During a holiday get-a-way to Palm Springs, two fifty year-old men find unexpected results while trying to re-live their younger days in this comic coming of age story about the coming of age. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
During a holiday get-a-way to Palm Springs, two fifty year-old men find unexpected results while trying to re-live their younger days in this comic coming of age story about the coming of age.
You may also like
About Fifty torrent reviews
Ali A (ag) wrote: a movie with good potential but not to my expectations... bad directing and horrible acting has killed it.
James S (ag) wrote: It's written by Sam Bain and Jesse Armstrong. It stars David Mitchell, Robert Webb and a host of other folk who have turned up in various episodes of Peep Show. You would think then that this kind of but not really - Peep Show - the movie could barely fail to raise a smile or two. Sadly, the best it can manage is a snigger. I'm sure the creators would defend this by saying "This isn't Peep Show the movie - it just happens to have all the same people in it and be written by the same writers but it's not Peep Show". Well, we could work that one out for ourselves. Peep Show is funny, after all. Straight away though it becomes very hard to distance the film from the TV show as we are introduced to Mitchell and Webb's magical duo just before their break up. The characters come across as being just like Mark and Jeremy from Peep Show but without the entertaining inner monologue, which removed renders them not all that funny. Mitchell is the uptight one while Webb is the free spirit. The plot involves the duo being brought back together to enter a magic competition which they then don't enter together and enter separately. It's the kind of story telling where some one says they did something, someone else says they didn't and that's all that's needed for the story to move along. It's pretty badly written stuff. Webb does a slightly humourous impression of Derren Brown, which again is not as entertaining as watching the real thing, while Mitchell stumbles awkwardly through scenes with a wasted Jessica Hynes, who admittedly looks hot in an air stewardess uniform. The film really wastes it's female characters and the great Sarah Hadland and Miranda Hart are relegated to bit parts. Thought it manages to find a handful of chuckle-worthy moments, Magicians should really have delivered laughs in spades given who was involved. It's almost as though everyone had a spare week going so they decided to quickly throw something together to entice in fans of Peep Show and maybe make a few quid.
James B (br) wrote: This was a pretty good movie.
Erol D (ru) wrote: Sadece kamera kullanmyla bile alp gtryor Bertolucci.
Marc T (jp) wrote: This may be the worst movie ever. I spent $7 on a ticket to this piece of crap, but 20 minutes into it, I feel it would have been less painful to jab my eyes with a rusty nail. I can't believe people actually liked it. But most people never even heard of it. Shows you what an impression it made.
Keren D (gb) wrote: Not watched in ages, made the ironing go quicker!!
Rob S (nl) wrote: Fun with Dick and Jane is a good Jim Carrey movie, but it surprisingly lacks the amount of humor present in other "recent" Jim Carrey movies such as Bruce Almighty and Yes Man. On this second viewing of the film I found myself engaged in the story to the point that I was not necessarily upset that this movie wasn't was funny as I expected.This movie has an unusually long first act for a comedy. Jim Carrey plays Dick Harper, who works at a company run by Jack McCallister (Alec Baldwin with an atrocious southern accent) and Dick gets promoted right before the company goes bankrupt due to McCallister's embezzlement, which no officials realize even though it is so obvious. The titular couple, Dick and Jane, has to deal with financial hardships since Jane quits her job after Dick's promotion, leaving no breadwinners in the house once the company Dick works for goes bankrupt. It may only take about half an hour, but it seems like a good forty or forty-five minutes for Dick and Jane to get to the point of the movie: the two of them robbing banks.It is enjoyable to watch the couple go from terrible to expert level at the task of robbing money. The segment that deals with the first night Dick tries to rob people shows how pathetic Dick comes across to start, first stealing only a slurpee, then finding himself in weird situations while robbing other stores which includes helping an elderly woman to walk back to her car, and suddenly the excitement hits when the two of them rob a neon-lit shop once Dick explains they will get evicted the next day if they don't obtain the money.It is humorous to see the two act like regular people in the process of robbing, one example being when they order specific drinks at a coffee shop while robbing the place.The second half of the movie seems to go by really quickly, and we find the third act of the film to be more about getting back at McCallister than obtaining a large sum of money, which is a nice turn. When I first saw this film I assumed the couple would just run off with the $400 million McCallister had in his accounts, but Dick and Jane donating the money to the people who worked with Dick seemed a lot more fitting for the light comedy that it was.Though the film could have used more humor and its tone could have been more consistent, Fun With Dick and Jane is a delight to watch since it is a great underdog story that is very easy to watch.
Joseph S (br) wrote: France's answer to James Bond, the supervillian, and master of disguise Fantomas. The first scene Fantomas steals a bunch of jewels, by impersonating a wealthy buisness man and signing a check for them in dissapearing ink. Fantamoas(at least his film incarnation), is the type of super-villan who would do battle mainly with his intellect, and not just stabbing people in the eye with pens. Jean Marais, who I recognize from his Cocteau films, plays a reporter who writes a fake article about the theif, anarchist, and criminal King. Fantomas takes offense and kidnaps him bringing him to his Castle lair, in order to keep him out of the way while he impersonates him(he can make masks of anyones face), commiting crimes in broad daylight. Fantomas does similar for the bumbling chief of police. And eventually the reporter and the chief ae forced to join forces to bring him down. They fail, apparently as they do every Fantomas movie. Here the bad guy always wins, and not the anti-hero, the bad guy. It's an amusing little light comedy (different from the dark, apacolyptic Fantomas tales in print), with enjoyable perfomances, and an excellent 15 minute long chase sequence at the end, which goes from cars to bikes to foot to trains to helicoptors to boats to submarines! The rest of the film was so set to light comedy, the action packed end(better than anything in Terminator Salvation), was a welcome and thrilling suprise. Christopher Gans is supposed to direct the 2011 remake.
Sujit O (jp) wrote: Beyond brilliant. It's masterclass. Standing besides the likes of AKira Kurosawa and being a known inspiration to one of the greatest Martin Scorsese, Satyajit Ray's Pather Panchali is a true and powerful replication of life in the villages of India, a group of people which still comprise 70% of our population. A very important film back in the day but more so now when westernization seems to be a driving force of todays generation. The complexity of each scene which still remains mostly 'no budget' is breathtaking and many of these features hold true for many Indian families today. To the Indian its an important piece of cinema, to the world this is a gift that must be preserved for the coming ages.
Paul D (gb) wrote: A fun revenge horror with a decent imagining of an evil twin, although they're both pretty evil in the main. Its low budget appearance adds to its cult value.
James M (br) wrote: I've watched some rubbish this weekend, but this is the worst so far, one of the worst films I've ever seen, terrible story, not gritty, just sh*tty.