Q: The latest film by the Spanish director Agusti Villaronga is a study on how children that experience violence and isolation within their remote community, develop into troubled young adults that need certain psychic tools to deal with their hidden mental frailty. Whether these tools are religion followed to a fanatical level, caring for others or simply putting on a macho image whilst engaging as a male-prostitute, Villaronga creates a successful examination of how these vices affect three teenagers living in Spain under Franco. The three witness the disturbing double death or their friends before they are teenagers and subsequently bury the emotions they feel with their peers frail corpses until they meet again once more at a hospital for those suffering form tuberculosis.

The cinematic style of the text is typically visually opulent as you would expect from the Spanish auteur and is extremely reminiscent of fellow Spaniard Pedro Almodovar's work with themes dealing with sexual desire, both heterosexual and homosexual. An element that is different between the two directors is that Villaronga favours a supernatural undertone spliced with claustrophobic, gritty realism opposed to Almodovar's use of surrealism, although both styles are similar.

The piece gives an insight into troubled young psyche and contains disturbing violence and scenes of a sexual nature. I highly recommend watching this film as it contains elements that will remain with the audience for a considerable period after viewing. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: This is the third parody of the scary movies and hopefully the last. This time the spoof is mainly on The Ring, Signs and 8 Mile for some weird reason. In my opinion this movie was very pointless and unnecessary and not even funny. I laughed maybe three times and that is not enough for a comedy. I really enjoyed the first two but this one was just plain dumb. If your jokes consist of corpses getting beat up and people constantly throwing stuff at each other then this movie is for you. In my opinion, if your smart enough stay at home and save your money and please stop making these kind of movies, they just keep getting worse 3/10. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: Its too bad a lot of people didn't understand this and the next episode.

But don't worry! ill explain it too you :)

This episode is split in 2 parts.

first part is Tony's "Dream" in his coma. Second part is what happens in real life.

now what people didn't understand is that Tony's dream is more then just a dream. in this episode its about his preparation for his Death. He loses his own identity and eventually even forgets himself, thus he disconnects all his bindings with this world. You will notice what I'm saying at the doctor scene, where tony says he has lost his briefcase which contains "his life". They makers really did a superb job of interpreting they're own thoughts of what happens when you die.

If you understand the whole plot you will find this and the next episode an unique thing, with great spiritual meanings.

Like every sopranos episode the acting and filming is superb.

Only thing i didn't understand was what the role where of the monks. gonna re watch it till i get this.

anyways this episode really touched me, and i don't think anyone else can make a better view of what happens in a almost death experience.

10/10 no doubt. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: I saw this film on the History Channel today (in 2006). First of all, I realize that this is not a documentary -- that it is a drama. But, one might hope that at least the critical "facts" that the story turns on might be based on actual events. Reagan was shot and the other characters were real people. The movie got that right. From there on, reliance on facts rapidly decays. I had never heard of this movie before seeing it. Having been a TV reporter at the time of these events, I was stunned that I had never heard anything about the bizarre behavior of Secretary Haig as portrayed by Richard Dreyfuss. The whole nation had heard the "I am in control...", etc., but Dreufuss' Haig is bullying a cowered cabinet and totally out of control personally. Having watched the film, I began researching the subject on the Internet and quickly found actual audio tapes and transcripts of most of the Situation Room conversations that this film pretends to reenact. Incredibly, many the the principal "facts" of the film meant to show a White House, Secret Service etc. in total chaos -- and the nation's leadership behaving irrationally and driving the world near the brink of nuclear war -- are demonstrably incorrect. They didn't happen! There is internal conflict, to be sure. Haig makes missteps, his press room performance is historically regrettable and he is "difficult". But there is nothing approaching the scenes depicted in the film. There are too many gross errors to list, but any fair comparison of the recorded and written record and the fantasy of this film begs the question as to what the producers were really trying to accomplish. Enlighten? Inform? Entertain? I believe they failed on all three fronts. It is difficult to ascribe motives to others, but one must seriously question what was behind such shameless invention. And, as for my beloved History Channel's "Reel to Real" follow-on documentary, there was almost no mention of the issues that were the central focus of the film -- namely the events within the Administration on the day of the shooting. So, the viewer was left to research those without much -- if any -- help from the network. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative