Savage Messiah is a docudrama about Roch "Moïse" Thériault, the charismatic former leader of a small religious group based near Burnt River, Ontario, Canada. Between 1977 and 1989 he held sway over as many as 12 adults and 26 children. He used all of the nine women as concubines, and probably fathered most of the children in the group. During his reign, Thériault mutilated several members. His major crime was to kill Solange Boilard, his legal wife, by disembowelment while trying to perform surgery on her. He was arrested for assault in 1989, and convicted of murder in 1993. Along with Clifford Olsen and Paul Bernardo, Thériault is considered one of Canada's most notorious criminals.
Based on real-life events in Canada in the late 1980's, social worker Paula Jackson investigated a commune run by a messiah-like figure who referred to himself as Moses. Jackson's findings ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Ryan T (fr) wrote: Saw this on the AMC channel. And I'm glad I saw it. John Wayne gives a strong performance, as well as the other cast.
Arslan K (au) wrote: Rian Johnson's film looper is quite the ride. First off the performances from Levitt and Willis are quite amazing. There are a lot of scenes especially regarding the character of Bruce Willis that can take a lot from a person on physical and emotional level and they both seem to do a great job at delivering it. Looper is a story about time travel basically but what Johnson did was he showed somewhat of a real version of this crazed phenomenon we all chase to achieve. One of the best thing Johnson does is the way he shows the audience time travel in the very opening of the film the audience is told exactly what kind of time travel movie this will be. The movie revolves around future people sending bad guys back in time to have them killed because hiding a body is nearly impossible in the future, a fact that Johnson kind of looks over and doesn't explain much but saying that an advance civilization with the technology of time travel cannot hide a body so we are now just to accept this and watch the movie. The movie really gets going when Levitt is found faced to faced with himself from the future and Levitt's character Joe is suppose to take older Joes life now and this scene is epically shot with minimum sound in the background which just adds to this scene. And then the movie continues with Joe chasing Joe and it's a thrilling ride from there. A subject that should be talked about is the great direction of Johnson which was new and fresh in every sense and can very well be the next style that reaches the hype of Tarrentino. Now with all the good this movie does it also does quite a bit wrong especially the writing, TK and the paradoxes. Now my most hated thing about this movie was the useless use of the TK mutant type of power in this movie. Which had certain people with the power of telekinesis it felt very unneeded and was just there to give this kid some character who was also a bad addition to this movie but was rightfully cute but stupid nonetheless. This TK thing kind of happened due to the writing of Johnson and relates back to it as well. The other half chunk of the flaws come from the laziness of the writing leading to plot holes. Now Johnson has gone on record to clear things up for people which is fine but a movie should speak forIt self and should be the number one source to find all the confusing answers. It's a bit of a cheap thing to explain and clear things after a movies release. It's almost like it's mandatory for people like me who dig deep in scientific movies and it's not how it should be the movie should be the ONLY experience. Now the main paradox that happened in the movie was the Hitler paradox and it's the biggest one because it causes the movie Events to never happen this resulting in no existence of the movie. Another paradox or plot hole would be the bootstrap one where Levitt will alter his future since he knows his own fate causing 2 paradoxes at once therefore again erasing the movie events. But amidst all these paradoxes and plot holes we are to believe in the parallel universe theory and know same events are occurring in a different universe within the movie events for example the alternative old Joe story that never because young Joe is our protagonist as said by the director. But I still enjoy the movie because it's a movie at the end, and that's how it should be enjoyed but as a time travel sucker this was bound to happen. BUT what bothered me the most was be lazy ending which was...spoilers to kill himself and get rid of every plot hole and paradoxes yes it's a cool way to end it but it was a lazy end and seemed that the directors couldn't take the mess anywhere because of the criticism he would get and the ending is the most acclaimed thing about the movie but I see it as a "l wanna save the hero and the villian and the people, let's kill them all and no one wins" situation, a situation I made right now. All and all this movie is very good with a lot of great moments and direction but it's held back with lazy writing and paradoxes but any thing dealing with time travel always has me going deep then I have to but that's just how I treat time travel movies.
Jason D (mx) wrote: During the opening credits of Frayed, a small girl, Sara, is having her birthday party, it is apparent through the home videos that something is fishy about the girl's brother who misbehaves at the party and his sent to his room, only for the mother to come up to console him but winds up meeting the business end of a baseball bat in a rather chilling death. The boy gets taken away to a mental hospital where he grows up, not speaking and letting his mental state worsen. Naturally, a series of unfortunate events leads to the escape of the disturbed patient who goes on a killing spree as he chases one of the security guards through the woods for a good bit of the movie, eventually leading back to his sister and her friends where more bodies pile up. This forces the father, the town Sheriff, with the dilemma of having to hunt down, stop, and possibly kill his son. The synopsis makes this sound like a pretty interesting movie, which it is, however, it borrow heavily from the likes of Halloween, Identity, and especially High Tension. Those with a well-functioning brain and a history of horror movie watching will IMMEDIATELY figure out the twist within the first 30 minutes of this rather overlong movie. Aside from some time shaving, the film is a small surprise amidst the miles of direct to DVD horror films that usually come out. This film was made on a VERY small budget, but one would never think that upon watching this thanks to how nicely done this film is and how surprisingly mainstream is seems. With 5 writers, I was expecting more than a collage of things we've seen in better movies, but I gotta say their efforts were noble and knowing and thinking about the twist throughout nearly the entire movie left me open for not seeing a bigger twist that completely changed the movie and somehow made it more chilling. Kudos to the filmmakers for that. Good acting, decent slasher scares, decent story. The film just needed more original ideas and a lot of fat trimmed from it.
Jesus H (ru) wrote: nice but fail to meet many things
Jonathan R (us) wrote: A pretty fun when shit hits the fan after gangster turns good movie. Thomas Jane is great. I would remember more if the movie wasn't out of print and the few copies in existence didn't cost 200 bucks on ebay
Shounak B (br) wrote: This film is so simple that and minimalist in its approach that if one is not focus every other things shown through it's beautifully cinematography then he'd miss a great deal of insight, a conventional philosophy of any religion what the director wants to tell again through his screenplay. But the film has more, it has completely unusual and psychological handling of camerawork with it's innovative position and same movement not to forget that it's only a film and restrains its depressive tone after first half.And this way, it can also catch the exact change of perception of the disturbed central character.It is not that required to be informed about the protagonist's life,his problem,because the film is not about on it, it is about the revelation of the character's object to live his life again in this beautiful earth.See,this film never wants to be unique or great in its content,rather becomes very cliche though, but what it consists in its form to narrate the same description of any tale of optimism, this one can surely defeats any in its league.P.S:It grows on further watch..
Aodhan R (de) wrote: The first was a success, so I guess there was no right to hesitate in making a sequel, depending on whether the sequel is made in a good way or if it's really necessary. There was a sequel to the original 'Die Hard' and that worked well, but the question is 'does it always work that well?' Like Die Hard 2, Under Siege 2: Dark Territory doesn't continue where the original left off, and it didn't really need to either. In 'Dark Territory' Casey Ryback finds himself caught up in another ridiculous hostage situation. He manages to lead another rescue mission, like in the first movie, and manages to subdue the new team of terrorists. This is like Bruce Willis's John McClane's second encounter with enemy terrorists that take over an airport on Christmas Eve. Seagal unleashes more hell and fury as Ryback, as he subdues the terrorists to the point of hopelessness, as he again finds himself barely defeated by them. Seagal's usual encounters with baddies in his movies results in Seagal never taking a beating by his opponent and to this point it's totally outdated and rather annoying, despite some fine action moments.
Gd G (us) wrote: I loved this movie as a child, and now I get the adult humor. Nostalgic for me!
Alyan H (ru) wrote: A decent slasher with a twisted but yet not unpredictable ending
Gil G (ru) wrote: D'Amato appears to have been attempting to tell a serious 'Psycho'-inspired story about necrophilia. He sets a proper tone, with appropriately moody cinematography and artful production design, then retreats to his comfort zone, allowing his porn-auteuer instincts and an excess of misogyny and gut-wrenching gore to overwhelm his better intentions. There may be a decent movie buried underneath all the bared breasts and hacked, burned and liquefied body parts, but I'm not sure.Iit's awfully hard to see the forest for the, um, sleaze. Strangely watchable, though, and features one of Goblin's best scores. That's worth a few extra points.
Jesse R (fr) wrote: Rocky is back in Rocky II (1979) and this time Apollo Creed wants a rematch, after the fact he defeated Rocky in Rocky (1976), but many critics stated he did win the match, but then again, he didn't. This gets to Creed and he challenges Balboa to a rematch.Another wonderful film, and I think the fight scenes are better in this one then the original. With Rocky Jr. (Robert) being born, Adrian in a coma, Rocky has a lot on his mind, but with the strength from his Wife, and his determination, Rocky stuns the world once again.
Gianfranco M (br) wrote: Gran bel film horror vecchio stile.
Natalie M (us) wrote: Jean-Pierre Melville has created an amazing film about the French resistance during World War II, based on a true account. The cinematography was really fantastic, and the development of the characters was quite strong as well. Despite the fact that it was released in 1969, it felt very contemporary.
Michael L (br) wrote: My absolute favorite movie of all time. This movie is gritty, entertaining and masterfully put together. I love everything about this film from the music to the epic story of a Ronin saving a small town from two gambling lords.
Jordy A G (de) wrote: Oscar Isaac Cantando 10/10 - Todo lo dems 3/5
Justin B (de) wrote: It's not a movie about male stripping; it's a movie about people. It's far smarter and richer than many give it credit for.
Robert S (br) wrote: Not your typical Tom Hanks movie but one that shows there are no roles he cannot do, a very well balanced movie everything in the movie works I felt, nice score as well and nice direction makes this one a must see. Hanks fan or not but seriously who doesn't like Tom Hanks?
Millo T (jp) wrote: Intentionally disturbing (even sometimes disgusting) movie, full of violence and an oppressing and brutal atmosphere. Talks about the animal nature of human being and confrontation of human interests, but it is more focused on violence itself than in looking into the depth of human being (although it enters in this issue). This movie, together with Disgrace, belong to the category: "never go to live to the countryside".