Cinema Life

THe intro was good filling in and explaining some of the background ofthe Mormon movement and BoM history but the evidence for the whole DNAthing wasn’t there, IMHO. Just feels like an hour of Mormon bashing…

Avoid this if you can.

2) I graduated from UT (Texas) with a degree in Biochemistry… I amfamiliar with DNA sequencing and testing (including forensics) and acouple of things bothered me about the premise of this movie: 1. DNAmarkers do not always transfer and may easily be lost over a fewhundred years through interbreeding, (let alone thousands of years asthey are testing in this film).

You may have Celtic blood, but may be lacking some of their recessiveDNA markers and only have Anglo-Saxon DNA markers because you hadrelatives in what is now England from 800 years ago.

2. The film does not conform to the scientific method in the testing oftheir hypothesis (a group of peoples from the Eastern hemispheretraveling to the Americas and establishing a society)… in other wordsit is all opinion and proves only that there are Asian genetic markersfound in what is left of the Native American population still survivingtoday.

Assuming there even was a tribe at some point containing markers thatwould verify the claims of the Mormons, the majority of pure-bloodedNative American tribes have completely vanished or died off. It isimpossible to prove or disprove their claims through limited samples ofDNA testing trying to find one (or maybe even several) tribe(s) from athousand years ago. To really disprove the claims of the Mormons, youwould need to test every tribe’s blood since before the time of Christ,with a sufficient number of random samples to generate reliablestatistical measures.

Also… the movie is clearly biased based on the sponsor. Just becausesomeone has a degree or is on T.V. doesn’t make their claims holy writ.

Take this movie with a grain of salt… it may be INTERESTING, but itis NOT PROOF in the least in terms of supporting or disproving thebeliefs of the Mormons.

If you want my personal opinion, it is a waste of time trying todisprove any religion. They are all unique and interesting and tell usall something about ourselves as a human race. It would do people wellto learn more about the facts and beliefs of religions to further theirown knowledge of the world and its many unique and wonderful cultures.

3) The review that was first posted for this video strikes one as a bitreactionary and defensive. While I’ve never been a Mormon, I do have ascientific background, and I found the science (and the scientificconclusions) very straightforward and solid, and yet it is done in sucha way to make it accessible to the layperson. I didn’t find it at all"bashing" or disrespectful; on the contrary, as a scientificdocumentary it is quite dispassionate, though there are some personalstories and struggles interwoven through it. Although I can understandhow it might cause some discomfort for some LDS viewers, I wouldnonetheless recommend it to them. As a production it is simple anduncomplicated, but there are a lot of very interesting and challengingsound bites. Even if the subject matter doesn’t pique your interest,you might give this one a try.

4) This video was terrible. The evidence presented was nothing more thancircumstantial at best. No convincing evidence was presented andsomehow the video comes to its conclusion a tad premature and lackingany semblance of evidence. This video is just another thing to createdivisions in the religious community and into the whole We’reright/You’re wrong mindset. This movie demonstrates everything that’swrong with organized religion. The big groups attack the small groupswith stuff like this when they should be working together, isn’t thatwhat their little scripture book tells them to? Horrible video! DO NOTWATCH THIS!

5) Wow people either seem to love or hate this movie. I thought it waspowerful. A little unsettling. This is the first major religioushistorical claim that I know of that can be tested with hard evidence.It doesn’t leave much room for doubt. It wasn’t harsh and nasty aboutit, though, the facts pretty much speak for themselves. A geneticistfriend said that the science was accurate, and the conclusions seemedlogical. As with most challenges to religious claims, it will getresistance, but I can’t see any resistance from reason or science. Itwas promoted by a church so there’s an evangelistic closure you cantake or leave, but the documentary itself isn’t preachy.

A doctor (Mark Dacascos) is hired by Clair Sommer(Robin McKeek,"speed"(1994))to find a man who is doining illegal experiments on a alien DNA samplefoundin a creature’s skeletal remains. As it turns out, a creature that lookslike a cross between a lizard, a body builder, and a tropical fish. Itsoonstart’s killing off the other team members.

"DNA" might be cheesy as hell, but the creature effects are great, I LOVEthe creature’s design, too.

2) Yea , this is a cheap imitation of Predator , that doctor wants to beRambo, I mean , c’mon , fighting 1 on 1 with that rubber creature , and , aboutthe creature , my rubber duck looks more realistic The scene with thehelicopter blowing up , I think I can do it better on my PC

3) Watching this on TV I must say it was done fairly well. Good acting,averagespecial effects with explosions, and a semi-storyline taken from othermovies. The lead monster of the film looks okay. Some of the shots done incostume were below average while some of the CGI done at night werepassable. The acting was good and made you feel the characters. I wassurprised the writer killed off the lead child in the story. But on thedownnote the movie did rip-off a lot from other films. The African Americancomputer expert is like the clone of Samuel L. Jackson from Jurassic Park.Wearing the same clothing and even has a cigarette in his mouth all thetime. And the ending was the same as Predator. The monster is a mixture ofaXenomorph and a Predator. And the helicopter crash was VERY fake. But Ienjoyed the movie. A plus is how the script didn’t go dull like in Boa andArachnid. It capitalized off other movies.

The bottom line. DNA may not be a masterpiece, and may not work out foreveryone but for a late night movie it is more then some may need.6/10

4) When I got about one hour into the film I noticed something. THIS ISEXACTLYLIKE PREDATOR! These people basicly lifted scenes right out of predator.i.e. the monster is invisible, the hero makes traps and then waits on atree, the monster has heat seeking vision and the monster looks a lot likethe predator. This film had a good creature costume and some good cgi forthe it too. But near the end when the helicopter crashes, the effects areprobably the worst you have ever seen. Rent it if you want a good laugh.Butrent Predator first.

Rated 14A for some violence and some language (Canadian rating)

14A is like a PG-13 rating in the U.S.A.

5) This wasnt a bad straight to video B grade movie,which is why I constantlygo to the video store to purposely get these movies out. You know whatyou’re in for the moment you rent such movies, so I’m not sure why peopleare surprised by its triteness. What were you guys expecting?Shakespeare?

Some people say DNA rips off scenes from movies like Jurassic Park,Alien andPredator. I prefer to say that it pays *homage* to those great movies by*borrowing* scenes from them.

As for the special effects, I can find it in my heart to forgive theproducers as they probably didn’t have enough budget to hire the technicalwizards at ILM. Besides cheesy special effects are part of the fun in Bmovies!

And finally the fact that Mark Dacascos is in it elevates the film andprevents it from falling into the bog of true mediocrity. Mark is truly a talented actor and martial artist and sometimes I wish hegets to do more mainstream films that are released theatrically.

Overall the movie is a fun, slightly cheesy, yet entertaining cheap thrillride!

6) I thought the first half of this movie was bad – there’s a monster that’screated by combining an ancient skeleton with the DNA of beetles, or maybeit’s a space alien? Both explanations are given. A mad scientist (JurgenProchnow) has created this thing as a military weapon (oh yeah, the oldcompletely uncontrollable monster as a weapon gag). A CIA agent and a localdoctor / scientist / jungle guide / warrior guy try to stop them. There’sjust one plot hole after another. At one point the multi-tasking guy andthe CIA agent are locked up in a drainage pipe, but escape simply by goingto the next exit. They put a guy in a cage to act as bait for the monster,but there are people running around all over the place. Why would theyassume the monster would go after the guy in the cage? And on and on.

But the second half of this movie is just a really cheap Predator rip off,scene-by-scene. You get two people laying motionless on a beach, and amonster’s-eye view of them – he can’t see them because, well, he’s 99% blindI guess. The Predator couldn’t see Schwarzenegger because he was covered inmud which masked his infra-red signature, but these folks aren’t covered inmud. Apparently the creature saw Predator and realized that he shouldn’t beable to see them. Then there’s the scene where the Indian takes off hisshirt and rubs something across his chest, preparing to do battle. And thescene where a big piece of tree trunk is hoisted into the air for a trap. Just for variety, they throw in a scene where a helicopter crashes behindour "good" characters and rolls towards them as they run away, veryreminiscent of Aliens. Except the scene in this movie is comically bad. Idon’t see how anyone could watch it without laughing out loud at thatspecial effect. There’s also a drawn out death scene that drags everythingto a complete halt just when it had finally started moving.

Anyway, this movie has nothing to recommend it. Prochnow’s evil scientistcharacter is really the only one that’s developed to any degree, and ofcourse, he’s the one we’re not supposed to like.

7) This is one of those cracking movies that is so bad it comes out on theother side as an instant classic. Be honest looking at the cast, storylineetc what did you expect. I find this movie a guilty pleasure and wouldrecommend it as a good 90 minutes to while away an afternoon.

Dacascos turns in one of his better performances in the total Predator ripoff. I mean there was scenes that look like they were cut and pasted rightfrom Predator. The special effects were generally good for a ‘B’ movie, butthere was a few scenes where it looked like they just ran out of money (i.e.the holicopter crash). Not bad if you’re in the mood for a little no thinking’b’ sci fi…

9) If you like cheesy horror movies, you simply can not miss thisone.The first half of this film has a great story and good effects, but thesecond half of the film becomes a scene-by-scene PREDATOR rip-off with a’helicopter crash’ scene that is so fake you can’t help but to laugh outloud. I highly recommend this to bad movie fans.

10) DNA is a sub par movie, but a shining B-movie. Ripping off material fromsuch box office hits as Indiana Jones, The Predator, Species and Alien, itmixes action, suspense, romance and horror into one hilariousstew.

The plot is convoluted even for a B-movie. Our main hero (Marc Damascos)begins the movie as a doctor of some kind but is forced to become an elitesoldier as the plot progresses. He and his female companion must fight anevil professor and his Predator-like space monster through a jungle, aidedonly by their wits, heavy firepower and some jungle magic provided by thelocal natives.

The special effects deserve a special mention. They are nothing special upuntil the last moments of the movie, at which point the budget must’ve ranout, for they suddenly look like something out of a 60’s action movie.

You’ll cringe, you’ll groan, you’ll laugh and you’ll have a great time.Cheese at it’s finest!

Set in the demilitarized zone (DMZ) between North and South Korea, thefilm starts off as a comedy, reminiscent of the Popsicle movies of thelate 70’s. Korean soldiers immaturely clowning around showing bodyparts and generally misbehaving with plenty of sexual innuendo. At thispoint the movie is not worthy of comment, Lee tries to moderate thecontent by bringing in South Korean leaders particularly Sergeant MinGee (Park Gun-jung) who try in vain to instill some sense of disciplineinto the rebellious troops. Over the course of the film, things becomemore serious as the threat from the North becomes real to the troops onduty, and their respect for their leader grows. At this point the filmis more watchable and more engrossing.

Lee does not fully put the point across as to the great extent that thecold war has partitioned his country, to a Korean audience I am surethat it needs no explanation, but he does adequately show the effectsof the partition on the culture of the country, the western styleuniforms and sound track is a reference to the many years of Americaninterest in South Korea, at one point an American soldier trades snakewine for western cigarettes, the impact of the western influence onSouth Korea is unmistakable. At the same time the Northern forces arevery serious, there is no public masturbation or shenanigans in theranks and propaganda is used to encourage the troops, their leaders aretelling the troops that the South is on the point of collapse and thatthey must take their opportunity to reunite the country, in its turnthe communist side shows the close links with China to the north.

Lee Kyu-hyungs story unfolds and fatalities occur, providing Ji Hoonwith a very swift education, which binds him to his sergeant andbuddies.

2) Romantic comedy is an American genre. Here in Poland we do not have toomany movies of that kind. "Dlaczego nie" (Why not?) is one of them – astory of a young girl from a small village that comes to a huge cityand finds the love. Typical? Yes. Predictable? Yes. A cinematic hit?Yes, sir!

The movie gained poor reviews due to weak scenario and lack of depth,but youngsters – kids thirteen years old – loved the movie. For themthe main strength is the pair of lead actors, very popular here inPoland. Handsome Zakoscielny delivers a good performance and AnnaCieslak looks great on the screen. Young people do not need moreattractions. And older? Well…

• This is a true story which happened in Reykjavik, Iceland. The real name of Baddi is Bb. He was known as “Bb Holtinu”.

• Continuity: When Baddi drives his car from the airport after staying at his mother in the USA, another person is seen in his car, though he apparently comes back alone.

2) I have to disagree with the user that commented on the movie aboveme.You might think that this is my opinion as an Icelander, but thisistruly my honest opinion from a motion picture point ofview.

This story probably captures Icelandic viewers born from 1900 – 1950 evenbetter than the rest, since they might remember this peculiar scenario,where the poor people of the country lived in US/UK militarycabins.This story realistically describes life in those days if you had littlefinancial capabilities and lived in Iceland, which took a big leap in thattime frame in regards of technology and thinking.Actors put on quite a show, and the characters are of such variations thatalmost everyone can relate to some of them, whether if it’s yourself orsomebody you know.

I don’t know why the other critic claimed that he didn’t care whether thecharacters lived or died, but it seems to me that he wasn’t really payingattention to the movie. I don’t know if it’s because it’s mainly inIcelandic, or because of another reason (maybe not subtitled), but Irecommend this movie to anyone who likes good movies that are not typicalHollywood movies.

Cheers.

3) This movie is really good. At least it’s better than the book althoughmany people would disagree with me there. To enjoy this film more thansome have been doing you’ll have to know what situation the people arein. The movie is based on the Icelandic lives at that time. I thinkit’s a great movie but not the best Icelandic movie i’ve seen.

If I would see some film that is identical to this one from anothercountry with another culture I would not enjoy it as much. For exampleif there were a movie about someone in Britain and I would not know thesituation the people would be in I wouldn’t understand the story in thefilm.

I recommend to everybody who can read the book to read it before orafter you see this film. In the book you can see the storyline muchbetter and you’ll know why this is a really good movie.

4) I saw this movie in a university class. First, I felt it was somewhatloose in storyline and editing, and it took me a while to get me intothe story. but then I got accustomed with the characters and was fineafter all.

The story is about a family that lives in some come-downUS-barrack-shelters in the early 1950ies. It covers a couple of yearsof time. It’s built up like a classic Icelandic saga – about a familyin Iceland, with one character, Baddi that is, in the middle, and theproblems Baddi causes. But that might also make the story a bit boring.

Characters are odd and funny. Cinematography is excellent. If you likeScandinavian cinema and and story lines you can’t predict, this is amovie you should watch.

5) Poor families In the barrack district in Reykjavik in 50’s. Mother whogetsmarried and moves to America leaving her children. Grown-up boy stickingaround with his gang and violence. His younger brother with badself-confidence and the tragedy, which wakes up his wild brother toconsiderof his own life.The film is full of tragedies, miserable and disparate people. But, soamazing, the film ends peacefully with "Charles Chaplin" and the operasinging boy. This ending doesn’t however let the audiences forget whathappened with the family before, and even though, you get hope of brightfuture of the family. Very unique film with any possible elements oflife.The Icelandic language spies the film too with its beautifulsounds.

6) I go out of my way to view foreign/independent film (I know, we’re avanishing breed) and rented this video at a neighborhood store that has apretty good foreign selection mostly on the power of having seen COLDFEVER,which I enjoyed.

While I appreciate "dark comedies" as much as the next person — and am ahuge fan of Aki Kurasmaki (so I have some familiarity of Scandinavian filmsensibility) — it was a mistake to have placed so much of the film’ssuccess around a character as thoroughly unlikable as Baddi.

While he dominates the screen with charmless, witless and appallingbehaviorthat knows no bounds (premised on his contact with "America"), most of theother characters are used as props and are nobly antithetical, i.e., theyhave a conscience. But for the most part, as a whole they cannotcounterbalance the effect that the Baddi character has on the film.

That is a shame because there appeared to be some good potential characterdriven aspects to the story that were wasted.

7) Alright so I may be biased since I played "Dick" in the movie (2 lines,WooHoo!!) but I definitely liked it. Although the characters sometimesseemedlike caricatures you have to remember that they were trying to distill anentire nation’s attitudes down into a few people.The movie is not exactly uplifting but it is well done. The acting isquality and Fridrik Thor’s directing is on par with his Oscar nominated"Children of Nature."

I have to say that I was never a big fan of Icelandic movies.. I alwaysthought the acting was kinda fake and I was never really that much intothem. But one day I got the movie Djöflaeyjan and I was kinda reluctantto watch it but since I didn't have anything better to do I put it inand in a few moments I was caught in it… The part where Danni diesand you see the grandfathers eyes is the saddest and the best scene forme that involves death in a movie. You don't always have to see peoplefalling down with grief and screaming.. his empty sad stare where yousee his eyes full of tears is the best acting I have seen in a longtime. I watched it again yesterday and it still is as good as the day Isaw it first. I hope you give it a chance it really is worth it.

9) A very dark comedy dealing with people living in abandoned US barracksin Iceland. The characters apparently were based on real people butreally, they could be characters that we know in our own parts of theworld, making the point that we are all part of the human race with ourfoibles and idiosyncrasies. Yes, it was in the Icelandic language; yes,you likely had to read sub-titles. But for anyone interested in seriousfilm, this would be no hindrance. This film puts to shame theoverwhelming majority of films made in the USA these days which seem tobe dumbing down even more each year. This is a film about life,covering a wide range from comedy to tragedy, but alwaysthought-provoking and involving.

10) This movie is a good, ‘gritty’ film, about a lower class family goingthrough major cultural shock. Chances are you don’t speak icelandic (Idon’t) but subtitled it flowed very well. It’s not hollywood like, it goesabit slower than your average film, but they use that time to develop thecharacters and to get you emotionally involved.

2) The screenplay is the most interesting element of this film: itpresents an original tale with some bits of humour along the way. It isa bit too verbose and talkative now and again, which is verydistracting from what is happening on screen, but it very amusingwhenever it is amusing. The movie is filmed in a play-like fashion,separated into three acts, and narrated in part. This makes the filmfeel more like a play, and it does limit Bergman to how much skill hecan show as a director. There are still nevertheless some well set upshots, in particular in relation to framing, lightness and darkness.The ending is a tad weak, but the bulk of the film is oddly engaging -atypical and yet still admirable Bergman.

3) I liked this movie a lot–more than many of the dreadfully seriousBergman films.

The movie is staged like a play–complete with a narrator and acts. Thestory begins in Hell. It seems the devil is in a funk, as he’s got asty. Why? Apparently, there is a virginal woman whose decency iscausing the devil great agony, so he sends his favorite Lothario, DonJuan, to despoil this virgin and this make the sty go away! Reallyweird stuff, huh?! Well, the tongue in cheek style makes this a prettyfunny comedy. Not GREAT comedy, but very good AND so weird and unusual,it’s worth a look.

By the way, isn’t Don Juan’s sidekick about the most devilish characteryou’ve ever seen? Watch it, turn off your brain and have fun.

4) It's funny, so to speak, that Bergman's most touted dark drama has itswealth of light and even comedic moments, and vice-versa in the case ofDevil's Eye. For the much-touted movie I mean The Seventh Seal, wherewe get much ado about the existence of God or lack thereof and Deathlooming large, but it's also got its share of laughs and unintentionalwitty dialog. It's a major work and without much argument thequintessential work of the filmmaker.

On the other hand, we get The Devil's Eye, which is more of a minorwork, done by Bergman, admittedly, as a work-for-hire project in orderto direct the Virgin Spring that same year. It's a comedy, as we'retold right from the get-go by the 'narrator' of the story GunnarBjornstrand about the old 'sty in the eye' proverb where Satan willdeflower a virgin to get rid of it (in this case he sends Don Juan,whose been spending 300 years in a loop of the same failed courtship inhell with his compadre Pablo, to do it for him on a Nordic girl aboutto get married). And yet this comedy of sorts, which is filled with slymoments and turns of performances that are uncharacteristically campyfor a Bergman film, also has some dark connotations about infidelityand desire and love in the face of evil. It might be a minor work, butit's probably one of the director's strongest and most underrated.

In fact, I'd wager that Bergman put more work into this than he'd evencare to cop to: the design of hell itself is ingenious, akin to the NoExit set with Satan in a suit and cool but firm demeanor played by StigJarrel, and a constant flame burning behind his quaint book-roomsetting, and his servants being prissy-looking chaps out of some Frenchroyal palace. Bergman also casts this really wonderfully, with Don Juanplayed by Daniel Craig-look-alike Jarl Kulle with his suave demeanorbut sad interior coming out some of the time, and Nils Poppe (who alsoplayed the cheery Virgin-Mary hallucinator Jof in Seventh Seal) as thealoof Parson whose daughter is to marry/possibly be seduced.

Bergman also gets some laughs and some surprisingly tender scenesbetween the Parson's wife Renata and Pablo and the Demon put onassignment by Satan to keep watch on Pablo only to end up in 'Satan'sCloset' that the Parson has set up for just such an occasion. It'sclever on top of this that the intended goals are reversed in the scopeof Britt-Marie (Bibi Andersson) and his mother Renata in terms of theirseductions and falling from graces. There's a lot of devilish (some punintended) fun to be had I wouldn't want to reveal, but suffice to saythat Bergman has his cake and eats it too: he crafts a pleasurablystylish picture loaded with his intriguing and occasionally deepconversations about love and the nature of Heaven and Hell and Satanand God. It may be 'light' material, but in its own limitations it's amore satisfying effort than the good but overrated Wild Strawberries.

5) A woman’s chastity gives the Devil sty in his eye, so he sends Don Juanbackto Earth from Hell to seduce her, but the modern-day woman finds hisold-fashioned charm amusing rather than irresistible.No masterpiece butfunny and Nils Poppe has some really funny scenes.

Rating:4/5

6) In order to get cured from a sty in his eye, the devil (Stiq Järrel)sends Don Juan (Jarl Kulle), his servant Pablo (Sture Lagerwall) andhis worst devil to earth to seduce Britt-Marie (Bibi Andersson), thevirgin daughter of a vicar (Nils Poppe) and makes she loses herchastity. This unusual Ingmar Bergman’s movie is a slow and verytheatrical comedy spoken in English, divided in three acts and with useof many chords in harpsichord. Bibi Andersson is very beautiful as thetwenty-two years old woman who caused the sty in the devil’s eye. Thestory is ironic and funny, with great direction and performance of thecast, an Ingmar Bergman’s trademark. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): ‘O Olho do Diabo’ (‘The Devil’s Eye’)

Obs: On 06 March 2005, I received the following remark from an IMDbUser: "Please note that the original language for the movie "Djävulensöga" is Swedish and not English as you say in your comment. I realisethat you saw a dubbed version, but the casual reader will think thatit’s in English when they read your comment. "

7) this film gets off to a very slow start and some aspects of theproduction are pretty cheesy… the period costumes and some of thesets and the manner of conveying that we are in "hell" when we arethere, are not exactly stunning…. also Bibi’s husband to be is saidto be 25 and he looks about 40.

but do stick with it because it does become really really funny andthere are a lot of great lines I have to have at least 10 lines in mycomment so I’ll praise Bibi’s acting… also the other woman, who playsher mother… and I"ll say the film is also very sweet.

Bergman fans will not be disappointed in the lightness cause there isplenty of heaviness too in the scenes between the maiden and DJ

After thinking about this film awhile it hit me a lot harder what’sseems to be being said. In a sense some people seem to have grace suchthat even sin can’t touch them, even sinning can’t touch them, becauseof how they do it, somehow skirting the devil, while they don’t by anymeans have to become angels themselves. wow!

An old theme, the devil plotting against people , but also funny in thatthings don’t always turn out the way it seems they should. Also very funny,for a Swedish movie.

2) Seven years old, holding my grandmother´s hand, I saw this movie, fromwhichI don´t remember the story; it was more of a natural drama created by theIndian jungle where the tigers live. Chendru learns about live and letlive- but also about death and killing.