. "You just have to trust these people. Don't they sound smart?"

Now, I am not en expert on DNA, nor cosmology, so I am not sure how to debunk every single claim here. I could however understand what they missed with the natural selection part, because they kept going on about evolution needing "new information" when natural selection just deals with existing information. You don't have to be an expert to understand random mutations is the link they seek. One of the scientists ironically does mention mutations at one brief point, but its like he just brushed it off, no need to go into it.

Anyway, quite a way into the movie I was actually prepared to say they'd done a presentable job at least, and fairly entertaining and fairly informative at times, if a little bit dense with information at times. The only real criticism to this point was that it's very biased. It would have been impressive if they let some scientist with a secular view, the opposite view, deal their arguments back and forth, so the viewer, religious or not, could weigh in which theory seemed more plausible for them. Its possible to claim the film is a bit of a circle-jerk, and that probably is because this documentary is probably pandering to the religious crowd. It's a documentary most likely made to strengthen the belief of the already converted, the slightly doubtful Christian that needs affirmation, and its not meant as something to really challenge the scientific establishment, but still, its seemed sincere so far.

The last one part however was atrocious, I regret to say. To go from a point of view that the creationists were at least somewhat attempting to be scientific, they severely shoot themselves in the foot in the grand finale of the movie. The last part is about Morality and ethics, in relation to Darwin. Oh, my! Many of the same people who went on an on about the science in their field was now starting to talk mindless out of their butts, and its very painful to watch.

If you ever heard a religious fundamentalist talking about secular morality, you know what to expect; Without god you have can't have any foundation for morality, so everything is allowed, and yes, that automatically will lead to murder, rape, Stalin and Hitler. Footage of Hitler and the Nazis was heavily used in this part. They claim Hitler was inspired by evolution, atheism and Darwin, without anything to really back that claim up. Its suddenly like social Darwinism and evolution is basically the same thing. I wonder if they really believe this, or if they are just trying to spread propaganda. It seems like the latter is the case. They should know atheists, agnostics and humanists aren't running around killing and raping everybody, as the statistics for this part of the population for criminality is shown to be lower than for religious people. These people should know moralities are more complex, if they really are PhD's, but still they feel they have right to say that if evolution is seen to be true people will put up holocausts in in every city.

Sadly for them, the last chapter became the films own "achilles heel". Some of these scientists even admits they are scared of the secular scientific world view, because they claim it would lead to new atrocities, and seems to openly admit this affected the way they saw science that supported it too. So there you go! They really believe it because they WANT things to be a certain way(Christian/religious), and not because things seem to really be that way, which is what science is really about. So is in other words they're not really doing real science. Perhaps a more fitting name for the documentary would be Creationisms Achilles Heel.

I liked this movie. I do react to people who say its rubbish and so on, thats quite narrow minded. but its fair to say its not for everybody. Its not meant for everybody either though.

If you can't stand movies that are different, just stay away. But If you have the taste for movies that tries different things, explores a different kind of filmmaking and are a bit more open than the average movie you see, which I do, this is really a movie to check out.

The movies is centered around a neighborhood, and an 11 year old boy who is narrating whats going on to some degree. There's a handful of characters we follow, and what they have in common is that they seem to be outcasts in some kind of way. The neighborhood in their small mindedness judge them, even though they are not really that different.

The film seems documentary-ish in its filming, more observing situations than really trying to tell what is going on. All the characters seems to end up wandering through nature. To me it seemed like the nature is a symbol for what they were going through in life.. They getting stuck in the mud, the father and the baby going into "deep water", and so on.

Its really one of those movies you can end up discussing with a friend for ages, while trying to figure out what the movie really tries to say. That is a good thing, and should be acclaimed.

On the downside? Well, I don't know. Not all the scenes were just as engaging, although I guess the movie kind of tried to portray a pretty boring and judgmental neighborhood.

I give this thumbs up. If you sense this is the kind of movie you'd like, I'd see it. Definitely.

Thats My Bush is first of all a very entertaining show by Parker and Stone, I thought. Its often very very funny, and its quite subversive and crazy. South Park fans would surely get something here.

Another surprise is the production value here. A lot of money must have been put into this, and it shows. A lot of expensive little details. Its not a little show. And Comedy Central is not an extremely rich channel, but they put a lot into this show obviously. In a way I understand that was the death of the show as well though, too costy. It surely could have been done cheaper and went on the will was there.

The critics liked it, and it had its little fanbase, but it failed gaining a big audience. As we know, the show stopped after 8 episodes, which I guess is almost 1 season.

As I really liked the show it has its faults. The problem of the show is kind of that it doesn't know what it wants to be really. Its like it tries to be a sitcom AND a parody of a sitcom at the same time. The actors do a good job, and some of them are well casted, but in my opinion they seem to not always get 100% the bizarre humor they're supposed to present.

I personally think that the show needed some characters that were more down to earth for the show to work. In South Park you have Kyle and Stan, that are kind of a realistic touch in the more looney universe. I think thats kind of what makes South Park work. You need some sane characters that you can relate to in a realistic way, and that makes the insane stuff so much more interesting too because that forces you to take them seriously at some level. If everything is archetypes and stereotypes its difficult to get emotionally included in the show, which really is Thats My Bush biggest problem. Kyle and Stan is characters in South Park that makes sense of the insanity in the show. We have nothing like that here, and this show suffers from it.

Another anchorpoint is Parker and Stones flirting with republicans. Its the only thing about them I don't really get what they're trying to do. Not portraying Bush as nothing else than a dumb Homer Simpsons lovable kind of character IS kind of subversive in a world where a lot of people that can't stand him and think he's the worst president since Nixon, and a parallel comedy world of Letterman and so on that only satirizes his every move... but its difficult to understand if Parker and Stone actually means anything by it. Its like the joke is on us, but somehow it doesn't hit the mark. It seems awkward, because it doesn't remind you of the real Bush at all.

Besides that I actually thought the show was very enjoyable. Some of the jokes in here are hilarious. The pro-life supporter who was a surviving aborted fetus is probably one of my favorite jokes by them in any show. And the show is packed with great material, and is sometimes insanely funny if you use your head a little while watching it.

This oddity is more for South Park and Trey Parker and Matt Stone fans mainly, as I can't see any other ways of stumbling upon it these days. But for that I can say immediately that its definitely worth it!

This is the work of a younger Trey Parker that got the chance to do a pilot for a TV-series, but it failed to bring success. Too bad, as the concept was good and could have turned into something great if it got a chance.

As for the plot: Basically every episode would start with meeting a history-narrator telling us about a historical period back in time, and how it was "really" like, and then we would get to see it played out. With Parker and Stone in main parts.

Its similarity to Monty Python is very notable, as in humor, storytelling and style. Silly and intelligently witty. As it is in Cannibal The Musical too. Obviously inspired. There's only two episodes of Time Warped. The first one is about Moses brother Aaron, who is at a loss why God chose his stupid brother as a messenger and not him. Classicaly funny and taboo-provoking by Parker. But the episode is not without faults. Most of the jokes is well intended, but its often a bit clumsy and the timing of the jokes is sometimes off mark. Still the episode is overall funny and should be very interesting for people who wants to see how Parkers style and humor has developed into the genius innovative humor of South Park .

The next Time Warped episode was supposed to be about the pilgrims, and we see previews from it at the end of the first episode, but it never was completed! Because what happened was that the producers felt Time Warped instead could become a great CHILDREN educational show and sent it over to Fox Kids. Which was a bad sign really.. because Parker and Stones humors strength really lays in its sharpness. A children show would really restrict anything they do... and that was surely what happened.

The next episode was about evolution, and as much as I think the idea of a love story between different pre-human species and as it is an original idea, the episode lacks some of the adult humor that trademark what we love about Parker and Stone. As a children show its fine, but Fox Kids didn't pick it up. And understandably so. The episode is actually fine though in my opinion, but somewhat annoying and lacks the edge.

All in all. Some funny stuff, good concept, but somewhat too flawed too make it. Worthwhile for fans of Parker and Stone.

First: The recent campaigning of this movie is a huge hoax. Judging from the cover you'd think this was some kind of scandal movie about Kylie playing a character having sex, taking drugs and whatever. This is just a cheap market-scheme. She's barely in it and does neither of the things. The marketing here is unbelievable, and I'm surprised the filmmakers hasn't objected.

The movie itself was to me a huge disappointment. It seemed like a Sunset Beach episode directed sloppy-handed by a teenage Quentin Tarantino. And thats not meant as a compliment, mind you.

I think the weakness of the movie first of all is the story. It seems to be about nothing. Just about cool teenagers tripping around living 'on the edge'. The characters themselves does have some personality though, but the movie doesn't use its potential. As said, there's no story of any substance here. It seems to elaborate too much on cool dialog and ends up looking like a colorful MTV ad. It definitely has that feeling.

Still though, I guess some people might enjoy it, but I'd say there's far better movies like this around.

Deep Star Wars fans might find this release mildly offensive, but most of us will more likely die of laughter. I nearly did.

Where do you begin to describe this movie then? Its not very politically correct. Damon Packard has used behind-the-scenes material from the making of Star Wars, scenes from the SW movies, other movies and self-made material and edited it into a huge satire on George Lucas and Star Wars.

One sequence in particular stands out. The scene from Apocalypse Now where Marlon Brando's recordings of madness is put on play to the disturbed and scared face of Martin Sheen is replaced with a recording of George Lucas rambling along how he needs CGI- characters to tell the story of the movie he has in mind.

Other material has a more harmless nature. Damon Packard has edited himself into the making of Star Wars, arguing with Lucas and replacing CGI-models of monsters with small toy figures with raccoons and such. Also there's a very funny battle scene were dialog is replaced and inserted with all kinds of silly stuff. Basically, its amazingly funny.

You should definitely try and get it if you can, because its a highly inventive and funny movie.

I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned this original little short movie that is following the DVD for Man Bites Dog. In my world Man Bites Dog was kind of genius in a sense, because I've never seen any movie that has that kind of brood and originality. I never expected a little short done some years earlier by the same crew to be just as original and groundbreaking.. but it is.

Its an experiment with form, and it seems to be a full-length feature cut down to the highlights/basics. Its a summary movie lasting 13 minutes for a real one. Probably some kind of critical view on the average Hollywood movie who seems to be cutting out everything else than the highlights of a movie. The way most of the movie is done is highly different... even the credits.

Its really funny, and very well made. Highly recommended. A pity Rémy Belvaux never got around to more movies after Man Bites Dog, as he was in my opinion one of the most interesting directors of the 90s. He's doing acting these days I think.

First looking at Jean Rollin's debut feature Viol Du Vampire was not very impressing. It looked very cheap, and the editing seemed almost amateurish. After a while though I learned to appreciate the movie's very unique pacing and artistic approach. Its been long since I've seen a movie as pleasant to look at. I found an interesting saying by a user at the amazon page: "Its boring, but in a good way". Which of course doesn't make sense to most people, but try seeing this. Relaxing, yet exciting. The low-tempered experimental music really is nice.

You don't really have to understand what is going on though. Lots of nudity, blood, poetry, interesting characters... Yes, I really enjoyed this! If you like old art-house movies you should try it. Jean Rollins should be deemed as a great great artist.

Seriously. I've heard about this movie for ages and ages, and I thought I'd be alright about it.. Having seen many of these kinds of repulsive movies and video nasties I thought this would be a piece of cake. But it really deserves its rumor. Its not whats on this movie that shocks, its more the way it is told. What is surprising is that its quite a political movie, even an intellectual movie in its own right. It seems to be quite aware of what it is doing. Its a critic of what it is itself, and thats kind of what makes it so hard to watch. Thats what kind of makes it genius even. Its the biggest critic of exploitation movies ever AND perhaps the biggest exploitation movie at the same time. It has a very strong finale.

Thomas Edison did this little clip which is kind of interesting, because you'd think the first movie ever where someone is kissing would be a young couple, and somewhat more, um, passionate. Instead we have a cuckoo old couple here! Doesn't really look like they're kissing... Its like they just attached their lips together and think they're kissing. And they TALK while doing it as well! Nuts. Thats the worst part of it. They seem to be discussing something quite strange while kissing.They look like mad people. Huge fishes or something.

I think this is my favorite of the Edison clips, because it to me just clearly states he was EITHER all about science and no romantic at all OR he was just plain weird. Either one is great. A great, great man.

Movies like this is kind of the reason why I understand the people who seems to hooked on cheesy little 80s horror movie can get so obsessed. They have a charm that is pretty unique. This movie is just pure fun in its mix of scary looking hand-dolls, a lovingly silly script and the cliché-thing about it. Obviously made by someone who really loves horror movies, and just wanted to make one. In some ways I can't really believe it was meant to be scary, but I also doubt it was meant to be this funny.. because even though you laugh a lot with it, its also _at_ it. But its an honest movie. It plays on what it can play on. Very likable, on its own little terms.

Granted, this wasn't my cup of tea. I did not get into the characters, and the story just didn't do it for me. Still, Eli Roth should get recognition for doing this movie.. to show that making independent movies still is possible today and succeeding. Its no Evil Dead though, and I have to admit the humor didn't touch me at all. Some of it was very pale.. I liked the policeman character though, he was so wrong! Ouch.

All in all, I didn't think too much of this. A better sense of humor and with a bit of a more fresh plot this could have been a good little indie-flick. To some it probably will too. For me it did only half the way.

First off, I have to admit I was deeply surprised to find myself really really liking the original movie. It set a premise to a great concept and a fascinating premise for a villain.. And I can perfectly understand that you'd WANT to make a sequel to the original movie.. because leaving the first movie somehow left mysteries behind and you'd want to dive into the universe to find out more about it..

The problem about the rest of the series is that they just don't work in my opinion. Elements do, but as a whole: Nope. I felt number 2 kind of had a good idea, trying to follow up the original movie.. It was OK, the point and plot was there. It just wasn't as good of a movie as the original, but a nice try at least. A mediocre sequel, but with some highlights even though.

This third installation here is a whole other story. It starts off well though, presenting us Patricia Arquette in an early role... an insomniac girl not daring to sleep, but does and has a nightmare about Freddy(good scene), going crazy and is then being put into a mental-constitution where a lot of kids seems to have the same problem with Freddy occurring in their nightmare. So far so good actually!

Then its _straight_ downhill though. Steep downhill! For some reason they resurrect Nancy from the first movie and she becomes some sort of squadleader and makes some kind of dream-team to kill Freddy in their collective dream. The silly thing is how its done though. The acting is not convincing, and nobody makes any sense. It turns into some sort of adventure movie... and the clichés boils over with the kids high fiving each other all the time and learning to use "special powers" in their dreams to defeat Freddy together. Ugh. Few things are more embarrassing.

Of course they overuse Freddy as well, too. He's not scary anymore, he's just mean and sadistic without any reason. He has some quite good moments though, as the TV-movie comment and such.

Still, this is the point where the series already seems to have run out of gas. One thing that can be deemed a s good thing is that they in this movie reveal more about Freddy's past.. and to one point that is a good thing.. but then there's some serious plot holes that kind of ruins it as well. It makes no sense that when they find the real burnt body of Freddy Kreuger in reality and it suddenly becomes alive and is even murderous? Huh?

Everything about this movie was just so stupid when added together. Elements was quite good, but they just drowns in the misery of the wholeness.

So, if you are ever going to watch Nightmare On Elm Street and haven't already.. See number 1 and try not to see the others.

For some reason I tend to start disliking Lynch because I like his work so much. I went into this quite critical, as I didn't really expect much. But still.... Lynch just continues to enchant me as an artist.

To explain what this is: Its a musical and a play, and its about a woman being brokenhearted as she's been left. The strength of the whole thing is the atmosphere. Really gripping and wonderful. There's fog all over the stage, and the haunting music is simply perfect. And of course the imagery.. and the lyrics. Its shocking, but attractive. You never really get whats going on though, its really dreamy. People floating in the air... and at one point there's a huge devil walking around on stage. When the haunting scene with the millions of dolls was strung down on the scene with creepy music alongside it was the point I personally was convinced that this is a masterpiece.

I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoys the further-out side of Lynch's work. The atmosphere in this one is just gripping.

Monday is an existentialist movie. For those who are comparing it to Tarantino, please stop reviewing movies. This is more like an anti-Tarantino movie, if it is anything. It questions the use of law. It questions the use of weapons. It questions alcohol. It questions justice versus moral. It questions things that went over my head as well. Does that sound like a Tarantino movie? No, not at all. Please give Sabu the right to call this his own movie, and let this compare-everything-with-Tarantino-nonsense slip away.

Its about a person waking up in a hotel room, not remembering who he is or how he got there. Gradually he remembers more and more, and it kind of goes way over-the-top, but in a way that is both funny and thought provoking. It also has quite a surreal laugh-at-life quality in some scenes that should be mentioned.

Its kind of an intelligent action movie. Let there be more of these!

The last three days I've probably watched this thing 13 times. Not because I liked it, but because its highly addictive. Its one of those things that is so stupid, but at the same time so catchy you just can't not stop playing it.

What I kind of like about it is how every sound and every movement in this Disney short seems to be going alone in a tune, with verses and all. And the singing along with it... Argh. Its annoying, but its, well, catchy. Everything. Especially the little hen. God, its like a caressing nightmare.

This is Donalds first appearance ever yeah. He's basically a little tw*t, but yeah, compared to Peter Pig he's a bit funny.. and you can probably see why he got a second chance, and finally grew to be one of Disney's biggest characters. What is a bit interesting though is that he lives on a boat, so his costume for once makes a bit sense.

The little hen and her little slave chickens steals the show though. God I hope she never turns up ever again! Her presence in this 8 minute short is more than enough for a whole eternity. The horror!

First of all, this is a movie Kenneth Anger never finished. Its only 1/8 of what he planned, so its probably difficult to give it a fair judgment as a whole. First time I saw it, I didn't get it at all. Its a three minute short movie about a very 'gay' looking man caressing his expensive car. Very visual, and nice colors.. but thats it! He uses a powder puff to brush the shiny car.

What Anger wanted to do with this movie was to make us think about the growing bubblegum-mentality in youngsters of America. The teenage of California in a world of hot-rod and customized cars. How crazy it is. How our standards as humans in some circumstances are far above anything normal.

I thought it was an interesting project and I'm sad he never found people to support it financially to complete it.

Last night I finally saw this flick, and wow. This is amazing. I've never seen anything like this. Everything you ask for in a movie is here. And more.

You get low budget action, an impossible love story, a dune bug car cruising in the desert, fake acting and a huge horny prehistoric caveman with a fake beard. What more could you possibly ask for?

What I liked the most about this movie though was the dialogue. Does people actually talk like this? Is it even physically possible? Its like they're babytalking to the camera or something... And whats up with that guy who can whistle with his teeth? And why the heck is he singing in the desert? And where does the instruments come from? And when did cavemen start meaning the same thing as giants? How the heck a caveman survived until our times? The movie doesn't tell. It holds its card up all the time, and refuses to put them down ever.

What is left is an amazing mysterious monument of a movie. A movie to fall in love with.

Scrolling through the "hated it"-comments of this movie was actually quite funny. As fun as the movie itself I'd dare to say.

To find it too silly or too crazy I can understand, but to hate it? You have to see things in life quite uptight. But yes, this movie pretty far out there. Actually its plain crazy. If you want to find out if you would like this movie, here's a test for you: What would you think about the idea of a movie about a rock'n'roll zombie cabdriver singing opera while killing vampire prostitutes from Venus with an X-ray gun with a rainbow colored beam? Rocky Picture Horror Show is kind of a movie in THAT theme, though a different tale of course. If you think that sounds like barrels of barrels with fun, go for the movie. Or if you would like to see how a movie like that would be, because you can't picture it in your head. (That was kind of what I did) If you on the other hands find that too crazy or too far out for your taste, think twice before seeing it. It might not be for you.

Still this movie has been shown to be a huge success, being one the longest played movie in theaters, and along with Eraserhead actually invented the term "cult-movie". The strength of this movie is not only the crazy and nihil plot, but also that it is so well done on every other level too. Every character is memorable and the spaced-out songs very catchy. On the technical level it is actually striking, which is a rare find when it comes to these kinds of movies. So that is has been successful is actually no wonder. What makes you hate this movie is beyond me, but feel free to explain.

This is a movie for you if you like some far our, non-serious, incoherent crazy fun from outer space. Which can be fun sometimes.

Well, I can actually understand why some would actually think of this as the worst movie ever. But you know, in a mad world.. this is a wacko masterpiece. I happened to love it. The amount of errors in this movie was actually enjoyable. The bad editing, the frequently inaccurate dubbing, the lazy underacting and the stereotyped acting... it actually sets a mood that is fascinating .. It was so weird in many ways, but you can't grasp if its supposed to be like that or not. I just fell in love with this movie...

The ending I'm not sure about though. It kind of has this twist, that is OK in a way, but it is not as unique as the rest of the movie.

I especially love it when the husband tells his wife to go into the house THREE times after another because of bad cutting(and she's about to enter the house in all of them). And Torque.. what a guy. He makes love to women by stroking their shoulder.... You have to watch it yourself to believe it.

I dunno what it is with this little short movie by Jan Svankmajer.

Its a cartoon, divided into 3 parts. In one way its a pretty simple movie, but it still has some of the things that I love about Svankmajer. I have this on DVD before, and have seen it numerous times before, but I stumbled on it once again on the net.. and now I've watched it 4-5 times the last couple of days. Its really that good, in a way.

One of the parts consists of a person who makes a house, but he can't get into it. He then erases it and build it from the inside.. but then he can't get out.. and then he erases it and makes it from the outside again, but he can't get in... and it goes on and on.

What they mean exactly is not really obvious, but I guess they could mean whatever you seem to fit with it.

But what I like most about Et Cetera is that it shows that Svankmajer makes all kinds of movies, and he makes animation and stop-motion out of whatever you could name almost.

His limits is simply NOT THERE. 8/10

What would it be like if David Lynch made a sitcom? A comedy?

On The Air explains it. Fantastic. I've seen all seven episodes and I some of it is exactly about that unique thing we like about David Lynch. This show didn't get much of a chance, because it was aired daytime in summertime(worst time for a program to be aired) because ABC according to Lynch hated it. I feel that it was a great show having seen the whole thing, but its not flawless. The main error here is that David Lynch(and Mark Frost) wasn't involved enough in it.. They were busy with Twin Peaks at the time probably. Of course, the characters and plot for the series is pure Lynch.. the first episode is amazing. The characters are crazy, stereotyped and full of absurd depth.

The following episodes are quite good in themselves too, but for some reason there's a different writer for each episode here, so the series seems to change direction from episode to episode.. Some of the later episodes I found even a bit too silly.

But David Lynch came back on the last episode and wrote it, and EVERYTHING is right again. Lynch manages to throw some mystery into it again and its so amazing! All the episodes has its charm though.. Its a lovely show.. and if you like David Lynch and you like funny and absurd stuff, this is a safe shot. 8 out of 10 overall. The first two and number seven where Lynch is more directly involved

deserves a 9 out of 10.

My journey into the Godfather saga has been quite a surprise. I expected not to like them at all. But I ended up thinking The Godfather was extremely good, and Godfather 2 even better.. You don't have to be into mafia-stuff to like these movies at all!

Now for number 3 I kind of expected to like it just as much as the other twos. I thought the bad critics was mainly cynical. But, in some ways I found them to be quite right indeed. Sophia Coppola is today a great director in my opinion. I loved both of her present movies. In this movie she's playing Michael Corleone's daughter, and she really doesn't suit the character. The movie also suffers from a bit of a loose grip. I had to watch this movie over three days because I found myself too impatient to watch it. The other two movies are also slow in a sense, but they kind of held a grip on you all the way. On the better side the movie does bring a lot of completing segments into the saga. It shows a lot of the afterlife of the mafia affairs which Michael Corleone is trying to stop once and for all now. Andy Garcia plays his part good as well. The confession scene is one of the best scenes of the saga even maybe. Its a good movie. And its a good closing of the saga. Very slow though. NOT a bumpy ride.

The movie opens with a huge stone head coming flying over the hills, telling a bunch of hunters that they are his "chosen ones". And that "gun is good" and "penis is evil". All movies should start this way.

We're later set in a very interesting world where people have found the secret of immortality. These people can't die, even though they actually really want to. Punishment in this world is aging. Its a very interesting movie I thought... and there's a lot of surreal and well planned sequences. My only complaint is that it gives away too much of its mystery in the end. It should have kept much more of it in my opinion.

Still its quite a wacky movie, with a universe with its own rules completely. I really liked it.