An employee of a secret company operation becomes the victim of the company's special weapons project. He is transformed into a robotic killing machine that, because of his programming must... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
An employee of a secret company operation becomes the victim of the company's special weapons project. He is transformed into a robotic killing machine that, because of his programming must destroy anything that comes near him.
You may also like
The Vindicator torrent reviews
Timothy F (fr) wrote: A documentary full of twists and turns that is absolutely riveting to anyone with an interest in fine art. To think that it has been almost 20 years and the art still hasn't been recovered. This is a fascinating and frustrating experience of a film.
Christopher P (jp) wrote: The more you dig, the more you find...Interviewer beware... "Brief Interviews with Hideous Men" is a daring film by director John Krasinski. The film is based on a short story collection of the same name by David Foster Wallace. This is a thought-provoking melodrama which explores life, sex, and gender largely from a male perspective. It's screenplay is refreshingly smart, sharp, and honest. "Brief Interviews With Hideous Men" is told mostly through the monologue format which transforms the film into a character study of uniquely opinionated individuals. The actors are all fun to watch and they perform well with material that is occasionally brilliant. Unfortunately, some of their dialogue runs thick and is noticeably pretentious. However, their dialogue contains many moments of dry humor and touches on many familiar subjects. Julianne Nicholson stars as Sara Quinn, a grad student who interviews a large number of men as part of a social experiment. Her "subjects" aren't "hideous" as the movie title suggests, but are surprisingly raw and open to her questions as she explores their psyches. Quinn's resolve to continue her experiments wane as they coincidentally influence her personal life. It's worth noting that Quinn isn't without her own personal baggage; she is involved in tumultuous relationships with a few of her subjects. Specifically, Ryan is romantically involved with Quinn and is found to be harboring some disturbing feelings about the nature of love and their relationship. He delivers the film's closing monologue which deals with some rather heavy subject material. Ryan is played superbly by the director. He may prove to have some dramatic acting potential outside of his comedic comfort zones. There is no doubt that he has some exceptional skills as a director. Another noteworthy performance is by veteran actor Frankie Faison, who plays the son of a dedicated bathroom attendant. He recounts his father's experiences in the film's most powerful and effective monologue. Here, we witness the nature of men as it pertains to their bathroom behavior. Through this examination we are easily reminded of the imperfections of humanity, most notably, our vanity. I enjoyed the many ideas this film brought to the forefront. Our society has become increasingly opinionated and our philosophies are ever-changing. We need more films like this which produce ideas and stoke more intelligent thoughts. Grade: A-
Mark H (gb) wrote: I couldn't make it to the end of this film; the acting was below average and the plot, while its premise was good, was executed so poorly. A lot of needless scenes and very little suspense considering its genre.
Clefferson C (br) wrote: A good reason to have (or not to have) children!
Cameron J (kr) wrote: I've never really been all that crazy about Ridley Scott as a director, but I think that he was a perfect choice to direct this, because when you look at his tastes, the son of a Brit appears to wish that he was American, and it doesn't get any more American than the story of Christopher Columbus, so long as you believe the ultimate testament to American culture is our diversity, because even our discovery story is riddled with different ethnicities playing key roles. Columbus was an Italian who sailed under the Spanish flag to Asia, only to accidentally land in America, nearly 500 years after Norse explorer Leif Ericson looked around, and mistaken its indigenous population for the Indians. Boom, y'all just got a history lesson; I bet you didn't expect to look into a historical film and actually learn something about history. If you actually have the mindset that all history film pieces are dubious, then maybe you should cut back on watching Oliver Stone historical films, or at least watch a Ridley Scott period piece other than "Kingdom of Heaven". I'm probably one of the last people to call anything pertaining to Edward Norton total bull (Except for "Down in the Valley"; he's not getting away with that), but it should be noted that they took some liberties with Baldwin IV of Jerusalem. So yeah, as you can tell, if I wasn't so bent on gunning for movie critic, then I would probably become a history teacher. Teaching the stuff has to be more exciting than seeing it acted out, because you'd be surprised how much less interesting history gets when it's being dramatized, and if you're expecting this film to be as slam-bang, unrelentingly thrilling as the aforementioned "Kingdom of Heaven" then, well, you're right, because outside of a good couple of awesome action sequences, that film was another awesome testament to Ridley Scott's being kind of a dry storyteller, and the same can be said about this film. I once heard someone describe the film as overlong, and at that moment, I couldn't help but wonder just what in the world they were talking about, because the voyage of Christopher Columbus sounds built for an epic runtime; in fact, 149 minutes sounded too short. Walking into it, I soon found that the film is in fact, well, justified in its 149 minute runtime, it just felt like it ran for forever. No, it's not that bad, but Ridley Scott's lack of oomph and palpable overambition dries and pulls at the film, leaving it to go limp and dull. With an overbearingly histrionic (Ha-ha, histrionic history) tone and limp resonance to exacerbate pure slowness that's all too common among Ridley Scott's "efforts", the film drags, with many a point in exposition feeling as though it's going nowhere. Of course, when the film does go somewhere, outside of plenty of absurdly gratuitous ultraviolence most films of this type are typically smart enough to avoid, the destination is almost, if not decidedly always one that we've seen before, as the film, on top of falling into the conventions of slowness found in too many films of its type, this film collapses into countless story and even stylistic conventions, making it painfully generic and simply much more same-old-same-old than unique. I guess you could say that this film is to its type what Leif Ericson was to the Americas, in that this new visit has a fresh coat of paint, but it's still very much been-there-done-that, only unlike Christopher Columbus' voyage to the Americas, this visit is most certainly not any bigger of a deal, ultimately coming out as tragically forgettable and as further testament to Ridley Scott's awesome ability at squandering potential. However, for the time you are within the film, through all of the rocky waters and seemingly endless periods, it comes out as more enjoyable than not, and while the film won't impress terribly, it will get you by, particularly if you're looking for style. If nothing else is notable about the film, then it's its production designs, which are admittedly not terribly notable, yet remain elaborate, slick and immersively authentic-feeling, with Adrian Biddle's handsome cinematography making the production all the more attractive. As for Vangelis' score, it's usually conventional, with some unique touches that come off as kind of strange, yet on the whole, it boasts sweep and dynamicity in both sound and tone. That's good, because if Ridley Scott is going to bear us down with the score so unrelentingly to the point of tainting the film's steam, then we may as well like the music and have it fit the film in some way. Actually, as much I hammer down on Ridley Scott as a director, he is with good tastes, and while his own efforts aren't quite competent enough for the final product to live up to those tastes, there is a certain charm about Scott's visions and workmanlike efforts. I'm sure that he'd like to be respected as more than just incompetent to the point of being kind of charming, yet the fact of the matter is that, if nothing else, the film charms, whether it be because of Scott's tastes or the skills of his performers. True, there's no truly upstanding performance among the cast, but from the distinctive secondaries to the charismatic lead of Grard Depardieu, the performers give the film a human touch that helps in pulling it through thick and thin. Yes, at the end of the day, potential still goes squandered and the film does not leave a thorough enough impression to stick with the audience, yet with style and charm, spawned from a fine production and charismatic atmosphere, the film stands as ultimately worth the sit. Overall, Ridley Scott's typically overbearing histrionic tone intensifies the sting of dullness and unrelenting genericism, leaving the film tagically dry, underwhelming and hardly memorable, yet through handsome style and lively production to compliment charm spawned from a haul of charismatic performances - headed by the winning Grard Depardieu - and Scott's ambition, however overbearing it may be here and there, "1492: Conquest of Paradise" lands in familiar territory, but goes comfortably anchored by general enjoyment value, through all of its missteps. 2.5/5 - Fair
roger t (it) wrote: woods, gossett and dern are fine and the humorous body shots connect more often than miss. however, when it deviates from the game plan and goes for the dramatic head blow this town seems more like a palookaville.......
Sam P (jp) wrote: Madcap, macabre and unmistakably French.
Guillaume L (de) wrote: Un film d'anticipation contre la societe de consommation, realise par Michael Crichton qui semble ici adapter une nouvelle qu'il n'aurait pas publiee. Les idees sont fortes mais le scenario est faible. Peu ramifie, tres lineaire, ce qui est genant pour un thriller. On a meme l'impression que le film pourrait durer moitie moins, comme un episode de la "4e dimension" par exemple, ce serait suffisant.
Brandon W (fr) wrote: Right off the bat, this film dragged me in. Just how epic it was. An epic battle right off the bat in a time period that was unique and with a production look that was stellar. Unfortunatley, this film couldn't keep up with how good that first little bit was. It's still good, don't get me wrong but I could definitely feel the film slowing down and tredding water. Because this is a long movie and you can feel it's length. Last little compaint, Leo's and Cameron Diaz's Irish Accents seem to go in and out throughout the entire movie. Now for the good. Like I said before, the look and feel of this movie is amazing. Daniel Day-Lewis is a god on screen. Geniunely terrifying. Lastly, the violence felt like it was straight out of a Tarantino film. Overall, this is a really good movie. Not Scorcese's best but a film worthy of checking out.