A Happy Man

A Happy Man

A touching politically incorrect comedy and a triumph of happiness over human mediocrity. Starring Pierre RICHARD, Sylvie TESTUD and Remy GIRARD. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


A Happy Man torrent reviews

Dan F (mx) wrote: So bad that its funny. Love the Guido facial expressions.

NaTaiya W (ca) wrote: It was weird but at the same time it was good . You couldn't stop watching it . It's one of those movies where you can't get it out of your head , and you keep watching it over and over . Overall it was a nice good movie .

Aman A (ru) wrote: A bit safe, the movie had more drama than spice. Without much meat and action, this movie is more a love story than anything else. That's not what I had expected. The thrill and the rush of money and power is absent. The guilt of greed is nonexistent. The movies moves like a placid roller coaster, one with the promises of loops but none when you get on and ends just like that, a soft stop, flaccid. Aah, give it a miss unless you are a real fan of Douglas and want to seem onscreen one last time before he hangs his worn out boots.

Zane E (it) wrote: I think this is one of the better 8 Tales to Die For. The premise was stupid, but it was well directed and well acted, as well as not overly campy. Zombies were a BAD idea. Zombies don't live for 100 years because they're pissed off that the died. That's just dumb. At least tis one didn't epically fail.

jenny t (gb) wrote: the sex is really easy

Thomas B (ca) wrote: **WHY DO PEOPLE LOVE THIS MOVIE? That's the question I've asked ever since I saw this movie. Sure, it's got some good parts, but its got a lot of bad ones too. After the previous 2 movies, Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock, The Voyage Home is a very disappointing follow up.

Martin R (ag) wrote: Great Grindhouse fun! Relax it's supposed to be over the top!

Andrew C (kr) wrote: For being as old of a movie that it is, it really wasn't that bad. I mean aside from the illogical choice of weapons they tried to kill the monster with...let alone had on the ship for the mission they were on, the movie was good.Other things that were funny or just struck me as odd were the year it was supposed to happen in. As well as how the scifi people back in the 50's sexist ideals were so in-grained that the only two women on the ship not only served and cleaned up the meals while the men sat around at the table drinking coffee and reading newspapers, but the jobs of the women were...well actually I think I only recall one of their jobs as a medical personnel and the other...well I don't think they said. Oh how society and writers have evolved.

Damian M (nl) wrote: one of my all time favorite movie movies... definitely recommend watching it!!

Allan C (de) wrote: Considered a bomb when it first came out, it's gotten somewhat better with age and lowered expectations. I think expectations were too high when you had an A-List director like Lawrence Kasdan taking on a genre Stephen King sci-fi/horror novel hybrid, featuring a script by an Oscar winner writer, William Goldman, who'd previously adapted the terrific King novel, "Misery". Add on top of that a cast that includes Morgan Freeman, Thomas Jane, Jason Lee, Timothy Olyphant, Damian Lewis, Tom Sizemore and Donnie Wahlberg and it seems like a film that couldn't miss. I think the films main downfall is that it feels like tow different films. The first half is along the lines of John Carpenter's "The Thing" with a monster terrorizing a group of men isolated in the snowy woods. It's when the film drifts into an alien "Independence Day" government conspiracy story line that the film loses it's way. The second half feels like a completely different movie. Either the first half or the second half probably should have been shortened so the film would have had a consistent focus. Still, I really did like the first half and that's enough for me to be a fan of this film. The film also had a good balance of practical and digital special effects. I remember reading an interview with Kasdan at the time and he said something along the lines of, you know how people says it's always scarier when you don't show the monster? I totally disagree with that and it's way scarier when you show the monster! I remember thinking I kind of liked that aesthetic to the film, making sure it had a good scary monster. The story does seem to be a bit of a King cliche, which flashback to the now grown up group of men as kids growing up and having traumatizing experiences as children (i.e. "IT" "Stand by Me" etc.) Despite it's faults, it's not a bad film but it probably could have been better.

Mackayla b (br) wrote: Good but like the first one and a little dull

Moni K (fr) wrote: Bad in so many ways.