Certificate
U symbol stands for universal, a U film can be viewed by anyone over 4. (Though, it is impossible to predict what might upset children, especially younger children.) For viewers under 4, the BBFC give them a special rating saying they are 'particularly suitable for pre-school children'. This films raise no issues (like drugs, sex or violence).
In a U film very mild language is allowed (like hell) and occasionally bad language like 'bugger' is allowed, but only when it's justified by the scenes content.
In U films characters can hug and kiss, but there will be no sexual behaviour. Heterosexual and homosexual sexual behaviour is treated the same.
In U films the characters can be placed in danger/ a fight scene but these will be quickly resolved. 'Baddies' may carry weapons, but there will be no emphasis on the weapon.
U films rarely have any references to drugs, unless it's anti-drugs.
On example of a U film is Scooby Doo on Zombie island.
The gang reunite and visit
Moonscar island, a place with a dark secret. Daphne wants more than just a guy
in a costume, and they get more than they bargained for.
The
story is; Scooby and the gang visit Zombie
Island, where they find themselves menaced by the ghost of Moonscar the pirate
and the island's most infamous inhabits--Zombies!! Written
by A.Stooge
The gang have split up and have taken
on new careers, including Daphne being a reporter. For her birthday, Fred
invites the whole gang to join their trip to Loisiana for Daphne's ghost TV
show. They have many adventures but every 'ghost' is just a guy in a costume.
they soon meet Lena, who takes them to Moonscar Island in the hopes to
encounter a real ghost. Things soon become creepy and the gang find themselves
wrapped up in the Island's mystery. Written by Casperr.
After
years of unmasking fake ghosts, Scooby and the gang go searching for real
ghosts. Their search takes them to Zombie Island, which gives them a lot more
than they ever expected. The gang finds themselves caught between a sect of
vicious cat creatures and a horde of zombies lead by the ghost of Moonscar the
Pirate. Written by A.Stooge.
One review
for it :
The gang is back, with
better animation and a different wardrobe for Fred & Daphne. Like the live
action film, the gang reunites after a few years apart, but not because of a
clash of egos. Daphne is now a talk show host, Fred is her producer and
personal camera man, Velma runs a mystery book store and Shaggy and Scooby work
at an airport checking luggage. But they miss each other and reunite on
Daphne's birthday to set out on a cross country journey looking for
"real" ghosts, only to find more "nut jobs in Halloween
costumes".
Then they head to the Bayou where they crash at an old house run by a creepy woman. Something fishy is clearly going on, but who's behind it all? Is it the creepy old woman who owns the house, her daughter who has a thing for Fred, the rugged gardener who Daphne seems to have a thing for, the fisherman, the ferry man, or something much, much worse? Before you can say "Scooby snack!" the gang is up to their neck in trouble battling zombies and cat people! Will they survive?
By far the best of the new Scooby Doo animated films on video, this one explores certain themes that kind of developed but were never explored in the old show - like is there something going on between Fred & Daphne, and what would the gang do with themselves if they were apart. It also explores what happens when the gang finally encounters the real deal and not a guy in a mask, so it's basically "Night of the Living Dead" with the Mystery Inc gang.
Frank Welker, voice of Fred, is the only member of the original series on hand. Don Messick, voice of Scooby, died before this one was put into the works, and for some reason Casey Kasem wasn't available as Shaggy. Shaggy is voiced instead by Billy West (, Geek-er from "Geek-er", Fry from "Futurama") and he is a capable Shaggy. Scooby is voiced perfectly by Scott Innes. Daphne is voiced with girlish perkiness by the late Mary Kay Bergman (Really horrible what happened to her; I hope she's found peace in the next world) and BJ Ward (Scarlet from the GI Joe cartoons) is the geeky Velma. Cam Clarke, the voice of Leonardo from "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" and the new voice of He-Man, plays the gardener, and Mark Hamill does another creepy vocal characterization.
Don't miss Fred trying to yank the head off a zombie grumbling "It's the gardener... it's the fisherman... it's the ferryman!"
Then they head to the Bayou where they crash at an old house run by a creepy woman. Something fishy is clearly going on, but who's behind it all? Is it the creepy old woman who owns the house, her daughter who has a thing for Fred, the rugged gardener who Daphne seems to have a thing for, the fisherman, the ferry man, or something much, much worse? Before you can say "Scooby snack!" the gang is up to their neck in trouble battling zombies and cat people! Will they survive?
By far the best of the new Scooby Doo animated films on video, this one explores certain themes that kind of developed but were never explored in the old show - like is there something going on between Fred & Daphne, and what would the gang do with themselves if they were apart. It also explores what happens when the gang finally encounters the real deal and not a guy in a mask, so it's basically "Night of the Living Dead" with the Mystery Inc gang.
Frank Welker, voice of Fred, is the only member of the original series on hand. Don Messick, voice of Scooby, died before this one was put into the works, and for some reason Casey Kasem wasn't available as Shaggy. Shaggy is voiced instead by Billy West (, Geek-er from "Geek-er", Fry from "Futurama") and he is a capable Shaggy. Scooby is voiced perfectly by Scott Innes. Daphne is voiced with girlish perkiness by the late Mary Kay Bergman (Really horrible what happened to her; I hope she's found peace in the next world) and BJ Ward (Scarlet from the GI Joe cartoons) is the geeky Velma. Cam Clarke, the voice of Leonardo from "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" and the new voice of He-Man, plays the gardener, and Mark Hamill does another creepy vocal characterization.
Don't miss Fred trying to yank the head off a zombie grumbling "It's the gardener... it's the fisherman... it's the ferryman!"
PG stands for parental guidance. This means the films suitable for general viewing, but some scenes may be unsuitable for young children. A PG film shouldn't disturb children older than 8.
No theme is prohibited at PG, they can explore issues like racism and domestic violence. Antisocial behaviour is condoned.
There might be mild bad language in a PG film (like shit) but the context is important.
References to sex are acceptable, if it's in little detail. Comedy can make the sexual references acceptable.
There shouldn't be detailed violence in PG films, there might be blood, but we wouldn't see how the injury happened. In horror films, they sometimes jump the scary scenes, and the sequences showing the violence/threat must not be prolonged.
Some dangerous scenes which children could copy (like playing with electricity) is unlikely to be shown in PG, and if it is, it's can't be shown in a positive light. Realistic weapons cannot be glamorised.
There may be references to drugs in PG films, but they shouldn't focus on them. An anti-drug reference would be acceptable.
One PG film is monsters Inc.
Monsters
generate their city's power by scaring children, but they are terribly afraid
themselves of being contaminated by children, so when one enters Monstropolis,
top scarer Sulley finds his world disrupted.
It was directed by Pete
Docter, David Silverman and Lee Unkrich.
The main storyline;
A city
of monsters with no humans called Monstropolis centers around the city's power
company, Monsters, Inc. The lovable, confident, tough, furry blue behemoth-like
giant monster named James P. Sullivan (better known as Sulley) and his
wisecracking best friend, short, green cyclops monster Mike Wazowski, discover
what happens when the real world interacts with theirs in the form of a
2-year-old baby girl dubbed "Boo," who accidentally sneaks into the
monster world with Sulley one night. And now it's up to Sulley and Mike to send
Boo back in her door before anybody finds out, especially two evil villains
such as Sulley's main rival as a scarer, chameleon-like Randall (a monster that
Boo is very afraid of), who possesses the ability to change the color of his
skin, and Mike and Sulley's boss Mr. Waternoose, the chairman and chief
executive officer of Monsters, Inc.
One review is:
You may
admire the hair detail on Sully the Yeti's arm, but you will be amazed at the
warmth of characterization in `Monsters, Inc.,' surpassing even the great
`Shrek' earlier this year. Goodman and Crystal are a comedic team reminiscent
of the zaniest Martin and Lewis days. Crystal's Borscht-belt routines brought
smiles even to this jaded and admittedly tough-on-comedy critic. I thought
Eddie Murphy's donkey in `Shrek' was smart and funny; Crystal's one-eyed
monster is even better with its wry and annoying wit.
Cleaning the environment of child contamination is a hilarious conceit that turns around the usual fears children have of monsters in closets. It is also a chilling parallel to the challenge of removing anthrax from today's letters. Generally, the allegorical underpinnings of animation are natural for the medium, powerful like the images of the novel `Animal Farm' for political and sociological levels of meaning. For example, the endless-door motif in this film is an ingenious metaphor for the scary and glorious possibilities the present and future hold for kids.
Even before you see this feature, Pixar offers the short feature `For the Birds' -- a brilliant takeoff on Hitchcock's memorable film besides being a great commentary on diversity. The expressions around the animated eyes, as the little birds deal with the big bird interloper, are more expressive than those of most contemporary film actors, with the exception of Brando, Pacino, Depp, and Streep.
The short trailer for `Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones' may precede the showing as it did ours for an added delight.
`Monsters, Inc.' is the best animated feature this year and one of the greatest of all time.
Cleaning the environment of child contamination is a hilarious conceit that turns around the usual fears children have of monsters in closets. It is also a chilling parallel to the challenge of removing anthrax from today's letters. Generally, the allegorical underpinnings of animation are natural for the medium, powerful like the images of the novel `Animal Farm' for political and sociological levels of meaning. For example, the endless-door motif in this film is an ingenious metaphor for the scary and glorious possibilities the present and future hold for kids.
Even before you see this feature, Pixar offers the short feature `For the Birds' -- a brilliant takeoff on Hitchcock's memorable film besides being a great commentary on diversity. The expressions around the animated eyes, as the little birds deal with the big bird interloper, are more expressive than those of most contemporary film actors, with the exception of Brando, Pacino, Depp, and Streep.
The short trailer for `Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones' may precede the showing as it did ours for an added delight.
`Monsters, Inc.' is the best animated feature this year and one of the greatest of all time.
It’s been rated at 8.0 on
IMDB.
12A means that anyone over 12 can watch the film unaccompanied, the A stands for accompanied, so anyone under 12 can watch the film if an adult (anyone over 18) is accompanying them. 12 means anyone over 12 can watch the film. The 12 certificate is just for videos, DVDs and blurays, 12A is for films at the cinema only.
The overall tone of a film affects its classification, if a film has a dark undertone then its unlikely to be passed as 12A even if there's no unacceptable issues portrayed in the film, on the other hand, a film with a positive tone could be classed as a 12A instead of a 15.
In a 12 or 12A film there can be strong language as long as it's infrequent, the context of the strong language is very important. Aggressive language in a film can lead the film to be classed as a 15. Any discriminatory language (like racism) is unlikely to be passed as a 12/ 12A.
Sex might be discreetly portrayed in a 12/12A film, verbal sexual references shouldn't be inappropriate for teenagers. Comedy can make sexual references acceptable, but a lot of crude references will not be accepted for 12/12A.
Moderate violence is allowed, but a lot of detail shouldn't be shown/ the film shouldn't focus on it. It should be infrequent. Action scenes and weapons can be used in 12/12A, but they shouldn't be glamorised. Sexual violence like rape can be briefly implied in 12A films.
Horror films can pass as 12/ 12A, as long as disturbing sequences are not frequent or sustained.
Self harming and suicide can be present in 12/12A films, as long as they don't dwell on them. There might be infrequent drugs use in 123/12A films, as long as it's not glamorised.
One 12 film is Gremlins 2
The Gremlins are back, and this time, they've taken total
control over the building of a media mogul.
The director was Joe Dante
The storyline is:
An army of malevolent little monsters take over a high-tech
corporate skyscraper when a cute and intelligent exotic pet is exposed to water.
The "Mogwai's" owner joins forces with the Trump-like head of the
corporation to regain control.
One user review is:
To this day my friend and I still refer to the gremiln like
he is real. When something goes wrong with my computer, it is the gremlin, when
my keys are misplaced and then show up in a spot that you swear you checked
before, it was the gremlin, when something, anything goes wrong, it has to be
the gremlin. I am actually convinced that Spike has taken on a life of his own
(kinda the way Freddy did in Wes Craven's New Nightmare) and lives to make my
life difficult. Joe Dante's Gremlin's has had that much of an impact on my
life. Gremlins was a wonderful film and it was a little more creepy than it was
funny. But make no mistake about this one, it is one of the funnier movies that
I've seen. It abandons all that was scary and atmospheric in the first and just
adds comedy a-plenty. And I would seriously put this humour up against some of
the funnier comdies of the 90's.
This time the adventures of Magwai and Spike reach a skyskraper like building owned by a guy that has to be a distant cousin of Donald Trump. And if you think back to Gremlins, remember how much trouble the little guys could get into using simple household products (microwave, chimney etc ) well that is nothing compared to what they can do at an office filled with the latest technology.
There are also many many inside jokes about Hollywood and such that you have to watch it several times to pick up on all of them. What is also great about the film is the two versions ( one for the theater and one for the VCR ) I remember when I saw this in the theater I really thought something was wrong with the projector when it first went all strange. And I like the fact that the makers of this had the guts and the gaul to try something new like that. It kind of reminds me of Something About Mary when at the end the entire cast is singing that song. The movie never stops trying to entertain, and that is what I got from this film too. It will do anything to make you laugh, even throw in a little Hulkamania when he was cool.
Gremlins 2 is one of the funniest films that you will see. And I'm just a little surprised that Joe Dante isn't still active so much in the business anymore. He made some great films and I would gladly see anything that he puts his name on.
If you haven't seen this film for quite some time, then I highly suggest that you do see it soon. I was browsing through Rick Baker's filmography on the IMDb and I came across Gremlins 2. I rented it the same night and I was very glad I did. Not only did it make me laugh, it brought me back to a time when films like this and The Goonies and even E.T. were made. Movies aren't the same anymore and that is not neccessarily a criticism, it is just a comment pointing out that in the early 90's and the 80's movies were just different sometimes. This is one of the funnier ones, and one of the more entertaining. Do you remember a film by Amblin that wasn't?
This time the adventures of Magwai and Spike reach a skyskraper like building owned by a guy that has to be a distant cousin of Donald Trump. And if you think back to Gremlins, remember how much trouble the little guys could get into using simple household products (microwave, chimney etc ) well that is nothing compared to what they can do at an office filled with the latest technology.
There are also many many inside jokes about Hollywood and such that you have to watch it several times to pick up on all of them. What is also great about the film is the two versions ( one for the theater and one for the VCR ) I remember when I saw this in the theater I really thought something was wrong with the projector when it first went all strange. And I like the fact that the makers of this had the guts and the gaul to try something new like that. It kind of reminds me of Something About Mary when at the end the entire cast is singing that song. The movie never stops trying to entertain, and that is what I got from this film too. It will do anything to make you laugh, even throw in a little Hulkamania when he was cool.
Gremlins 2 is one of the funniest films that you will see. And I'm just a little surprised that Joe Dante isn't still active so much in the business anymore. He made some great films and I would gladly see anything that he puts his name on.
If you haven't seen this film for quite some time, then I highly suggest that you do see it soon. I was browsing through Rick Baker's filmography on the IMDb and I came across Gremlins 2. I rented it the same night and I was very glad I did. Not only did it make me laugh, it brought me back to a time when films like this and The Goonies and even E.T. were made. Movies aren't the same anymore and that is not neccessarily a criticism, it is just a comment pointing out that in the early 90's and the 80's movies were just different sometimes. This is one of the funnier ones, and one of the more entertaining. Do you remember a film by Amblin that wasn't?
It’s been rated as 6.2 on IMDB.
No one under 15 can watch a 15 film, or buy one. No theme is prohibited, as long as its appropriate for 15 year olds. 15 certificate films can involve:
- strong violence
- frequent strong language
- portrayals of sexual activity
- lots of references to sex
- sexual nudity
- brief scenes of sexual violence/ verbal references to sexual violence
- discriminatory language/ behaviour
- drug taking
There is no limit on the use of strong language, occasionally there may be the use of the strongest terms (like c**t) although continued use will not normally be passed.
There may be a racist, homophobic pr discriminatory language. However it will not be endorsed.
At 15 sexual activity can be portrayed, as long as it's not graphic. Some sexual scenes can be quite long, and may involve nudity. There should be no strong detail.
There are no constraints on nudity, in a non-sexual or educational content.
There can be strong references to sex, but crude references are unlikely to be passed. Heterosexual and homosexual sex are treated the same.
There can be a lot of violence, but it shouldn't dwell on the pain. Strong gory images are acceptable. Weapons cannot be glamorised.
There can be verbal sexual violence, but any portral of sexual violence must be discreet and have justification.
Many horror films are 15, as there can be a lot of threat in horror.
Drugs can be used in in 15, but it shouldn't promote drug use.
As teenagers are considered impressionable, dangerous behaviour (hanging) wouldn't be portrayed in detail.
Prometheus is a film rated 15 in the UK.
There may be a racist, homophobic pr discriminatory language. However it will not be endorsed.
At 15 sexual activity can be portrayed, as long as it's not graphic. Some sexual scenes can be quite long, and may involve nudity. There should be no strong detail.
There are no constraints on nudity, in a non-sexual or educational content.
There can be strong references to sex, but crude references are unlikely to be passed. Heterosexual and homosexual sex are treated the same.
There can be a lot of violence, but it shouldn't dwell on the pain. Strong gory images are acceptable. Weapons cannot be glamorised.
There can be verbal sexual violence, but any portral of sexual violence must be discreet and have justification.
Many horror films are 15, as there can be a lot of threat in horror.
Drugs can be used in in 15, but it shouldn't promote drug use.
As teenagers are considered impressionable, dangerous behaviour (hanging) wouldn't be portrayed in detail.
A team of explorers
discover a clue to the origins of mankind on Earth, leading them on a journey
to the darkest corners of the universe. There, they must fight a terrifying
battle to save the future of the human race.
The director is Riley Scott .
The storyline is:
A team of scientists
travels through the universe on the spaceship "Prometheus" on a
voyage to investigate alien life forms. The team of scientists becomes stranded
on an Alien world, and as they struggle to survive it becomes clear that the
horrors they experience are not just a threat to themselves, but to all of
mankind.
One review is:
I just came back from seeing this
movie, twice! Yes, it is that good. I saw it in both formats: 3D and 2D.
Definitely go see it in 3D, and in IMAX 3D if you have the chance. I really
felt the movie benefited a lot from the 3D and the detail due to the amazing
visuals. Anyways, as it seems that every review agrees that the visuals are
amazing, I will get on with the rest.
First, the performances. The highlight in this film was definitely Noomi Rapace (Elizabeth Shaw) and Michael Fassbender (David the android). Noomi Rapace gave such a convincing and emotional performance in a character who is so sensitive but which brings out such a fighter that I was rooting for her character from the moment in which her life begins to peril. She was really good at bringing to life such a character. I was really amazed at how good she was playing Elizabeth Shaw. There are at least two scenes (will not detail either because that would spoil some of the story) in which her character is in a sort of suffering (will not detail what kind, again, because that would imply spoilers) that I felt like jumping into the movie/story to help her in some way. I really think and hope that she will receive recognition(s) for her performance. Fassbender was excellent at playing an android. It seems like a big challenge for a human (full of emotions, with free will) to play and embody a robot (no emotions at all, no free will), but Fassbender does it flawlessly. The body language, facial expressions, etc., he does it perfectly. Idris Elba was very good at playing the captain; bringing charisma, a little humor, and a good amount of authority and responsibility. Logan Marshall-Green was also very above average, but I will not go into his character as that would hint spoilers as well. Charlize Theron was also excellent playing her character, including the "suit" aspect as well as other (spoilery) aspects. At first it seems some of the characters are not fleshed out, but the more you think about them, the more you get a nice, very dimensional image of these characters who could be real people. The rest of the cast is good as well but they do not get enough screen time (the movie is only two hours long, at the cast includes over 17 people).
Second, expectations. This is a very touchy subject in regards to this movie, and it is the reason which most people that were disappointed were so. Many were expecting some sort of Alien (1979) film. Others were expecting a stand-alone, original story. And others were expecting to witness the greatest thing in their lives. First of all, it is a movie; a horror/thriller/sci-fi movie. Thus, it will not change your life dramatically or have a big impact on it. It is a movie; therefore you should simply expect to get a good amount of entertainment from a horror/thriller/sci-fi movie, which is exactly what Prometheus is. Second, it is a movie which it is not totally original, by this I mean that yes, it does have connections to Alien. On the other hand, and thirdly, it is also a new story, although within the same universe. So, do not expect to see Ripley's mom pregnant with her, or a queen laying the eggs which are shown in Alien at the end of Prometheus. There are clear references and elements which are directly connected to elements of Alien, but, it is a new set of characters, places (not universe), and a new set of conflicts, problems and plots. For those who have seen Alien and/or are fans of it, do not expect to feel and experience the same feelings. For those who have not, or barely have, seen Alien, you will still enjoy it but keep in mind the first half of this paragraph: just try to go watch the movie with realistic expectations in regards to a movie which has horror, thriller, and some big sci-fi (mainly visual) elements in it.
Third, yes I very much enjoyed this movie and what it was about (I did give it a ten after all). So two scientists find similar paintings across the world who were made across big spaces in time. A company funds their expedition to the planet which is depicted in all those paintings. Those paintings also depict bigger beings as compared to humans, and this is where some split in their thinking, expecting to find different answers to different questions. The main character, Dr. Elizabeth Shaw, believes the expedition will lead her to God, or at least, believes that it will lead her closer to finding Him. Her partner and boyfriend, Charlie Holloway, thinks he will find answers to the origins of human kind but, not to God necessarily; he is more of a skeptic. Meredith Vickers is positive that the trip is a waste of money and time; she is only doing it because her father (previous company owner) had agreed to it already. They get there, events begin to unravel, and some do unexpectedly. A little later all hell breaks lose and they find out that they are the only ones which can prevent the end of our kind.
Fourth, the film does start slow. As it advances it gets to a point which it almost becomes dull. By this time (unexpectedly) the thrills begin, and a little while later the horror, and in less time all hell breaks lose and hope decreases to an ever-so-faint flicker, including any kind of survival and Dr. Elizabeth Shaw's faith and beliefs in God.
I have almost used my 1000 word limit so I will end with this: Go into the theater with realistic expectations and you will surely enjoy this film to the fullest. You certainly will not be disappointed.
First, the performances. The highlight in this film was definitely Noomi Rapace (Elizabeth Shaw) and Michael Fassbender (David the android). Noomi Rapace gave such a convincing and emotional performance in a character who is so sensitive but which brings out such a fighter that I was rooting for her character from the moment in which her life begins to peril. She was really good at bringing to life such a character. I was really amazed at how good she was playing Elizabeth Shaw. There are at least two scenes (will not detail either because that would spoil some of the story) in which her character is in a sort of suffering (will not detail what kind, again, because that would imply spoilers) that I felt like jumping into the movie/story to help her in some way. I really think and hope that she will receive recognition(s) for her performance. Fassbender was excellent at playing an android. It seems like a big challenge for a human (full of emotions, with free will) to play and embody a robot (no emotions at all, no free will), but Fassbender does it flawlessly. The body language, facial expressions, etc., he does it perfectly. Idris Elba was very good at playing the captain; bringing charisma, a little humor, and a good amount of authority and responsibility. Logan Marshall-Green was also very above average, but I will not go into his character as that would hint spoilers as well. Charlize Theron was also excellent playing her character, including the "suit" aspect as well as other (spoilery) aspects. At first it seems some of the characters are not fleshed out, but the more you think about them, the more you get a nice, very dimensional image of these characters who could be real people. The rest of the cast is good as well but they do not get enough screen time (the movie is only two hours long, at the cast includes over 17 people).
Second, expectations. This is a very touchy subject in regards to this movie, and it is the reason which most people that were disappointed were so. Many were expecting some sort of Alien (1979) film. Others were expecting a stand-alone, original story. And others were expecting to witness the greatest thing in their lives. First of all, it is a movie; a horror/thriller/sci-fi movie. Thus, it will not change your life dramatically or have a big impact on it. It is a movie; therefore you should simply expect to get a good amount of entertainment from a horror/thriller/sci-fi movie, which is exactly what Prometheus is. Second, it is a movie which it is not totally original, by this I mean that yes, it does have connections to Alien. On the other hand, and thirdly, it is also a new story, although within the same universe. So, do not expect to see Ripley's mom pregnant with her, or a queen laying the eggs which are shown in Alien at the end of Prometheus. There are clear references and elements which are directly connected to elements of Alien, but, it is a new set of characters, places (not universe), and a new set of conflicts, problems and plots. For those who have seen Alien and/or are fans of it, do not expect to feel and experience the same feelings. For those who have not, or barely have, seen Alien, you will still enjoy it but keep in mind the first half of this paragraph: just try to go watch the movie with realistic expectations in regards to a movie which has horror, thriller, and some big sci-fi (mainly visual) elements in it.
Third, yes I very much enjoyed this movie and what it was about (I did give it a ten after all). So two scientists find similar paintings across the world who were made across big spaces in time. A company funds their expedition to the planet which is depicted in all those paintings. Those paintings also depict bigger beings as compared to humans, and this is where some split in their thinking, expecting to find different answers to different questions. The main character, Dr. Elizabeth Shaw, believes the expedition will lead her to God, or at least, believes that it will lead her closer to finding Him. Her partner and boyfriend, Charlie Holloway, thinks he will find answers to the origins of human kind but, not to God necessarily; he is more of a skeptic. Meredith Vickers is positive that the trip is a waste of money and time; she is only doing it because her father (previous company owner) had agreed to it already. They get there, events begin to unravel, and some do unexpectedly. A little later all hell breaks lose and they find out that they are the only ones which can prevent the end of our kind.
Fourth, the film does start slow. As it advances it gets to a point which it almost becomes dull. By this time (unexpectedly) the thrills begin, and a little while later the horror, and in less time all hell breaks lose and hope decreases to an ever-so-faint flicker, including any kind of survival and Dr. Elizabeth Shaw's faith and beliefs in God.
I have almost used my 1000 word limit so I will end with this: Go into the theater with realistic expectations and you will surely enjoy this film to the fullest. You certainly will not be disappointed.
It’s been rated as 7.2 on
IMDB.
18 films are for adults, and no one under 18 can watch them.
No theme is prohibited at 18, adults are free to pick their own entertainment by law, so it's possible to use themes can can be offensive to some adults.
18 films can contain issues like:
- very strong violence
- frequent strong language
- strong portrayals of sexual activity
- strong horror
- strong blood and gore
- real sex
- discriminatory language and behaviour
There is no limit on the number of strong language that can be passed, they can be aggressive, directed, frequent or accompanied by strong violence.
There can be racist, homophobic or discriminatory language. Though it can not breach any relevant act, it can use discriminatory language.
There can be strong and detailed sex scenes, and full nudity. There are no constraints. very strong, sexual refrences can be used. An 18 film might also contain depictions of real sex if it's justified.
Sex works are films which primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation. Films containing clear images of real sex would be passed as 18R.
Sexual education films can include real sex, as long as it's only their for education.
There can be a lot of strong violence, very strong gory images or permitted.
Strong horrors are passed at 18. 18 can include dangerous behaviour too.
Sex works are films which primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation. Films containing clear images of real sex would be passed as 18R.
Sexual education films can include real sex, as long as it's only their for education.
There can be a lot of strong violence, very strong gory images or permitted.
Strong horrors are passed at 18. 18 can include dangerous behaviour too.
No comments:
Post a Comment