You may also like
20 Years Later torrent reviews
Casey C (ag) wrote: Worth the watch, was better than I expected it to be.
Facebook U (gb) wrote: This film was a real adventure of discovery. No flashy romances, no bombings, just something really close to reality. Like a walk in unknown woods. A curve here reveals a rock, a crevasse, a brook, a bear... I found the whole very pleasant, touching at times, hurtful. I was interested at what could be revealed and the pace was very pleasant. The filming was very quick relatively and reminds us the method of Clint Eastwood. All the characters were well rendered. I loved that they were all doing the best they could, where prejudices were few and understanding was their goal. The dvd extras were delightful as well. A native story well rendered that is not about cruelty, bashing or anything too despicable to hate one group or another, just the contrary.
Pablo G (it) wrote: With predictable and painfully plain characters, and with a story that doesnt really do much new in the horror genre, REC 4 doesnt really offer anything that special other than some interesting violent scenes and a movie that feels well made and well, "okay".
Bill C (de) wrote: Didn't like the ending.
Christopher T (jp) wrote: Pretty good kids movie. I enjoyed it.
Riley H (gb) wrote: Well this is hardly authoritative and it's not particularly well structured. It would have been nicer to do a 'history of fuck' or something like that. But it's entertaining/aggravating and I agree with them so I wasn't particularly unhappy about watching it. The biggest problem is that they fail to actually say why censorship (of any kind is bad): official government censorship of free speech gives our leaders the power to arbitrarily tell us what we can or can't say, which will, as a matter of course, be abused. That didn't take me so long, it would have been nice if they could have made that point themselves.
Marek H (br) wrote: Doskona?y dokument.
Bloodmarsh K (jp) wrote: Unfortunately for the victims in the ''Glass Trap,'' C. Thomas Howell was fresh out of cans of rubber raid.
YaLing C (br) wrote: i almost saw Akira Kurosawa behind the camera
Trev B (br) wrote: Kelly Brook in a bikini
Tom B (fr) wrote: This came out pre-election. What does it look like post? Great. Chris Cooper delivers best-ever Bush interpretation. Dreyfus does Chaney long before "W". The story? Another genogram, this time cultural shame, where, as always, the casualty of truth leads to various deceptions and cover-ups that cause various degrees of problems. The stakes at center? In general, real estate, Sayles's target in all his films. The valuing of property over people, in this case Mexican immigrants, and anyone else seeking the truth, in this case our Marlovian protagonist Danny O'Brien, played agreeably by Danny Huston. In Sayles's films everyone is always articulate and real, and once in a while this kind of movie provides an antidote to American-style unrealism. As always, Sayles provokes the sore around the wound of politics and finds everyone lapsing in values: right, left, government, politician, investigators, lobbyists, business people. As always, the top dogs require the underdogs in order to have their feeding frenzy over the land rights, while everyone but the little guy snags a piece of the pie. In the end we get an extended sequence recapping those who were used and misused in order to make the deal go through, and it's not according to political bent that we see these people in the closing shots. We close on the same scene we opened on, Pilager (aka George Bush) speeching about protecting the land and developing it, and the fish pop up to the most ironic placing of the song "America, America" we've seen in a while. Message clear. What's great is the use of neo-noir detective genre to tell the story. Film at its best is about expressing truth, and like Marlowe, Sayles isn't about taking sides as much as he is about seeing what is, and maybe getting the girl. At least for Sayles it's about love. It's not that love conquers all, it's that at least there's love to choose as a value, a friendly companion to truth. One of many worthwhile Sayles films that do mean what they say and demonstrate a fierce commitment to the integrity of vision in the arts. And Daryl Hannah simply rocks.
Mike H (it) wrote: This is a really good depiction of the Brian Maloney story, the CIBC employee in Toronto who embezzled millions from customers accounts to finance his compulsive gambling habit. Well executed movie that seems a bit low budget but is well acted by all, especially Hoffman.
Laura M (us) wrote: Why I own this is beyond me. I think it's for my love of Sarah Michelle Gellar
simon m (br) wrote: This movie is a well-balanced mix of dark humor, Hitchcokian suspense and impressive performances. The film starts off with Michel, his wife and their three screaming children in the backseat of the car. They are on their way to see Michels parents. I sensed immediately that there is a growing problem with Michel and his resentment of his humdrum domesticated life. At a rest stop Michel runs into a former classmate in the Men's room. After a short conversation(Michel hardly remembers the classmate,Harry)Harry somehow convinces Michel to postpone his trip to his parents while he gets himself and his girlfriend Plum invited back to the home of the traveling family. As time passes, Harry becomes more intwined with Michel and his family and his insistence that Michel start writing once again(Harry was quite impressed with Michel's writing back in school)borders on obsession. Michel finally is convinced to start writing, which creates a rift between husband and wife. Things get very suspenseful and pretty ugly as Harry takes complete control of Michel. Sure you may think that you have seen it all before, but the films many layers, mysterious circumstances and twisted twists make it all feel new. This is a well-crafted, beautifully shot film that some will find quite boring. I was quite satisfied and energized by what was going on with these people. It's a quirky and cool movie.
Andy C (gb) wrote: Nick Cage at his 90s best!
Aj V (mx) wrote: Another 80s movie that looked back at the 60s. This one has a great cast, a pretty good late 60s feel, and a realistic story. I liked it.
Murray S (mx) wrote: Need a subtitled copy!!!
Todd J (gb) wrote: This Kenneth Anger short is quite a departure from his earlier work and serves as a nice window into what he'd be up to in further flicks like Invocation of My Demon Brother or Lucifer Rising. Out of all the shorts of his I've seen, I think this may be the most perplexing and oblique with my attempts to read it constantly being cut short by my lack of knowledge in the classics and mystic history. As far as I can tell, a certain competition begins in the "pleasure dome," which is essentially a black backdrop between an Aryan-like character and a mutated, green-faced demon of some sort. As things go on, even that elementary description ends up not being able to work with the film, but then again, it's avant garde. We're not supposed to understand it, right? (After seeing Rabbit's Moon with a commentary track, I'm sure Anger could shed some light on just who and what the hell these characters are supposed to be). Like usual though, any lack of narrative perception quickly takes a backseat to Anger's incredible work with his characters and costumes. Something as simple as a character's face can dominate one's attention, and as the film continues, Anger's formal experimentation with superimpositions and odd cuts propel the film past any story concerns. Anger's one of the few filmmakers I've seen who can make experimental film aggressively sublime, and although I wouldn't rank this one among his best (Fireworks, Puce Moment, Scorpio Rising, Lucifer Rising), it's still unlike anything you've seen, and at just over a half-hour, you really probably lack an excuse. *** and 1/2 * out've *****
Matthew W (ag) wrote: This movie is a god awful trainwreck. Darth Vader's quote at the end says it best: "NOOOOOOO!!!!" Thanks for ruining your own beloved franchise, George.
bill s (ag) wrote: I just wonder how some scripts get green lighted.