Tati likes Marcelo who likes to date many girls. Sincere (at times even too sincere), Tati demonstrates her love, but ends up only pushing Marcelo away. After listening to a lecture by the young biology professor, Conrado, she has an idea: apply his polemic theories to her relationship. Conrado develops a technical seduction guide based on Charles Darwin?s theory, comparing the behavior of young lovers to that of animals. The beautiful guinea pig is working hard and everything seems to be going well in reconquering Marcelo. The scientific experiment becomes more complicated when romance appears in the air between the professor and student.
In Rio de Janeiro, Tatiane meets her boyfriend Marcelo on his birthday and he breaks with her, claiming that she is not romantic. The unbalanced Tati enters in the class of the biologist ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Harry W (de) wrote: The sequel to Uwe Boll's one film considered to be a generally good film, Rampage: Capital Punishment sounded like a feature with unprecedented promises.Having gone into seeing Rampage: Capital Punishment without seeing its predecessor there is no certainty of what I can expect from the film. But as the intro loosely covered the plot dynamics of the film's predecessor, I gather that it isn't essential to recognize the plot of the first Rampage to understand the narrative of the second. I can't precisely gather why Bill Williamson is bent on killing everyone from the start, but I later found out his motives towards the end though the cause of his psychosis remained enigmatic. I can certify that Rampage: Capital Punishment is far from the greatest film, but by the standards of Uwe Boll as a filmmaker it is a truly brilliant piece of cinema. Even when Uwe Boll standards are not considered, Rampage: Capital Punishment is still a solid film. The support of a low budget prevents Rampage: Capital Punishment from turning into an overblown film while the fact that the source material is all Uwe Boll's own prevents him from insulting the fans of video game franchises he has repeatedly failed to adapt material out of. The production values in Rampage: Capital Punishment are far better than in any of the bigger budget Uwe Boll films I've ever seen, surprisingly enough. For one thing, the cinematography in the film makes a valid use of shakycam. Unlike the Hollywood productions that Uwe Boll has admitted to despising, Rampage: Capital Punishment actually uses the technique in a valid manner. It is never excessive, never seeming pretentious or amateur. In actual fact, it effectively adds a sense of realism into Rampage: Capital Punishment. Comprehending everything that happens remains easy amid all this, as well as in some of the quick edits which effectively add fast tension without making the experience cluttered.The stylish potential for the film comes heavily from how it depicts its titular rampage and how it uses technical tricks to build tension. With little money to spend, Uwe Boll manages to stretch it into its maximum potential. There are quite a few moments where the script comes off as being thinly written, but there is no denying that it is some of Uwe Boll's most passionate work because he very clearly has something to say in this production. There is actually a lot of social commentary in Rampage: Capital Punishment. Although the loose nature of the script prevents it from being deeply insightful and it may be the same kind of information a lot of people have heard before, the fact that audiences are reminded of it amid a film which offers little premise outside of a mass shooting effectively gives meaning to the feature. Perhaps it is the fact that the material remains consistently focused enough not to go off on a tangent and perhaps it's the limited budget that prevents the film from turning into a spectacle of disillusioned filmmaking, but either way Rampage: Capital Punishment is definitely one of the films from Uwe Boll's finest hour.Some of Rampage: Capital Punishment's elements even serve as valid commentary for mass shootings in America. Though the perpetrators of mass shootings are frequently apprehended, there is always a new one around the corner as society's treatment of criminals and general gun laws never work enough to prevent mass shootings from becoming part of the monthly routine in America. And the fact that Bill Williamson is back to unleash rampage once again works to comment on how American laws fail to achieve effective results. This could simply be unexpected subtext as a result of Uwe Boll's desire simply to make a sequel to Rampage, but the result just adds meaning. There are some key scenes in Rampage: Capital Punishment when Bill Williamson holds people hostage and rants to them about subjects such as the media or yoga. At these points in the story, Rampage: Capital Punishment actually seems to provide a portal into the mind of Uwe Boll. Anyone familiar with the extensive internet rants he has gone on where he has referred to filmmakers such as Eli Roth or Michael Bay as "f*cking retards" will know that Uwe Boll is aggressively anti-establishment. When considering this notion and the fact that the script directly makes references to those who have made use of the Fifth Estate, it seems as if Uwe Boll considers himself the Julian Assange or Edward Snowden of filmmakers. Anyone who has seen the majority of his films will consider this a pretentious delusion, but the way that Bill Williamson uses violence to make people listen to him contrasts the way that Uwe Boll uses this film to do the same. Rampage: Capital Punishment hurts nobody but will only reach a limited market while a man like Bill Williamson who actually uses guns will get significantly further. If there is anything to take away from Rampage: Capital Punishment, it's a realization that violence is the only sure-fire way to get recognition in the world. It's not a message that the movie encourages, but its a clear cut fact that the film recognizes.And on top of it all, the film has a solid lead portraying the psychopath. Brendan Fletcher captures the feeling of an angry young American lost in the pretentious idea that by executing a mass shooting he is actually doing something right. He is deluded into thinking that he is a hero, and behind his weapons he offers very limited intimidation. In that sense, he actively captures the ideal persona for a mass-murderer along the lines of killers such as Elliot Rodger, the perpetrator of the 2014 Isla Vista killings. The fact that such an event happened only months prior to the release of Rampage: Capital Punishment actually serves to boost the relevance of the film and Brenan Fletcher's performance. His effort is timely, capturing the perfect level of insanity and faux masculinity to create a sensible level of balance. So though Rampage: Capital Punishment boasts a simplistic premise with a familiar message, Uwe Boll's consistently straightforward direction manages to achieve an intense thriller with valid social commentary and a solid performance from Brendan Fletcher.
Frances H (it) wrote: Not the worst movie I've ever seen, but not the best mystery by far. I had the end figured out way before the end, but the premise to begin with was good, although poorly developed with obvious consequences.
Nate T (br) wrote: Fun when Price and Carradine are on camera. Otherwise, one may be wondering what the hell did they let themselves in for by watching this. This may be a cut below Tales Of Terror (1962), but still is a cut above From A Whisper To A Scream (1987).
Curtis A (gb) wrote: A film with beautiful cinematography, an unnerving sense of calm, and a tragic story of a life, arguably, wasted by vengeance. A sad film that while not fast paced, never drags and has some great images that'll stay in the mind for a long time. Phew, managed to say that without mentioning Tarantino once!... Drat!
Grouchy E (us) wrote: ?Every American should see this movie to understand the horrors of slavery.? ? comment on the Internet Movie Database. ?The most disgusting, contemptuous insult to decency ever to masquerade as a documentary.? ? film critic Roger Ebert, in his 1972 review of "Goodbye Uncle Tom." So is "Goodbye Uncle Tom" a must-see film, as the IMDB commenter insists, or was Ebert right to vilify the ?shockumentary?? I tend to side with the IMDB commenter ? although Ebert might have a point. "Uncle Tom" is an uncompromising look at slavery, and by that I mean it?s graphic, painful, and extremely unpleasant. But did it have to be so incendiary, if only to make its point? And what about the methods used by Italian filmmakers Gualtiero Jacopetti and Franco Prosperi, who might have callously exploited impoverished Haitians to depict 19th-century American slaves? Jacopetti and Prosperi made their notorious movie utilizing news footage of racial unrest in the 1960s and combining it with dramatizations of actual people and events from early America. To play the slaves, real Haitians (many of them underage) were recruited, and they are filmed in degrading and humiliating scenarios, often completely naked. Exactly how Jacopetti and Prosperi convinced hundreds of Haitians to go along with this is debatable, but most of them were poor, uneducated, and living under the harsh regime of ?Papa Doc? Duvalier. In other words, they were living under conditions not dissimilar to slavery itself. Jacopetti and Prosperi may be accused of exploitation, but certainly not of sugar-coating history. Southern whites generally come off as monsters in the film, but Europeans, Northerners, and even some blacks are also portrayed in a negative light. You probably won?t ?like? "Goodbye Uncle Tom," but you will be impressed by it. A haunting musical score by Riz Ortolani ? bizarrely upbeat during otherwise horrific scenes ? adds to the movie?s impact. The problem for Jacopetti and Prosperi is that a lot of this stuff comes off as pure titillation. Young black men are stripped, poked, prodded and whipped. Young black women are stripped, poked, prodded and raped. But the camera frequently lingers on their nudity in close-up detail. "Goodbye Uncle Tom?s" sexual politics, graphic violence, and pessimistic outlook caused it to be banned or censored in some countries. But just as the Jews make certain that the Holocaust is not forgotten, that IMDB user is also correct: Every American should see this.
Zack P (au) wrote: Segments are hit and miss. The best are Peter and the Wolf, The Whale Who Wanted to Sing at the Met, and All the Cats Join In.
Eduardo S (ag) wrote: Muy buena! buena msica y buen clima. gracias una vez ms isat
Michael Lee T (fr) wrote: An Epic Historical Vengeance film about a Roman general turned Gladiator who is determined to avenge the death of his family from the one who murdered them. Being extremely well produced and well-constructed makes Gladiator one of the finest films of the 21st Century. It's exhilarating storyline and strong themes make it stand out, especially when events occur in the setting of ancient Rome. It's certainly one of a kind and that's, for me, what makes it so epic. Whilst being constructed beautifully, Gladiator has an excellent cast on show, including memorable performances from both Russell Crowe and Joaquin Phoenix. Crowe portrays a strong honorable man and Phoenix the polar opposite, an untrustworthy unmoral man. Both are outstanding in their respective roles, making for an entertaining climax when the two meet. The story is fantastic, it really grabs hold of the audience and as a viewer you go on a journey with the main protagonist (Crowe) and as he goes through the motions you do too. We feel his pain, we feel his sorrow and we feel his desire for vengeance. A Great Story.A powerful and stunning film directed by the great Ridley Scott.
Michael S (nl) wrote: The hilarious premise for this black comedy is equally funny and frightening.
Chloe A (ru) wrote: 3 1/2 stars! I did enjoy this film because I like Ben Affleck! Some of the bits did make me laugh out loud as well