Zerstören sie wirklich teure Autos in Filmen?

Zerstören sie wirklich teure Autos in Filmen?

Ja in der Tat. In jüngster Zeit begnügen sich die großen Studios jedoch damit, die Zerstörung teurer Autos auf Filme zu beschränken, in deren Drehbuch eine Autozerstörung vorliegt - beispielsweise in Filmen mit einer Verfolgungsjagd oder einem Autounfall. Es ist nicht mehr so wie früher in Hollywood, als die Zerstörung von Autos ein häufiges Phänomen in jedem Film war, unabhängig vom Genre. Seltsamerweise kam es vor allem bei Western und Schößchen zur Zerstörung von Autos. Während der Dreharbeiten zu „Cleopatra“ (1963, Joseph L. Mankiewicz) wurden bis zu hundert Autos zerstört, darunter Porsches, Lamborghinis und Ferraris. Sie wurden normalerweise von einer Klippe geworfen, aber es war auch üblich, sie mit einem Holzhammer zu Schrott zu zerkleinern.

The Most Dangerous Superhero

The Flash : The Most Dangerous Superhero

The Flash ... 

False. A man with super speed might sound easy enough to beat ... But, actually? If Flash pushes himself to the peak of potential, he can destroy the world.

For one thing, Flash can move so fast that time almost stops. According to him, he could see events that lasted "less than a second" (Superman Grounded).

However, it does not stop there. Flash can also steal speed from enemies, making them frozen in space (JLA 2006 # 23).

In addition, it can accelerate the speed of light and punch someone - basically punching them with "unlimited mass" (JLA Vol. 1).

In fact, "unlimited mass blows" are not even his worst attacks. Flash can vibrate so fast that it will move the molecular structure of whatever it phases in stages. Better said: he can make someone separate, molecule by molecule, just by touching it (Flash 1987 # 101).

And this is just what I consider some of its more threatening strengths. Flash is also shown using its power to create whirlwinds, throw electricity, phase through objects, build entire structures in a second ... The list is endless.

If Flash really wants to destroy someone? Nothing can stop it.

Bad because of all this? I haven't even mentioned Flash's most dangerous ability: time travel. During Flashpoint, after traveling back in time, Flash ends reset Earth 0, and triggers a chain reaction that rearranges the entire DC Multiverse.

This is not an isolated achievement, either - there are many other examples of flash mucking time too (like First Year Flash).

Flash can't just rip someone by molecule by molecule ... He can erase it from time completely, as if it never existed.

When people talk about the most dangerous superheroes, they like to talk about people like Thor or Superman. However, Flash can do things that will make them stretch.

The only reason Flash didn't crack in the midst of all the tragedies he experienced, and used his strength to completely destroy his enemies? Deep down, he has a big heart. He cares about the people he protects, and the lives he leads. He will not exchange it for the world.

Correlation Between Tenet and Inception movie

Correlation Between Tenet and Inception movie

My theory is yes, the big twist at the end of Tenet will be it is in the same universe as Inception.

So how do I support this?

1. It makes narrative sense. Nolan wanting to combine his epic, original sci-fi action films to create a massive movie with both concepts combined is the exact sort of ambitious thing he would do.
2. It makes financial sense. A film that combined Inception and Tenet would make a killing at the box office.
3. It would get people talking. Nolan loves making people talk about the ending of his films. A great twist or ambiguous ending involving how the universes are combined is exactly something Nolan would jump at.
4. Michael Caine. He is Nolan’s diversion. In Inception, Caine was a wise, important professor. Most people would write off Caine’s involvement in both films as proof they aren’t connected. My prediction is that he is introduced in Tenet as an unnamed mentor. Only at the end will you realize it’s the same character he played in Inception.
5. Cillian Murphy? Tom Hardy? Joseph Gordon Levitt? All of the Nolan regulars that couldn’t go unnamed are suspiciously absent from the cast of Tenet. Either this is a coincidence, or they already have roles in Tenet’s universe.

So there we are. My theory, which is probably incorrect, is that everyone besides me will be shocked at the end of Nolan’s Tenet.

Explanation Of Tenet (2020) Christopher Nolan Movie

Explanation Of  Tenet (2020) Christopher Nolan Movie

So "Tenet" is a spy thriller involving time travel. As Sheikh Mubashir pointed out, this film will be a kind of "Palindrome", which is also the case for the film's title. Tenet is read as backwards.

My theory about films by analyzing trailers is:

That a coalition of security agencies made up of different countries (Britain, the US, India and maybe some other European countries) is using time travel to stop an unknown organization from starting World War III. Time travel allows spies / agents to jump forward in time. Agents / spies remain in the "present", but upon their arrival, their environment begins to move back in time. So they use travel time to assess the current situation backwards to prevent it from happening when everything returns to the present.

My other theory is the same as above but that time is used by unknown organizations to create havoc by changing time and creating time gaps in the world. Some things go backwards from the future while other parts of the time still exist, causing mass confusion and chaos. The agent (protagonist) is therefore used to intercept this time changing and preventing certain events from happening when assessing events when backwards in time.

The point is, it involves time travel and because of that "Palindrome", the film's events go back and forth. I just take it.

Honestly, a little ironic pleasure is my favorite part. The rest are just badly edited clips and chaotic expositions.

There is a trailer segment in which some girls explain to John David Washington how time mechanics work. But he only has 5 seconds so that sounds confusing and stupid. Not only do I not know what the premise is, it sounds bad.

My guess is that this exposition will spread throughout the film and not be confused at all. But it did not appear in the trailer.

So one second about Tenet said, then the girl talked about the apocalypse, then Michael Caine talked about Russian citizens, then there was a thing called inversion. Obviously this will be a film that has too much time to fit in 2 minutes.

The four story lines are diverted between the entire trailer and it's a big mess.

The actions we see look very basic, as is cinematography. I'm sure it will be much better in the actual film.

Review Sonic The Hedgedog (2020)

Review Sonic The Hedgedog (2020)

That is alright. Basically harmless children's films (not family films, children's films) with nothing creative or surprising. This is a very safe film ... Remade Sonic certainly looks better, but nothing out of the ordinary. Not much in film for old sonic fans. A pair of Green Hill remixes, some chilidogs, Mushroom Hill and not much more. In fact, most of the references to the game are actually in the final credit.

Sonic itself was changed to attract a new younger audience than older fans. Flossing alone makes it very clear. That's still Sonic. They are more focused on the "happy-go-lucky" and "friendship is everything" parts rather than the "past the past" and "freedom against the rebels" sections. He was almost as tense as Kirby.

The plot itself is quite simple and seems to be written for children who won't think too hard about it. It's better if you turn your mind off and watch it for occasional sentimental and funny moments. If you start thinking too hard, you notice that many things happen because the plot needs to move forward, not because it really makes sense. This will help if they haven't shown most of the best parts of the film in the trailer. The rest doesn't really match that.

Overall, I do not regret watching it. That's not a bad movie. I can't see myself going out of my way to watch it again someday. If there is a sequel, I might just watch it because I like to see it all to the end. I will give 7/10. C. solid

End Explanation of Extraction (Netflix 2020) Movie

End Explanation of "extraction" (Netflix 2020) movie

8 months later we joined Ovi at a swimming pool where he was diving. This is similar to how Rake showed that he became more like him than his father. He found himself valuable and had reasons to continue as Rake did, looking for a mission that deserved to die.

Amir is a killer by contacting Rakes and Ovi out of the water and looking at a man who may or may not Rake.

Now whether this is it or not, we don't know for sure, but we can take a lot from it. Maybe Rake survived and got out of this situation.

However, it is also possible that this brings symbolism with it that Rake will always be a part of Ovi's life now and in some cases the boy will have him with him in his mind, guiding him.

There are actually two ways you can take it, personally I take sides with a more literal version with Rake coming alive because we have never seen his body, however, it can also be taken when he looks at him and becomes part of his life on a spiritual level.

As you wish, I suppose, but I think he is out there and he must now lie because of how many policemen he killed. I don't have a definite answer but that's how I took it. This is a great ambiguous way to end a movie that really allows you to do it.

With millions of people still locked up at home because of Coronavirus with lots of free time on their hands, Netflix Extraction has generated a lot of buzz since it was dropped on the streaming platform yesterday, with fans apparently getting a real kick from seeing Chris Hemsworth become the title of an old school action film with body counts the tall and super heroic insight of Hargrave's debut feature instantly makes it a name to watch in the action genre, with Extraction basically 117 minute wall-to-wall set-pieces that throw away everything except the kitchen sink at Hemsworth's Tyler Rake. Although it is not exactly reinventing the wheel when it comes to stories, and most of the plots are the same thing that we have seen in countless similar films over the years, the choreography that is staged by experts and often brutal violence is what separates from the package .

Netflix seems to have franchise potential in mind for Tyler Rake, too, and one of the most discussed aspects of Extraction is the end. After apparently suffering a fatal gunshot wound, the grizzled veteran fell from the bridge with what appeared to be his last strength, with the film ready to end with a real downer.

However, the last shot of this film shows a character who is intentionally out of focus, meaning Hemsworth may or will not return to shoot, stab, and kill more bad people in the future. In a recent interview, Hargrave explained the decision to end extraction in an ambiguous tone, acknowledging that the real end is whatever the viewer wants.

The ending of most action films tends to be very black-and-white, so it's refreshing to see Extraction try something a little different. We just have to leave it to you to decide whether Tyler Rake is safe or not.

Movie Review Extraction (2020)

Movie Review Extraction (2020)

Predictable plot, cliché screenplay, unimaginative action sequences, stereotypical settings, poor background scores, just another series of Hollywood run-of-the-mill actions, not worth the hype.

Spoilers in front. The film is too bad for anything to spoil it further but still if you want to not know about something that might be predictable such as the order of days of the week, you are warned not to read further.

One Hollywood director thought, "Let's make an action film, let's hire top Hollywood actors like Chris Hemsworth and let's put the arrangements in a third world country". This is the total amount of thought that has been used in making this film. You do a Google search for 10 Hollywood action movie cliches and the first link will take you to the Netflix page of the Extraction movie. Maybe the producers think that in the midst of this Corona lockdown the audience will be so bored that they believe it is entertainment. Believe me, banging equipment on the balcony as told by our PM is more entertaining than watching this film.

So let's see what's in the film:


Protagonist: Chris Hemsworth. He is a mercenary. Ok, so clearly he knows all karate, jujutsu, taekwando, chokeslam, elbows, genealogies, etc. And is the master of all weapons be it rifles, machine guns, grenades, pepper spray or sling shots. He works only for money. You told him about the extraction mission thousands of miles away in the third world country and he agreed to do it. He is not a coward to spend time analyzing threats, looking at surveillance or asking for prize money. Some morons at the extraction site said extraction was impossible but he did not know that Chris Hemsworth was on this mission and if the scouts had seen Hemsworth's blackboard abs, he would believe that nothing was impossible for him.

So, even though the protagonist is a mercenary merciless but he has a soft side. Ok, so how does a cruel guy turn out to have a soft side? Think. Umm, a boyfriend is waiting for him? Not. So what about children? Bingo! And how do we sympathize for children? The boy died of cancer. Ok, so we feel sad for the protagonist now. He lost his child and he was sent on a mission to extract other children. So what will happen? He will find money but will develop feelings for the child because he will remind him of his own child. Never expected change of this event.


Supporting actor: Randeep Hooda. He is a security agent for the Indian mafia. He will fight with Hemsworth so he must also have fighting skills and murder weapons. But, how can he move? Oh, he was in the generic "Special Forces" troops because the writer was too bad to find the name of special forces in India such as the Black Cat Command. His boss's son was kidnapped so he soon went to Bangladesh. He would put his life in extraordinary danger for this child. Why is that? If not, the boss will kill his children. Ok, so another child is in danger. So, at first it seemed like he was a criminal but it turned out he was on Hemsworth's side. Hmm, two protagonists. So what will happen? Umm, the secondary protagonist will die while saving the main protagonist. Bingo! And that is not surprising because right before the last sequence of actions he called his wife that if he did not call within the next 12 hours then he would have to flee to an unknown place with "money".

Hooda despite being a brilliant actor, can't do much in this film.


The child: The child is a generic rich kid from India. So the authors think, "What do rich kids do in India?" Someone answered, "Oh, they must be smoking weed in the back alley of a club, just like in the US". So, that's how the kidnappers found him, when he smoked cannabis in the back alley.

This child was brought to Bangladesh by a kidnapper. The protagonist saves him from a generic kidnapper. Initially the child did not trust the protagonist, but in turn surprised from the events he developed "Stockholm Syndrome" and began to trust him and with the final battle scenes, developed emotions for him.

Villian: Think of yourself as an American, and try to imagine a bad person from a South Asian country. Ok so the bad guy is the king of drugs, he is Pablo Escobar from Bangladesh. But because all the third world countries are banana republics in the eyes of the Americans, the bad guy has all the governments and armies in his pocket.

Action: Shaky Cammera, many explosions, several summer cars and many imaginative scenes that are not imaginative. The protagonist has unlimited ammunition and unlimited health cheat codes. The goal has 100% accuracy but bad people only shoot around him and always seem to fail to shoot the protagonist. The last assassination shot on the protagonist was taken by the person who had promised to kill Hemsworth beforehand, what are the chances. Before that a colonel who acted like a cupbearer for criminals, suddenly acquired the skills of a sniper killer and killed the secondary protagonist. He was about to kill Hemsworth but unlucky, only at the last moment, a female maid of the protagonist killed him, another shocking event.

So, in the end you take the film 'Taken', delete Liam Neeson, add Hemsworth, subtract Europe add Bangladesh, subtract east European antagonists add Bangladesh antagonist, and you get 'Extraction'.

Wasting my time on it while skipping Mahabharata. At least Mahabharat's action scenes are unpredictable, you never know whose arrow will disappear first in the two arrow clash. I will watch the broadcast again tomorrow.