Robgen industries newest security system is "The J Series Automatic", an android model designed and programmed to protect humans from violent attacks. But one night, an Automatic named J269 discovers a Robgen executive trying to rape a female employee named Nora Rochester. While trying to stop the crime, he inadvertently kills the executive. At this point, J269 then calls Goddard Marx (his creator and a Robgen chairman) to inform him of the incident. Marx tells the android to stay there with Rochester until help arrives, but Marx is intent on sweeping the fiasco under the rug by sending mercenaries to eliminate both J269 and Rochester. Now the two are fugitives on the run from a para-military hit squad.
Writer:Patrick Highsmith (story), Patrick Highsmith (screenplay), Susan Lambert
Robgen industries newest security system is "The J Series Automatic", an android model designed and programmed to protect humans from violent attacks. But one night, an Automatic named J269... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
ashwin G (jp) wrote: if you take out the music out of the movie its just rubbish
Spencer D (nl) wrote: ONE HOUR AND TWENTY MINUTES IN, COMPLETE AND TOTAL RIPOFF OF THE SHINING, CAMERA ANGLES AND ALL. ONE HOUR AND TWENTY FIVE MINUTES, STRAIGHT FROM THE EVIL DEAD. As for the rest of the movie, terrible acting, terrible sound quality, hilarious sound effects, bad makeup and visual effects, very mildly intersting storyline, the car crash scene is pathetic, the car doesn't even hit anything (oh sorry it broke a twig), I guess the makers couldn't afford to even scratch the car?? yet the camera was fixed on the front of the car when they pulled their cheap stunt, not even attempting to hide it. The end meant nothing.
Adam R (mx) wrote: (First and only viewing - 3/29/2010)
Mike S (ag) wrote: Great movie. Not a lot of combat footage, mostly just patrols and raids at the start of war. Still a great documentary. This is the real shit.
Joseph R (br) wrote: Tsumabuki does it again. After watching Dororo and Dragonhead, I was beginning to think that maybe he wasn't really any good. Oh no, he totally delivers. What a beautiful, touching, honest and human film.
Ton Q (es) wrote: The premise of this movie is the only real driving factor it has. How the premise is executed is, often times, over the top to the point where it doesn't feel as real any more. Some of the scenes and dialogue could definitely be better or excluded all together as well, but nitpicking could bring any film down.
Karolina C (gb) wrote: A movie about some friends that become small-time bookies at collage. Soon enough problems arise as their business expands and things get out of hand. Not the best movie ever, but not the worst either. Caught in the middle, so to speak.
Anders B (ag) wrote: A documentary like Promises works, primarily, on the level of empathy; if it fails in that basic function, it risks becoming a pandering act of moral back-slapping. In that respect, Promises ?? the documentary that follows around a group of Israeli and Palestinian children ?? can be considered a modest success. Shot between 1995 and 1998, after the Intifada, the film features interviews and candid moments with children from a variety of backgrounds, though one can never shake the (correct) notion that we are being guided, shown the world through the lens that Goldbeg has carefully choosen, and that if we were able to peek around the corner, to see a truly radical Palestinian family, or if Shlomo had been more forthcoming with his Zionism (or even agreed to participate in the epilogue), it would become something else entirely. The film works best in those moments when it abandons the ??children are the future?? platitudes, and we are given a peek at the unscripted and unexpected. Definitely worth watching, but necessary to unpack rather than just let it wash over you.
Tam P (ru) wrote: I love this story . Five stars
David F (ca) wrote: As an exploration of prejudices surrounding sex and gender it is more than a little incoherent but not as irretrievably bad as you might have heard. Some of the acting is quite good, even if it's not in the service of a carefully thought out story. Raquel Welch plays the title character in a confident, sexy, and commanding way, slowly wrapping the comically frustrated John Huston around her little finger. Huston is also pretty good but Mae West is fantastic as a leering, nymphomaniacal agent who beds wannabe movie stars. I'd say it's worth watching for her performance and one liners alone. She has a distinctive vaudevillian delivery which matches the campy excess of this films tone perfectly.
Nita S (ca) wrote: the release date on this is incorrect - should be 1944
Alex R (it) wrote: It's Christopher Nolan and Batman for a third time. What is there not to expect or get excited about?