When the fun loving Marie sets her eyes on brooding comic book artist Paul, it sets off the kind of romantic sparks that quickly culminate in the bedroom. But the next morning brings its share of surprises as Marie crawls out of bed to discover her life flash-forwarded fifteen years down the road: Not only has she been married to Paul all this time, but she’s now the mother of a little boy the head of a powerful multinational investment firm and the proprietor of a fabulous apartment overlooking the Eiffel Tower. Quickly Marie discovers that all her achievements have not brought happiness.
Sean P (ru) wrote: I have no background knowledge of the subject matter so I don't know how accurate it was. The film seemed a bit disjointed at the end.
Carlos M (ca) wrote: Bertolucci seems aware of the fascination that he creates with his young protagonist, using the light and close-ups to explore how he curiously appears both awkward and beautiful. But the ambiguous ending feels like an easy refusal to deal with the questions raised before.
Amy H (kr) wrote: This movie actually kept me very entertained and wanting to find out what happened next. Not a bad story-line either. Just some parts are a bit stupid...but much better than a lot of other so called horror movies. A must watch!
Countess N (gb) wrote: Utter utter crap but i am going to have to give this 4 stars because it was fricking hilarious. One part was so funny that i had to keep rewinding to watch it again and again and another scene reminded me of American Pie. Its the most stupid film and the special effects and costumes are awful. The werewolf is like no other i have seen,imagine a angry short ugly Wookie with a clearer voice.
Kenny O (ru) wrote: Average could have done a lot more with this flick!!!!
Adam R (ca) wrote: (First and only viewing - 11/15/2012)
Justin K (ru) wrote: This movie is way funnier than people give it credit for being. Give it a chance, if you aren't laughing by the Keifer Sutherland interview, just smoke a little bit more!
Lucas M (de) wrote: Good acting and witty jokes slightly overshadow the plot's unintelligible structure.
Reymundo S (us) wrote: si hubiera mas estrellas se las iliminaba una de mis favoritas se las recomiendo.
jay n (mx) wrote: Very violent hard edged crime drama, Rourke looks like he needs a shower as always making the title an oxymoron but his performance for once is not full of conceit and the others in the cast are fine.
Stuart K (de) wrote: Directed by Tom Clegg (Sweeney 2 (1978)), and produced by The Who. This was a chance for Roger Daltrey to flex his acting muscles, and do something different. The Who had got into filmmaking with Quadrophenia (1979), which was successful, and looked to capitalise on it's success with this adaptation of John McVicar's 1979 book McVicar by Himself. It's a very good prison and crime film, and very engaging too. John McVicar (Daltrey) is sentenced to 23 years in prison in the late 1960's for armed robberies, and he's banged up in Durham Prison with other lags including Walter Probyn (Adam Faith) and Ronnie Harrison (Steven Berkoff). However, he and Probyn plan to escape when they find a weak spot in the walls of the prison showers. McVicar manages to escape over the prison roof and then on the run all the way to London, where he meets up with fellow criminal Joey David (Billy Murray). But, while McVicar tries to reconcile with his wife Sheila (Cheryl Campbell). David manages to get McVicar into one last job, which involves a robbery on a wages van. It's a very good prison drama, punctuated with songs by Daltrey, who puts in a very good performance, and really gets into the head of what it's like being a prisoner, and he is quite underrated as an actor too, and this has got a good supporting cast as well.
Tim B (ru) wrote: Well, I guess my It's Alive franchise marathon is over. Good while it lasted! The original It's Alive was a good flick. It sported a serious tone, a good message and terrific acting. Then comes this entry which looked promising but instead bored me to the brink of crying like a mutant baby. First off, the new couple in this entry were boring and I didn't give a crap about either one of them. After the set up was made within the first half hour (two different views on mutant baby rights) the movie pretty much did absolutely nothing from there until the very end. The baby rights weren't brought up or studied enough to feel genuine. Without the story driving this, you would expect there to be at least more carnage to make up for that. No dice. There are three mutant babies in this one and they hardly do anything. In the first one, not showing the child a lot worked because there was only one of them and the subtlety was more frightening. But when you have a small army of them and are expecting carnage, it's time to show it off. Larry Cohen was napping off and on throughout the shoot, I'm sure of it. Nothing comes to mind in terms of his directorial efforts. Very basic shots and a boring ass pace. You're better than that! Frederic Forrest was good with what he had and the same goes for Kathleen Lloyd. I don't think it was their performances but I just didn't care about either one of them. John P. Ryan shows up and does terrific again but then disappears halfway through the movie. It's too bad because he was one of the few aspects that had my full attention. John Marley is also terrific in his role. Wish we could have seen more of him, especially after his key scene. He does great. Anything positive? The underlying issue is still present in terms of human rights but since it was already fully established in the first one I already got that message. The baby effects did improve since the first one. Too bad we never get to see them... I'm still on the fence as to whether or not I want to see It's Alive Part 3 because this one left a sour taste in my mouth. Terrible pacing, mediocre acting, amateur directing, no scares, no surprises, no fun. I'm over it...
Mark W (nl) wrote: As a whole I didn't enjoy the concept of this film as much as the others! It was definitley an entertaining and engaging movie but just wasn't what I expected from a Frankenstein film! It touched on areas more unbelievable such as taking the soul from a dead body and transferring it... I thought the purpose of Frankenstein's experiment was the brain controlled everything, there was no soul!
kalicia c (ag) wrote: was better than i thought it was gonna be
Xander K (nl) wrote: Tough but also life affirming. WWII, man...