Hidden Colors 2: The Triumph of Melanin
Hidden Colors 2 is the follow up to the critically acclaimed 2011 documentary about the untold history of people of African and aboriginal descent. This installment of Hidden Colors goes into topics such as the global African presence, the science of melanin, the truth about the prison industrial complex, how thriving black economic communities were undermined in America, and the hidden truth about Native Americans.
- Stars:Chandan Roy Sanyal, Arfi Lamba, Kumar Mayank, Sonia Bindra, Elena Kazan, Lucien Zell, Vaibhav Suman, Claud Anderson, Tony Browder, Booker T. Coleman, Umar Johnson, KRS-One, Tariq Nasheed, Runoko Rashidi, James Small, Phil Valentine, The Zombies, ,
- Director:Tariq Nasheed,
Filmmaker Tariq Nasheed documents the global African presence, going into topics such as the science of melanin, the truth about the prison industrial complex, how thriving Black economic communities were undermined in America, the hidden truth about Native Americans, and much more. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Hidden Colors 2: The Triumph of Melanin torrent reviews
(us) wrote: Middle of the road comedy drama for a middle of the road audience
(fr) wrote: Gritty and bleak. Sean Bean performs admirably as a veteran spook. The story halts several times to show the grooming of a terrorist. He's a man who has lost any focus in his life and is thus easily and callously manipulated by his Muslim "mentor".Disjointed in parts, nihilistic (expedient British establishment, the downtrodden masses, and, not at all glamorous London), it remains a good action film. This is realism and likely, a real view of current day terrorism.Not for the faint-hearted. Adults only.
(mx) wrote: I saw the abridged version created by LittleKuriboh and I enjoyed that so much that it actually inspired me to watch this movie. The first full twenty minutes was a shabby, poorly made summary of the first three even more poorly made TV programs. This set the tone for what I can officially say is probably the worst movie I have even seen. The plot was the most vapid, imbecilic, hideous monstrosity ever bestowed upon mankind. The voice acting was agonizing, the story had more holes in it than a sieve, and I couldn't even bring myself to finish the film. I'm shocked that anybody could ever tolerate this movie, much less actually enjoy it.
(nl) wrote: Dont Bother! Terribly put together movie. Scenes were fake- I thought the landing were supposed to be in Normandy? So why did it feel and look like I was in a farm in rural Kentucky? Acting was atrocious- the dialogue was fake- I mean these guys were talking at full volume and clattering their weapons when supposed to be avoiding Germans Camera and Directing was ridiculous- Over 80% of the film is closeups of actors I cant understand why they made this film- Its an insult to the War Vets who were at Normandy. I cant believe it took 4 years to make because it looks like it was put together in 4 weeks Director and actors should find other vocations....I am giving this the lowest rating possible- dont care if it had a budget..I have seen plenty of films with lesser budgets that were outstanding.
(au) wrote: Putting everything aside, it's just plain bad. This promotes all of those awful teen movies that have no verve or spirit. Well, what did i expect with a title like Sex Drive anyway? Crap characters with nothing going for them. I like Seth Green..though i'm not sure why. I think it's just Buffy nostalgia creeping in, that doesn't help at all. I can see why it appeals but i can also see why it doesn't. No thank you.
(gb) wrote: I've been dreaming of a true love's kiss... in the 20's
(us) wrote: Stopped watching after 20 minutes. Drivel.
(br) wrote: Interesting and visually historic story of a Suffragette. A historical tale mixed up with personal drama.
(ca) wrote: Long associated with action films and high-brow science fiction adventures, 1492: Conquest of Paradise represents one of director Ridley Scott's less noted films. It's a film that is quiet, grandly scaled, beautifully shot, and very ambitious. It's also a film with narrative flaws, a lethargic pace, and perhaps an overly generous take on Columbus.The best thing about 1492 is Scott's world building. We are entreated to fantastic cinematography, with shots that capture the vastness, wonder, and yet stark nature of the real world. Scott films his scenes with a masterful sense of scope, never placing his characters above the scenery, as a skillful reminder of the grand stakes at play. The world-building is equally impressive, with sets that are fantastically realized. It's a period piece that doesn't simply look like its' period, but rather inhibits it. As such, the technical merits of 1492 can scarcely be questioned.The film's narrative, however, is a mixed bag. The performance by Gerard Depardieu was surprisingly strong, offering a more complicated view of Columbus than other film treatments. The supporting cast is also fairly well received, and is served by a script with intelligent dialogue and a keen eye towards subtlety. The trouble comes from the film's almost disengagement with its subjects. We see Columbus's struggles, but never feel them. We see the stakes, but never quite feel involved in them. The film suffers from a disengagement, most likely originating from it hands-off approach towards Columbus. Had the film tried to be more of a character study, giving us more of the human dynamics (particularly the politics involved), it would have been more successful. The treatment of Columbus is also undeniably generous, painting a man ahead of his time, relentlessly ambitious, but also exceedingly humane. History would perhaps suggest some of these notions are a bit dubious, Columbus was a rather hard man.Overall, however, I found the film engaging. The technical merits alone made it always watchable, and the story itself was treated with great respect by Ridley, who populates the story with interesting characters, strong performances, and large scale, though with plenty of problems along the way.3/5 Stars