The Image Revolution

The Image Revolution

Twenty years ago, seven superstar artists left Marvel Comics to create their own company, Image Comics, a company that continues to influence mainstream comics and pop culture to this day. Image began as more than just a publisher - it was a response to years of creator mistreatment, and changed comics forever. The Image Revolution tells the story of Image Comics, from its founders' work at Marvel, through Image's early success, company difficulties during the comics market implosion, and ultimately the publisher's new generation of properties like The Walking Dead. Filled with colorful characters, the film is a clarion call to artists to take control of their destiny.

Twenty years ago, seven superstar artists left Marvel Comics to create their own company, Image Comics, a company that continues to influence mainstream comics and pop culture to this day. ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


The Image Revolution torrent reviews

Samya M (au) wrote: only for 12 year olds !

Bill M (fr) wrote: MESSAGE MOVIE! And it forces its message down your throat by making any character that isn't a simple-minded "activist" into a fucking coked up rapist. Horrible characterization and absolutely no satisfying resolution to most of the "plots". Ethan Hawke's character in particular just raped us with the movie's message. Oh, and fuck Avril Lavigne who is the walking, talking, product of this great machine that sucks in the minds of "rebellious" fourteen year old girls with hypocritical, shallow, bullshit.

Nasser M (es) wrote: [Spoiler Warning: this review contains major spoilers for Gus Van Sant's Elephant. If you have not watched the movie, I advise you to not read on.]What makes Gus Van Sant's Elephant so popular is not its plot or traditional Hollywood thrill we are used to witnessing in most well made movies, but it's the experience of living in the realm of the movie and taking part in it. Elephant pulls the audience away from their seats and into the scenes themselves where they get to witness the most mundane lives then the most gruesome moments. It is a movie that, whether you love it or hate it, will keep you tossing and turning in bed for nights afterwards. In essence, Elephant makes the audience themselves become elephants as they watch it.The movie begins with a car scene of a drunk father unable to drive his son to school, so the son takes over and drives there. The camera follows him all the way into the school and after he gets requested to go to the principal office, the camera transitions to someone else. The movie keeps transitioning from one student to another, showing nothing more than the average high school life many of us have already lived, but it does so at eye level to give the audience a feel that they themselves are the camera following the person. The monotonous story makes the audience want to spit on the screen and leave the movie theatre, but the way the movie is shot binds them to their seats and make them want to stay till the end like the way a child is made to finish his entire plate of vegetables.At that point, it would be very surprising if there was anyone who was enjoying the movie. But it seemed to Van Sant that this was the optimum moment to completely change flow of events without warning. An hour into the movie, two students go inside the school and start shooting everyone. Even though the audience are forced to follow the killers as the brutally execute a mass slaughter of innocent people, the momentum of the movie remains flat. There is no music to accompany the scenes neither is there any expression on the killers' faces to show that they doing something out of the ordinary. The movie also ends with the same flat momentum as Van Sant provides us with no conclusion of what happens nor does he provide the audience with any lead for them to be able to conclude the movie on their own. The movie kept me awake the night after watching the movie, as I had not understood anything of what I watched, and I did not have the mental power to process the movie just yet because I was still left with the enormous shock and prodigious load of emotions. Later I realized that my emotions were not conceived of a movie, but of me witnessing a massacre with my own two eyes. Van Sant made the movie based on the an actual high school massacre known as the Columbine High School Massacre, which till this day is known as the largest high school massacre ever to occur on US soil. Van Sant did not want to make a documentary where he could feed us with information of what happened, but rather make us live it and try to come with the information on our own, as the name of the movie explains what his intention was.The name of the movie was borrowed from Alan Clarke's movie where Van Sant also borrowed many of Clarke's filming techniques. What both Clarke and Van Sant meant by "Elephant" was something very obvious that we see everyday but fail to notice and that emulates a huge elephant in a room that no one pays attention to. The elephants in Van Sant's movie are both the socially isolated students we follow and also ourselves as the audience. The socially isolated students are shown to live their lives everyday with no one paying much attention to them, even though the pain and psychological difficulties they go through should be noticed. We are elephants because we too are isolated from the our surroundings as we walk around the school unnoticed. Through the movie we come to a deeper understanding of what "elephants" are as he plays around with Berkeley's concept of existence and Descartes's. George Barkely defines existence as the ability to be perceived by stating that "To be is to be perceived." Descartes, on the other hand, defines existent as the ability of a person to think when he says "I think, therefore I am." Van Sant shows us how the students and the audience are trapped with their own thoughts because their thoughts are the only conformation to them that they exist, but they cannot satisfy Berkley's concept of existence. This provides us with one explanation for the killings as the two students start to kill others around them because this is the only way they can be perceived. But Van Sant gives us no absolute conclusion of why the killings happened, instead he leaves many clues which pose more questions than answers. Other than wanting to satisfy their existence, Van Sant also shows us they the killers were bullied, were gay, played violent video games, and were influenced by the Nazi's from world war II.Gus Van Sant's Elephant is a masterpiece that is not like any other piece of work out there. It is like an organized piece of chaotic art that emerges the Dionysian disorder with the Apollonian order in a perfect combination where nothing makes sense on its own but everything makes sense together. It is unexpected and hard to grasp in a way that emulates the ambiguity of real life. It bores the audience and then horrifies them, but it does so in a well ordered and well designed way that makes them want to observe more. The movie does not give the audience any information about the shootings, but gives them all the tools needed for them to forge the information on their own.

Heloisa R (de) wrote: America Ferrera does a great job as an acculturated Latina living in the U.S. Her struggles for independency and cultural moral obligations are in constant conflict though they do come together at times to teach the teenager life is not all black or white. It's "simple" but the complexity of the characters and the cultural environment are all that is necessary to make the point. Lupe Ontiveros is fantastic as Ferrera's mother! As a Latina, there were times I could have sworn it was my grandmother on the screen! :)

Nadja A (it) wrote: A young Jesse Spencer as love interest for Mary-Kate, ridiculous fashion choices (I thought the film was from the 90s!) and kitchy love stories as usual.. Yet this film is still an entertaining flick chick in which we get to know some facts about the history of the UK, London and its sightseeing spots.

James H (fr) wrote: Fascinating, thought provoking and very interesting. Beautifully photographed, a lot of effort went into it and it shows. My only gripe is the personal dramatics, they don?t seem to fit with the nature of the documentary.

Calvin L (de) wrote: Great Movie. I pretty much lived it.

Phenyeia O (ca) wrote: Really great movie to watch

Rich A (it) wrote: Oh dear! Emilio and Cuba what did you do! I can forgive Jeremy Piven as this is well before Entourage. Lots of suspense but a totally unbelievable and absurd storyline

Nick S (ru) wrote: Think I'll finally watch this tonight. I've only seen two Wong Kar Wai films and loved them both.

Juan V (jp) wrote: Good lord this was bleak. William Friedkin directs this extremely seedy thriller about a cop (Played phenomenally by Al Pacino) that infiltrates the gay S&M community to find a killer that's been butchering homosexual men. All while Steve (Al Pacino) starts questioning his sexuality and how he struggles with his girlfriend.It's extremely well made with some stunning photgraphy (The entire film looks a very dark american giallo if that makes sense), great performances and a downright disturbing atmosphere. However... I'm not entirely sure about how people might feel about it, since just about everyone and everything in this film is portrayed as grim, ugly and dirty (Which also caused major problems with the film, particularly with the MPAA and many gay community groups), thus rendering the film into a very abrassive work that haves little to no morality in it.It works, but it's still far from the masterpiece it could have been.

Andhika B (us) wrote: Another Bresson's. and another kingdom of boredom

Anuj S (es) wrote: Gritty psychological thriller that enthralled me

Jeremy P (gb) wrote: I initially didn't mind the slow build-up to the monster scenes until I realized why they did it - they cheaped out on hiring a computer graphics animator to design the spirit monsters. I am definitely not one of those people who puts a lot of stock in amazing computer generated imagery, but it was late-'80s, early-'90s quality work. Technically speaking it wasn't a terrible movie, it was tonally consistent, the pacing was a bit slow but not as bad as 'The Shining'. But in terms of horror/scariness the film flopped because it didn't focus on the monster-element enough and, at many points, watched more like a mystery than a horror. Ending the movie with a screen littered with very silly CGI monsters was a disservice to a film that had good camera and sound work without the laziness of jump scares.