Change Your Image
givmigminskotilbage
Reviews
Dune (2000)
Some good things
Im a fan of Frank Herberts Dune-universe, so i was happy when i heard that they had made a miniseries.
I bought the DVD, an i watched the whole mini-series in one day.
My impression was that there was much more information about the universe and the characters in this adaption, than from David Lynch's Dune from 1984.
There was much more background-story and development of the characters - positive thing.
But one thing really irritated me: the visual effects! Especially when they do scenes in the open dessert - that really is poorly made. The film from 84 did it much better. Because in some scenes the sand in the background is very clearly supposed to be in the sun, while the sand around the characters are clearly in the shadow/night. That is really irritating to look at. OK, they did not have a big budget, so that will not count that much down in my final rate. The computer-effects are good, for 2000.
The other big thing that isn't great in this mini-series is that they use so many actors from different countries, i found at first that it was irritating, because it at first, gave the impression that this was a low quality-show, who could only afford actors from eastern Europa. But second time around, i thought that all the weird accents gave the mini-series a good "flavour". It gave the impression that it was a vast universe, which would generate many weird accents of the normal language.
The story of this mini-series was very well put together. And that is what still is vivid in my mind - it is very well done. A shame that the poor effects counts down in the final rate.
7/10
Loose Change: Second Edition (2005)
A manipulative lie
I was at first intrigued by this documentary. Then I researched the subject, from both pro- and anti-conspiracy sites. I found out that this "documentary" is a manipulative lie.
The "documentary" is only a compilation of old government plans and reports (taken out of historical and logically context), a bunch of witness-accounts taken out of context, a lot of half-truths, a lot of quotes taken out of context, a lot of "experts"-inteviews (which are mostly experts in fields which has NOTHING to do with explosions, air-planes or buildings), a lot of poorly pictures of questionable origin and a no understanding of science. This, with a X-files-kind-of-soundtrack, tries to manipulate the weak mind, to believe in Dylan Avery's Jason Bermas' political crusade against reason, logic and the established society.
One of the lies made in this "documentary" is that you could not make cell-phone-calls from an air-plane in 2001 in cruising-altitude. Because he claims that the people on flight 93, weren't alive at this point, that they had been killed, and that their voices were faked. THAT IS A LIE. I ask a good friend, who travelled a lot back then (Buisness). He confirmed to me that he could and did 2000 speak in his cell-phone on the air-plane - he called his wife, who was giving birth. You could speak in air-planes back then, the problem was that the calls was cut-off, when the plane went away from a transmitter on the ground. It has not occurred for the director, Dylan Avery, that signals also can work vertical, not only horizontally. Plus: most of the calls made from flight 93, were made on air-line phones, not cell-phones. Everybody who had just half a brain, could research this for one self. This is just another example of the manipulative lies, which this "documentary" consist of. People: please do your own research, point out all these conspiracy theorists mistakes - most of them don't have an education, and if they do it is never technical.
Another lie Dylan Avery says in this "documentary", is that the government used live-voice-morphing-technology to fake the voices of the victims on flight 93. That is simply yet another manipulative lie from Dylan Avery. A voice-morphing-technology does exist, yes, BUT IT IS NOT THAT ADVANCED YET. You cant use it live. It can be used for recorded voices, but not live, as Dylan Avery so arrogantly claims. Plus you have to have many recordings of the original voices, and then calibrate the equipment to do morph voices.
So if you think about it, then the government would have to have tail all the passengers of flight 93 for several months before 9/11, if you take Dylan Avery's word. The government would have had to have track all these passengers for months, and they would have had to control the will of all of these passengers, to make them take an air-plane 9/11. Because the government should have a recording of the voice to make a "live"-morph of it, so they must have tailed them for months, because they could not have relied on recording enough of their voice in the airport.
And Dylan Avery claims that these supposedly CIA-agents used this voice-morph-technology to call the families of the passengers of flight 93, and then sounded so convincing, talking just like them, using the words they use, accents and favourite-curse-words and all, and then convinced all the families of the passengers of flight 93?
If you try to do this yourself, think about how to do it, then you'll see how impossible it is.
So if you take Dylan Avery's word, you will see how retarded his theory really is. Either he is incredible dumb or just a liar.
Dylan Avery has no idea on how reality works - he lives in a fantasy-world of fairy-dragons and conspiracies.
But we should not be so troubled by Dylan. He uses poor sources. Most of the sources are taken from the day of the attack - 9/11/01. Right back when no one knew anything of what was going on. I can remember 9/11 my self; no one in the media knew anything. The journalists had reports that about 20 planes had been captured, then 8 planes. Also we heard from the media that there was 20.000 people in the building at the time of the collapse, or at least it was speculated within the first 24 after 9/11. There was simply mass-confusion. A lot of information came to the air, which did not happen/was not true. And that is what this "documentary" is build around - misinformation and misunderstandings. Most other sources that Dylan Avery use in this "documentary", have been taken from anti-semitic and anti-American sources. Not very reliable. Because these web-sites and other sources has a political agenda to discredit USA, Jews and Israel. They do this with misinformation and exaggerations.
The only thing positive I can say about this "documentary" is that it is slightly better than Alex Jones' poor trash of documentaries.
If you do want to watch this poorly made "documentary", do yourself a favour: research all "facts" presented in this film, so that you will not be mislead into believing that some evil-force is controlling everything. If you do not hold your head cool during this film, then you will be taken in by the lies of this documentaries.
Joseph Goebbels once said: "If you tell a lie, which is sufficiently big and keep repeating it, then people will at believe it is the truth in the end". That can also be said about this "documentary" and most conspiracy theories.
Terrorstorm (2006)
Full of lies and speculations without any facts
When i thought that Alex Jones could not be more retarded in his theories, i was proved wrong.
The guy realised this video: TerrorStorm: A History of Government-Sponsored Terrorism (2006) - what awful trash!
In this so-called "documentary" Alex Jones tries to prove that the 7/7 London Bombings and the 3/11 Madrid Bombings were somehow caused by some secret-hidden-all-knowing-shadow-world-spanning-shadow-government, because they wanted some reasons to fight the war on terror - to create fear in a society.
My first thought was: what a cool science fiction movie. But then i thought what none of the conspiracy theorists could ever think: we do actually live in the real world.
The fact that Alex Jones never travelled to London or Madrid to investigate, but stayed in his basement doesn't speak well of the creditability of this home-video-documentary. But then again, conspiracy theorists aren't the most clever people in the world, if they even have an education, then they never leave their parents basements to see the world.
Alex Jones somehow tries to convince that these terrorist-attacks was carried out by their own governments. And he does so by using old websites, speculations and then he uses incidents in history that aren't fully documented and misuse them in his religious/political crusade against all reason and logic.
I still cant believe it: Alex Jones claims that all these secret shadow-government have no second thoughts about killing thousands of innocent people 9/11 in New York, the 7/7 in London and the 3/11 in Madrid, but somehow Alex Jones and all his cult-followers/conspiracy theorists are left alone?? WHY??? If these conspiracy theorists have uncovered the truth as they claim, then it is proved that all these shadow governments are so cynical that they have absolutely no second thoughts about committing mass-murder on their own people. They are cynical mass-murders, and the conspiracy theorists have proved this - but then why are the conspiracy theorists left alone to make more of these theories, that proves this? Why are they left alive to reveal all these government secrets, if the governments were willing to kill thousands of people just to create fear?? WHY ARE THEY LEFT ALIVE???
The answer is that there are no conspiracy! It is just a political-lie made up by conspiracy theorists on their political crusade against the right-wing people and people with brains, power and money.
And then another thing: if you are European, then you'll know that it is all just lies! Because if you have insight in the politics and voting-patterns before and after these attacks, then you will know that these attacks weren't carried out by their own governments (but the conspiracy theorists don't have the brains to research this on their own). According to these conspiracy theorists, these attacks were carried out by their own governments, because they want to create more fear, to bolster the support for the war on terror. Before the attacks in Britian, there was a big support behind the war on terror. After the terror-attacks, the support had decreased significantly - but the conspiracy theorist do not talk about this, because this doesn't fit into their filthy lies.
The same is even more the case with the bombs in Spain. Before the bombings in Madrid, there was a right-wing government in Spain under José María Aznar. A government that was a big supporter of George Bush's new line, and his War on Terror. Spain even had many troops in Iraq. Then the terrorist-attacks happened in Madrid. If you follow the conspiracy way of thinking, then the government must have known all along, and would have pointed out that it was extreme Islamists (patsies) from the start (like the conspiracy bible: "JFK"). But then a funny thing happened: The government under José María Aznar, accused Basque nationalist organisation (ETA) of making this terror-attack. Why did he and the government do that, if they have planned it themselves? Should they not have blamed it on Extreme Islamists, so that they could create more fear and hate towards Muslims? Would they not have claimed that it was Al-Quada from start, instead of ETA? The answer is that they never did plan it - it is just another filthy lie from the conspiracy theorists. The after-match was that the Spanish Government fell. The Spanish Government had tried to pin this attack on ETA. The Spanish public did not like that. The Spanish government knew that the Spanish public would pin the terror-attacks on them, because Spain had enraged the extreme Islamists, by having troops in Iraq, thus causing the Islamic-terrorists to attack Spain. The Spanish Government knew this, so they tried to pin it on ETA - the strategy failed, and the government was replaced by a left-winged government, who pulled the Spanish troops out of Iraq. Yet another thing that the conspiracy theorists never mentions, because it doesn't fit into their web of filthy lies.
None of the conspiracy theorists who believe in this "documentary" have any insight into European politics, they just assume that it is the same as USA - but it is not. Please try to educate yourself, little Conspiracy theorists, it is pathetic to listen to your childish talk about things you do not know anything about.
This "documentary" is full of lies and speculations without any facts. It is simply awful - don't watch it.
Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State (2005)
It is awful, simply awful
When i first watched this pathetic attempt of a "documentary", i laughed.
But then i realised that there are actually people who believe in these lies.
But then I analysed the people/users who commented this documentary. Users like westpers, ost_len, CharlieMcCarthy, jesussaddle, al_themarsupial, marco77-1 and many others. I analysed them, i found out that all of these users only have commented ONE movie, yes: Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State (2005).
10+ users, all of them only commenting the SAME movie.
There is only one logical explanation to this: IT IS THE SAME PERSON.
westpers, ost_len, CharlieMcCarthy, jesussaddle, al_themarsupial and marco77-1 are really just one pathetic person spreading childish disinformation, because 9/11 is a political issue for this supposedly virgin.
Now that i have revealed this truth, this one person will probably make many comments on many different films, with his or hers second users, only to prove me wrong - pathetic, as all conspiracy theories.
That it is only one person makes me happy. This person has made so many users, to artificially up-vote all these pathetic "documentaries". It is probably Alex Jones him self.
The worst thing with these Conspiracy theorists is that they are all uneducated, and yet they spread their lies and misinform as though they knew anything about the world.
Conspiracy theorists: please get a life, get an education, get a girlfriend/boyfriend, get a job and move out of your grandmothers basement - then you should see the world, and you will understand it better.
And please try to look at the information that speak against conspiracies. I know that you want it to be an American conspiracy behind it all, but please look away from your religious believes for just one second, and be open for all theories, even those made by people with education (the official explanation).
Here Comes Garfield (1982)
The Cartoon of my childhood
This is of my best memories from my childhood.
Garfield cartoons, and especially this first one. The animation was quite good. The motion and backgrounds was good. Plus those people that made all these early Garfield-cartoons, where made by Phil Roman, they later Animated "The Simpsons".
In this fabulous cartoon, we start of with Garfields usual ego, he is mean to Odie, and eats a lot of Lasagne.
But then Odie gets caught, and Gafield has to save him.
At the first look-on the story is very base, but when you watched it as a kid, it gets very catchy. It also helps that Lorenzo Music (R.I.P.) does a very good job as Garfield, and also the guy who narrated Jon (who only did it in the first cartoon). But then the excellent score kicks in, making the whole story very compelling. Garfield tries to rescue Odie, but gets imprisoned in the process. In the impound, the pets have to get sold, or else they get executed. Then the most sad thing happens, Odie gets taken away to get executed. And then the music sets in (a song named "Goodby my friend"), a very sad song, when Garfield and Odie gets pulled apart. It was very sad back then, and even more sad now, 18 years later. I almost cried, when i saw that scene again. But it is a cartoon, of course it all ends well, of course Odie survives, who else should Garfield be mean to?
Garfield gets out, and organises the rest of the imprisoned pets to rally to his cause, and riot against their captures. Garfield finally frees Odie, and all is well.
I love this cartoon, so help me God.