Resurrected
- 2023
- 1h 37min
VALUTAZIONE IMDb
5,3/10
1817
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
In un futuro distopico, il Vaticano sa come resuscitare le persone. Un sacerdote scopre una cospirazione dietro le resurrezioni e il loro possibile collegamento a una serie di omicidi.In un futuro distopico, il Vaticano sa come resuscitare le persone. Un sacerdote scopre una cospirazione dietro le resurrezioni e il loro possibile collegamento a una serie di omicidi.In un futuro distopico, il Vaticano sa come resuscitare le persone. Un sacerdote scopre una cospirazione dietro le resurrezioni e il loro possibile collegamento a una serie di omicidi.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
Michael Villar
- Frank Collins
- (as Michael Javier Villar)
Maryna Bennett
- Rose Patterson
- (as a different name)
Ahmed Mawas
- Sayid Aboud
- (as Ahmed El-Mawas)
Carolyn Alise
- Anna
- (as Carolyn A'Lise)
Recensioni in evidenza
This film does nothing but set the stage for a good movie. Maybe they'll make a part 2 and explain any of this mess (doubtful, with the ratings of this movie). I've never walked out of a movie with more questions, and zero answers, than this. Here's a few:
>> Just from Father Flynn's call:
This call made the whole thing sound supernatural. But, the ending just seems to refer to a webpage on the dark web, meaning real people? (I won't add spoilers) So confusing!
RECOMMENDATION: Skip it! Unless you like watching movies that confuse you, only to leave you hanging with zero answers!
- What's the FBI's involvement? And/or local police?
- What does that have to do with the Vatican?
- How are they resurrecting people?
- What is the importance of Bishop Hill? He seems shady. Why is he hanging around the Martin family so much? No idea - no answers???
>> Just from Father Flynn's call:
- "Priest, are you one of them? Do you know WHAT THEY are planning?" (I still don't have an answer to 'what' and 'they' are referring to!)
- "The frequencies have mutated, don't you understand?" (NO, and it's never explained?)
- "The 'Hughanauts' (sp?) tried to warn us." (Never even mentioned again in the movie)
- "You can't stop the 'WARRIORS' you fool... ...they're multiplying, soon they'll be everywhere... ...they're coming for me ... too late, they're INSIDE me now." (Meaning = not a person in the house, but something INSIDE of him. What got into him?? I'll never know?)
This call made the whole thing sound supernatural. But, the ending just seems to refer to a webpage on the dark web, meaning real people? (I won't add spoilers) So confusing!
RECOMMENDATION: Skip it! Unless you like watching movies that confuse you, only to leave you hanging with zero answers!
No, it's not revolutionary or even 'good', but it IS okay if found footage is your thing and you've run out. The premise is actually interesting, it would make a good big budget movie/or a series! (maybe there is already one, maybe I've missed it?)
But would I watch this again? No.
Would I recommend it? For one viewing yes, if this type of movie is your thing.
Will you miss anything by skipping this movie? Not really, but again, interesting premise!
I feel like the actors did fine with what they had. The face time filming thing wasn't terribly done for what it was, it can usually be worse! It was cleanly made and not a nightmare to get through. I actually cared about the main character.
So over all, not too bad, but I don't think I'd have the free time to spend rewatching this in the face of other films.
But would I watch this again? No.
Would I recommend it? For one viewing yes, if this type of movie is your thing.
Will you miss anything by skipping this movie? Not really, but again, interesting premise!
I feel like the actors did fine with what they had. The face time filming thing wasn't terribly done for what it was, it can usually be worse! It was cleanly made and not a nightmare to get through. I actually cared about the main character.
So over all, not too bad, but I don't think I'd have the free time to spend rewatching this in the face of other films.
Yes, it is a webcam- and chat-based movie. Which makes me wonder how well packed it is with action, that keeps you edge-seated. One third of the time are action scenes, shot again on webcams of all kinds.
Poster on IMDB page contains the poorest possible screenshot from the movie, please just disregard it. You may have your answer why this exact 3D is so rubbish when you watch the movie.
Key strength is a script. It's hard not to give away any detail, let's say the story contains ethical questions around religion, conspiracy theory, and several solid twists. Couple of gory scenes. No horror at all to my personal standards. Performances are better than one would expect.
My only criticism would be around final scenes, when it all breaks loose.. those could have been more.. spectacular, but I believe this is owing to budget limitations only.
Btw, don't skip final titles, the story is continued there.
Poster on IMDB page contains the poorest possible screenshot from the movie, please just disregard it. You may have your answer why this exact 3D is so rubbish when you watch the movie.
Key strength is a script. It's hard not to give away any detail, let's say the story contains ethical questions around religion, conspiracy theory, and several solid twists. Couple of gory scenes. No horror at all to my personal standards. Performances are better than one would expect.
My only criticism would be around final scenes, when it all breaks loose.. those could have been more.. spectacular, but I believe this is owing to budget limitations only.
Btw, don't skip final titles, the story is continued there.
I'm not even 15 minutes into it and I'm completely distracted by the grease pit that is the mother's hair. Whoever was in charge of costuming, why would they think that that was a good look for her. It's distracting and dirty, looking in literally every scene so far. Really really really gross.
I'm not even 15 minutes into it and I'm completely distracted by the grease pit that is the mother's hair. Whoever was in charge of costuming, why would they think that that was a good look for her. It's distracting and dirty, looking in literally every scene so far. Really really really gross.
Realy really really gross.
I'm not even 15 minutes into it and I'm completely distracted by the grease pit that is the mother's hair. Whoever was in charge of costuming, why would they think that that was a good look for her. It's distracting and dirty, looking in literally every scene so far. Really really really gross.
Realy really really gross.
Is the acting the greatest? No. What makes this movie interesting is the story, the idea itself. That kind of saves the whole movie. It is an interesting story: resurrection... What would happen to the world, if we really could resurrect people... This movie made me think about that. How would people react to it? How would the world look like? And like the movie itself discusses too: Who would be entitled to it? So yes, I do think the movie is worth a watch for the story. And this new concept of making movies with online cameras/Facetime only, I find interesting too. This type of content becomes more popular. Seen worse. The acting isn't the greatest, but overall worth a watch if you find the storyline itself intriguing then you won't be too bored.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizTutte le opzioni contengono spoiler
- BlooperJust after Stan subdues Agent Ortiz by slashing her throat, he turns back to his computer and accidentally calls to Rat but says "Cat?"
- ConnessioniReferenced in Film Junk Podcast: Episode 967: Here (2024)
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Resurrected?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paesi di origine
- Sito ufficiale
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Возрожденные
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 191.359 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 37min(97 min)
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 1.78 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti