Q: Moon Child was one of the more symbolic movies I've seen. What I really liked about it was the illustration on immorality/mortality,and the obstacles and guidances through life. The movie depicts a great deal of vampire Kei having the power of immorality and the advantages to it. Whether if it is having supernatural abilities or everlasting life, these are what humans usually wish for. Moon Child shows the pain and disadvantages of being immortal, since the feelings towards loss impacts almost all the characters especially to the main characters Sho and Kei. The meaning of the title 'Moon Child' reveals as the film comes close to the end where it clearly shows that everyone is a moon which shines other people's way, giving guidance. I personality quite like that moral the movie depicted on. The weaknesses of the film lies in some parts of the acting and special effects since it made the film less authentic. The scene where character Toshi dies could have been more powerful and realistic if more authentic emotions in the acting were put into it. Some scenes with special effects like the gun shots also could have been more authentic without making it seem too much like an action video game. The sparks that came out of the guns appeared too fake and I think that could have been eliminated or fixed. Nevertheless, I think Moon Child should be a movie everyone should consider watching. The symbolic ideas and images the movie brings out would be easily accepted by everyone and may interest many viewers. It is quite a thoughtful film and also entertaining to watch. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: Where do I begin? I wanted to enjoy this movie, and I did. Still, I wanted to be able to enjoy it for being another zombie film that was worth my loot, and it wasnt. This was a different kind of enjoyment. This was unhealthy, a perverse glee that I partook in watching one of the most ridiculous films Id seen yet. And I dont much care for whatever Fulci's excuses were, there was no excuse for this film going how it went. This was a bad film all the way around, yet I still cant give it below a 4 out of ten, which is what I gave it, because well...at least I was able to laugh at this misfit of a movie.

I had to imagine these zombies, that were all over the ceilings of these buildings everywhere...had to imagine that they were either bored as hell so they crawled up on the beems, and perched themselves high on stone erections, or they saw the fleshy living motley band of jerk-offs coming around, so they took it upon themselves to stage numerous aerial ambushes. Hell, what else is there to do when youre dead?

I had to laugh at some zombies performing what looked to be martial arts swings, kicks, and jumps, and some shambling about like traditional meatlovers. I feasted my eyes on a floating head that was never explained. I watched in pure horrific delight as the land they were in, the Phillipenes, was absolutely engulfed in fog, heavy doses of fog, and that the ponds were as they were boiling castle moats. I had to even cringe when I saw that the design for a cure for this plague was sketched on a chalkboard as an octagon with lines stretching from each angle, with "Dead One" written in the middle. I had to ask myself...if the science of curing zombies is that easy, then I wonder if I could come up with a little something to start a zombie outbreak here!

All in all the effects were overboard, the dubbing horrid, Im sure the original acting as poor, the story absurd, the zombies inconsistent, even in a bad way they couldve all been similar, and the women ugly, but I found myself enjoying this thing. It was a fun watch. It turned out to be a very very bad film, and I would not recommend this thing unless one is into bad directorial exploitation films, but still, again I say...it was worth a good laugh. I crave zombie films no matter what, but when this had Fulci's name attached to it, it shouldve been much better. Let me dare say, Zombie Holocaust was better. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: Where to begin. This movie started out as something that seemed like a rip-off of "Darkness Falls". An old , disfigured woman living in the woods, giving kids presents for their teeth. Sound familiar? Then it changes. In "Darkness Falls", the tooth fairy only killed you if you saw her. The tooth fairy in this movie killed you no matter what. Why did they need the rocker, his hippie girlfriend or the Bubbas and their sister? I think the movie would've been fine without them. It seems like the producers sat around and decided that they needed to put extra people in the movie just so the tooth fairy would have people to kill. Although, it's nice to see a pretty blonde girl not being portrayed as a bubble-head for a change. Okay to rent, but I wouldn't suggest buying it. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: It's really rare that you get an inside view at a media deception that has been so widely reported as official "truth" and caught so many "news" agencies with their pants down. This movie, in my view, deserves every price there is in journalism - it's objective (yes!), courageous and a real "scoop". It can do without comment, fake scenes or leading questions - everyone, including Chavez equally gets to make fools of themselves in their own words. The filmmakers "only" had to keep track of events and keep their cameras rolling.

The Venezuelan elite teaches us "How to depose of a President and sell it as a victory of democracy". It's amazing that they lost in the end - so far. From what I know, the biggest TV station involved only got its terrestrial license revoked, they're still broadcasting via cable and satellite. I highly doubt whether George W. or Barack Obama would be that tolerant after an attempted coup. But then, they don't have to worry.

The fact that the "Chavez supporters shoot innocent civilians" scam was so willingly repeated around the world reveals just how biased the so-called "free" (established) media really has become, or has always been, only more so. An important lesson to anyone interested in what "really" goes on in the world.

The famous "objectivity" challenge always comes into play when journalists dare to oppose the mainstream view, or reveal unwelcome facts that accuse "us" - it has been true with the effects of the Atomic bomb, the US secret history of spreading "democracy" around the world or the Iraq war that, according to Johns Hopkins, has killed 1,3 million Iraquis by now, not to mention the 60,000 Afghans (in 2003) that are never mentioned. To be objective, Saddam Hussein was less damaging to his people than the US. And the US is ready & willing to be more damaging to the Iranians that he was.

I'm quite curious about the upcoming trial of some Khmer Rouge leaders before the International Tribunal in The Hague, whether there will be any mention of "our" involvement in supporting and training Pol Pot's guerrillas in the 80's, when they had been largely defeated by the Vietnamese. Probably not.

All the more reason to turn to the Independent media for balance, if not exposure of fraud. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive