A Kiss Before Dying
Infatuated with the idea of becoming rich, college student Jonathan Corliss secretly dates Dorothy Carlsson to gain the approval of her wealthy father. When Dorothy tells Jonathan that she is pregnant and that her father will deny her inheritance if he finds out, Jonathan murders her, but he stages her death as a suicide. As Jonathan works his way onto Mr. Carlsson's payroll, Dorothy's twin sister, Ellen, investigates the apparent suicide.
- Stars:James Bonfanti, Sarah Keller, Sean Young, Martha Gehman, Lia Chang, Matt Dillon, Yvette Edelhart, Max von Sydow, Jim Fyfe, Lachele Carl, Briony Glassco, Shane Rimmer, James Russo, Diane Ladd, Adam Horovitz,
- Director:James Dearden,
- Writer:Ira Levin (novel), James Dearden (screenplay)
Realising his secret girl-friend Dorothy's pregnancy will sour her relations with her ultra-rich father, career-minded Philadelphia student Jonathan Corliss coolly murders her, making it ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
A Kiss Before Dying torrent reviews
(ca) wrote: it's more of a dramedy but it's worth watching
(br) wrote: Miranda July's "THE FUTURE" is the kind of movie you see on Sundance Channel at 4 in the morning and then forget you ever saw it, but you keep asking friends if they've seen this movie with a weird cat with one paw and a failed relationship, but nobody ever seems to know it. Now, that's not necessarily a cut, because I didn't hate it. But it was certainly far from perfect. THE FUTURE is about a couple who decides to shut off their internet, quit their jobs and-in a month-adopt a cat with only one foot named Paw Paw. Sounded entertaining enough, and I expected to get a dry comedy with a dark statement on our reliance on the internet and technology as it is today. Instead I was given a film that decided it hated its parents, broke up with its boyfriend, shaved its head and went to art school. The film had some wonderful cinematic elements to it, and was wonderfully entertaining for the first 30 minutes or so. The problem is the rest of the movie. Not that it's necessarily bad, but it's that it's not necessarily worth remembering. The problem with this film is that it's easily forgettable and halfway through you forgot why you started watching in the first place. The best parts of this movie are Paw Paw's monologues. The film-with about 30 minutes left-really walks down this road of bizarre almost fantasy elements about speaking to the moon and stopping time, which just didn't feel like they belonged in ANY movie, let alone this one. It's too heavy handed, it has poor pacing and it felt like it was made to be weird. Some films are made and just END UP weird, THIS film feels like Miranda July WANTED it to be weird. It's like trying to write comedy. If you TRY to write jokes, you're not going to be able to. Same sort of deal here. In fact, the film-and this is kind of cruel, but sorry-almost bordered on unbearably pretentious at times. But it's moral is what interested me, because it's a moral I haven't ever seen in a film before. And that moral is "change is bad". This couple changes the one thing about their relationship that makes it work and it ruins their entire life together, driving Miranda July's character into the arms of another man (one who's kind of an asshole, for the record) and her boyfriend to almost be oblivious to pain after a while. And I like that idea, because it carries through the whole film. Once they quit their job, her boyfriend decides to try and sell trees to help the environment and stop Global Warming, but this moral about "change is bad" is ALL OVER not only his new job but also this idea of Paw Paw. In the end, they were trying to save something that was already doomedtheir relationship. In a lot of ways, Paw Paw is a metaphor for their failed relationship. And I agree. Change can most often at times be absolutely horrible, and with so many independent films being about positivity and how to make your life BETTER, it was refreshing to see a film say the absolute opposite, that life often actually SUCKS and only gets WORSE when you change things that work. So it's moral-and the way it tied into other things in the film-actually saved it from being a total and complete mess. Is the movie good? Sure. I guess. I don't know actually, because that's the problem. It ended and I didn't really feel like I understand whether or not I enjoyed it. If Miranda July was shooting for steller filmmaking, she lost by a longshot. If she was shooting for absolute crapfest, she lost by a longshot. BUT, if she was shooting for incredibly mediocre, she NAILED it. That's how I feel about this movie. It's one of those movies I know I saw, I may remember at some point in the future, but in the end, there was NOTHING truly special or unique about it to make me ever talk about it again outside of this review, and it's lucky that it got this review to begin with. I'll give it some brownie points for some stellar cinematography, but that's about it. In the end though, it wasn't anything I'd ever recommend, and word of mouth is often what helps a film the most, so that says a lot.
(nl) wrote: una pelicula divertida,con una animacin espectacular de lo mejor que han hecho johnny depp y gore verbinski desde hace mucho tiempo.
(ag) wrote: Filmes com velhinhos fofos dificilmente recebem crticas ruins. Esse era para ser singelamente po (C)tico e divertido. Mas (C) chaaaaaaaaa(...)aaato.
(kr) wrote: Compared to the Family Guy series, this is not really special. Compared to other comedies, it is, simply because Family Guy is damn funny.
(ag) wrote: Pretty bad movie. It has the potential to be a good movie with its three hilarious leads and decent idea, unfortunately, the script sucks, the majority of the jokes aren't funny, and the direction is pretty poor.
(de) wrote: Good one, actually funnier than the others and equally good car chases. Slyvester s. was a cute suprise, I thought he would be in the movie but what the hack.. Still good.
(nl) wrote: This movie seemed overly gushy to me it was made for people to cry at and feel the love but I was so confused at some of the plot points that it just took me out of the experience. Ill just say one because this is least spoilerific one. Angels can't be seen by humans but an angel sits with a man in public and talks to him? Wouldn't anyone realise that the human looks like he is talking to himself? It's just that there are so many obvious errors like this that just make me ponder during the movie which makes me miss some of it and I'm not too bothered either. Besides the glaring plotholes, the performances were very good with Cage playing a very elegant role and Meg Ryan doing well too. The music helped set the scene and everything was filmed in an angelic way: lots of shots high above ground; angels talking on high buildings; camera far away from things happening to give it a grander feel. It certainly is filmed well and did extremely well at the box office. People like it because of the reasons it was to be liked and look past most of the issues as I'm sure anyone would. I own it on DVD so that must say something.
(ru) wrote: Aika vaisu leffa. Jotenkin ei vaan purrut.
(gb) wrote: "Hot Shots! Part Deux" is just a very funny movie, constantly hilarious with a never-ending string of jokes that all work. When a film succeeds at everything it tries to do, and succeeds VERY well, how can you hate it?
(kr) wrote: Watching this film again for the second time in almost 15 years reminded me of the reasons I was smitten by the beautiful Sarita Choudhury. Beautiful, funny love story with strong undertones about the challenges of race, social and cultural differences, and the power of love.
(ca) wrote: Probably one of the best heist movies and New York films ever made. The score is also pretty bombastic and unbelievably nuts. And one of the best endings I've ever seen.
(it) wrote: delightful comedy with a pinch of romance thrown in
(ru) wrote: My favourite Chris Evans' movie. All the casts are amazing. Soundtrack is amazing. Love it. I love everything.
(fr) wrote: Joey fatone is fat now!
(mx) wrote: Lovely picture! Great for a Saturday afternoon session.
(de) wrote: The 1932 Best Picture Oscar winner hasn't aged well. Stuffy, snooty, aloof, with some pretty hammy acting. Slow moving. The first 80% of the movie felt like Act 1, the set up. Then, when things do start to happen, it is over very quickly, and then onto the conclusion. Pacing is horrendously bad.The characters were hardly likable. In fact, the only one I cared about was Joan Crawford's character, the stenographer. Maybe because she was the only real, down-to-earth one of all of them. Everyone else just seemed stuck up, scheming or nuts.The likability of the stenographer is largely due to Joan Crawford's performance. She is fantastic - bubbly, witty and beautiful. None of the remainder of the cast worked for me. Greta Garbo, John Barrymore and Lionel Barrymore all seemed like they were auditioning for a play - very overdone, overacted performances. Admittedly, this was the early days of talking movies, so maybe old, silent movie, habits died hard.Certainly makes me wonder what all the fuss about Greta Garbo was, at least.