It's the year of destiny, and 15 year old Kamui Shiro, a powerful psychic, has returned to Toyko after a 6 year absence, having left when he was very young. He wants to be with his childhood friends, Fuma (his best friend) and Kotori, Fuma's little sister (and Kamui's possible girlfriend). He wants to protect them from all dangers, but destiny and fate are haunting Kamui and pulling in himself and his beloved childhood friends. It is his destiny and his sole decision to decide the fate of the world, no matter if he wants the role or not. Now it is a matter of if he will join the side of the Seven Seals and become the Dragon of Heaven to save mankind or join the Seven Angels and become the Dragon of Earth to destroy all civilization so the earth can heal itself from man's destruction.
The story takes place in 1999, the Year of Destiny, and the beginning of the end of the world. The future of the universe rests on one young man, Kamui Shiro, who must destroy either the ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Andrea C (ag) wrote: Oh my. This one really messes with you!
Kevin W (it) wrote: A horror phone booth type ... Interesting
Mark A (us) wrote: A terrific, dialog driven philosophical discussion between two men with completely opposite world views being totally honest with one another. Shy away if you need action. This is really just two men talking, but I was completely immersed in the interplay between a man who sees no reason to go on, and one whose life was given back to him when confronted with his own mortality, and who now does what he can to bring an opportunity to change to others. I found myself in sympathy with both men, as I still live in the intersection between faith and reason. I give it five stars, because I want to watch this one again and again, to absorb the implications of what each man expresses.
Austin G (mx) wrote: Call me crazy, but this is one of Amy Adams' best performances.
Andree S (kr) wrote: The 3 out of 4 of us fell asleep....I tired very hard not to,,but I failed in the first 20mns of the film.
Craig G (de) wrote: Amazing in its sweetness. Arthur Kane shares a quality with Dee Dee Ramone in that they both retain a fascinating innocence that makes them very sympathetic. Surely worth seeing if you are a New York Dolls fan, and recommended if you like rock documentaries. It's probably the best one i've seen since End of the Century.
Gabriela E (au) wrote: this was a great stupid movie
mike p (ca) wrote: The first Trekkies is one of the funnist films i have ever seen. So i was hoping this one would be at the most as goodand at the least entertaining. But alas its neither. Trekkies 2 covers the international scene of geekdom. While at times updating us with a few of the highlighted Trekkers from the first. And its these "highlights' were Trekkies 2 is the most interesting and entertaining. But after the first half hour i was really wanting to turn this off. One film on Star Trek geeks is all we need.
Mark K (fr) wrote: terrible on every level
Gregory M (ca) wrote: It kinda reversed the roles and what everyone thinks of homosexuals and in a weird manner managed to show that one's sexuality does not define who that person is.Other than that some funny situations,some really ridiculous ones,but I would say all with the appropriate respect.
David F (nl) wrote: This film about teenage girls living in a small, boring town is a masterpiece posing as a reality TV series, a quiet, subtle, heartbreaking drama full of the nonchalance, misery, and minor joys of adolescence.Agnes is turning 16 and her mother has organized a birthday party for her. She is encouraged to hand out invitations at school though she says she has not made any friends during the year and a half her family has lived in Amal. Contrasted with her is Elin and Jessica, two popular girls who drink and fool around with boys. They find out about the party and go over to Agnes's, the only ones who do besides a wheelchair bound student who gives Agnes a bottle of perfume and suffers Agnes's abuse in a release of frustration which is analogous to this film as a whole.Most of the film takes place in the girls' homes, at parties and informal gatherings among the students, and in the school lunchroom, and it treats the very same subject matter, characters and events as the much better known John Hughes films like 'The Breakfast Club' and 'Sixteen Candles'. (Indeed, while that film ends with Molly Ringwald's character blowing out the candles on a cake, 'Show Me Love' starts with a similar scene.) But this is a coming of age film filtered through a bleak Scandinavian sensibility. These girls are frustrated and angry at their miserable lives and remote hometown. When Elin whines about not being allowed to go to a Rave Jessica points out that a magazine has listed Raves as 'out'. This prompts the complaint that Amal is so far away from anything that by the time any new trend reaches it, it has already lost it's popularity.The film is shot almost like a reality TV show with some zooming and a very informal attitude towards composition. But the acting being done here is brilliant and of the highest professional quality. Particularly good is Rebecca Liljeberg as Agnes, the birthday girl who clashes with her mother, is supported sincerely but cluelessly by her father and who is madly in love with Elin though she can tell no one but her diary. Equally successful is the performance of Alexandra Dahlstrm whose character is constantly trying new things, up for bets, and into clothes and boys. She goes seamlessly from trying on clothes and weighing carefully their effect on her appearance to making a dash for Stockholm via hitchhiking to taking a feminist stand when a boy makes a somewhat innocent comment about women and technology. (When her tongue tied sort-of-boyfriend fails to get behind her in her stand she drops him almost immediately using said technology.)This is a stark film which has some grim scenes of the hopelessness, cruelty, and confusion of youth but it is a true portrait of small town adolescent angst which gets to the depths of the universal condition through a small, Swedish portal.
Joe H (fr) wrote: an entertaining hospital comedy.
Jeff A (mx) wrote: He will always be the man
Aragorn K (ca) wrote: All style with little direction and uneven acting. Sin City never finds a focus and as such, never is able to adequately develop its stories or its characters and ends up being surprisingly boring as a result.
Kristi M (es) wrote: I don't really like or dislike The Duke of Burgundy. It's total art house rich with symbolism and understated allusions that became rather tedious early on in the movie. I'm not very fond of being hammered with the same thing over and over. Death's Head moth. I get it. Life Cycle and all that. Butterfly in a glass house. Got it the first time I had to watch an overdrawn mothy moment. I kept watching in spite of that because it' has a haunting quality to it that makes it engrossing and unforgettably unique approach in its style.
Kimberly B (au) wrote: I didn't read the book this movie was based on, but my husband did. He was appalled that John Malkovich was cast as the lead role, because in the book, apparently, the man is supposed to be a sort of Byronic type, and charming and attractive despite (or because of?) his lothario tendencies. Instead, we have Malkovich, who comes across as creepy and pathetic, not to mention physically repulsive. Also, he displays the emotional depth of a puddle. He comes across as a cipher in all his movies -- and not because Deep Things are going on inside him, but because he seems, at heart, to be a robot. Or an alien. Something with completely absent or frozen solid emotions. If this character is supposed to be seething with inner passion or desire or inner SOMETHING, Malkovich was not cast well, then. He is a pedophilic pod person. Not a tortured soul. That aside, this is chock full of depressing and horrible things, and I fail to see the point. The characters are all pretty much unsympathetic and unlikeable, esp. the main characters. I hated them both by the end. I do not see what connection his relationship with the student has with the tragic events that befall his daughter, except that the first caused him to be living with her. If we are supposed to draw a connection between his behavior (acting on impulse) and the behavior of the monsters who attacked the daughter (are they acting on impulse, too?), I think the comparison is faulty at best, if not downright offensive and repugnant.I don't know what this movie was trying to communicate, but I didn't much care for what I saw. Perhaps the book was better? they usually are. Or perhaps the book was just as depressing, pointless, and ultimately self-indulgent as the movie. I say: SKIP this one.