This one in top 250 is a clear indicative of the decadence of our time.

Rating: 3/10 (14 December 2007)

I watched the first of the sequel, then the second, and at this point I was fed up already. However, being this one in top 250 by the time I write this, I though this one was a one of a kind. Instead, I was trapped with more of the same again. Only "better" in the sense of *much more* of the same. The camera work is frantic; I really wonder how director x(I don't care what his name is) managed to do this. It's outstanding... AND tiring. Does this "outstandicity" make a superb film? Definitely no, in my opinion. We see "outstanding" rarities by the minute these days. For example, take someone who is able to speak inverted (detrevni) fluently; I knew such a person. Now is this good at all for any useful means? The film has no heart: it doesn't trap and captivate the spectator; it's a full rush of (much more than is acceptable)unreal events unfolding frantically. This is reserved for science-fiction, but this is not science fiction, neither is it realistic at all. Look... there is a part when someone says "if things bla,bla, bla, then he would have gone to CNN"!! Let's all laugh out loud!!!! Yeah, as if there remained ANY media that does not belong to, or has already been bought by those who really rule at this awful decadent times we're living in. Come on! Don't waste your time. There are better things to do.