Iraq, 2009. Little Hamoudi (10) is totally obsessed with football. Just as the rest of the world, he and his friends are eagerly looking forward to the Champions League finale FC Barcelona-Manchester United. The long awaited clash between Messi and Ronaldo. But then Hamoudi's television breaks down...
Iraq, 2009. Little Hamoudi (10) is totally obsessed with football. Just as the rest of the world, he and his friends are eagerly looking forward to the Champions League finale FC ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Baghdad Messi torrent reviews
(us) wrote: One of the most controversial cases still talked about to this day!!! Lizzie Borden Took an ax is the most accurate retelling of these famous murders. Did she do it YOU DECIDE!!!!!!
(mx) wrote: About your average shaky cam movie, just a new back story. Not bad.
(br) wrote: Very lame. I only watched this because it appeared to star Jemaine Clement, Bret McKenzie and Rhys Darby, of Flight of the Conchords fame. Truth is Clement and Darby appear only briefly, and while McKenzie has a decent amount of scenes, his role is fairly minor. Methinks the three were recruited just to give the movie some credibility.The other con about having the Flight of the Conchords guys onboard is that you think this is a comedy. If it is meant to be, it fails, as it is not funny.It looks like it was meant to be a horror-thriller, but here it fails too. Hardly very scarey, there is no tension and no subtext. It is just weird apparitions for the sake of it. Absolutely no reason to watch this. Avoid.
(es) wrote: This is one of my favorite movies I don't know why it's so hard to find and no one has seen it but it's fantastic and I highly recommend it. I wish I could find a DVD copy here in the USA
(de) wrote: Very moving film that challenges Western preconceptions about Islam as strongly as it challenges Muslim perceptions about homosexuality.
(gb) wrote: Much more boring than I remembered. Interesting flick, but goes at a leisurely pace and nothing really happens. Still one of the better Full Moon movies though.
(it) wrote: And so begins the career of John Madden... the English film director (not the football guy), and if you don't know who that is, well, then you're probably not reading this review, because I doubt you know enough about this film to be mildly interested in what I have to say about it. I suppose Liam Neeson saw a reasonable amount of success as the lead in "Darkman"... a film that mostly featured him covering his face, but man, even with all of the starring roles and charisma, Neeson was having a lot of trouble breaking out during the early years of his career, and needless to say, this film didn't exactly help out. Of course, this film did come out the same year as "Schindler's List", so I reckon it's safe to say that it is, in fact, nice to have a backup plan sometimes. Well, people, it would appear that Steven Spielberg first stole John Madden's chance at making a megastar before he stole Madden's Best Director Oscar, but it's okay, because Madden did ultimately steal Best Picture from "Saving Private Ryan". Well, I don't really know how okay that is, because while I really like "Shakespeare in Love", it is anything but "Saving Private Ryan", and apparently I'm not the only guy who feels that way, because losing the Oscar only get Spielberg more attention, and Madden even less, if that's possible. Man, even Liam Neeson can catch a break quicker than Madden, who you think would have at least stood a chance of breaking out right after this, his first film, because as popular as "Schindler's List" was, you would think that there would be more people accidentally stumbling upon this film when seeing about a period drama in 1993 starring Liam Neeson. Hey, maybe that did happen, it's just that people quickly forgot about this film when they finally got around to "Schindler's List", because even though this film is decent, its memorability is shaken enough by its own, non-comparison problems. The film is a British-American project, but many of the storytelling sensibilities are distinctly British, with the most notable British trait being a certain dryness to the atmosphere that isn't as considerable as I feared it would be, to where dullness ever ensues, but still stands and dries up much flavor in storytelling, leaving blandness to be firmly set and remind you on the limp areas in the written story structure, which doesn't have a whole lot momentum to plotting, and therefore gets kind of repetitious after a while. In terms of consequential shortcomings, rather than natural ones, I suppose blandness is the worst thing that can be said about this film, because when things slow down, they really slow down, never to where I found myself all that bored, but decidedly to where my investment got shaken a bit. Needless to say, my investment in this narrative was further shaken by plotting's limping along a familiar path, because as if the limpness doesn't bland things up enough, storytelling's conventionalism further distances your investment because you grow to figure where exactly this film is heading, thanks to many a trope within Richard Nelson's script, which puts little care into doing anything all that refreshing with this subject matter. I wish that there was more effort put into keeping things from getting too formulaic, and I certainly wish that there was more effort put into keeping the atmosphere lively, but the film just ends up limping out under the weight of its consequential shortcomings, of which there are only so many. Quite frankly, what really does this film in as underwhelming is its basic story concept's being arguably just as limp as the execution of the concept, because even if there weren't too many slow spells, and if the conventionalism was easier to ignore, there's no washing away the thinness within this drama which offers only so much that's all that memorable. There's just not a whole lot to this film, and sure, what kick there is to the final product proves to be endearing, but in the end, this is nothing that was ever to firmly grip your investment, whose being further distanced by rather bland and formulaic storytelling makes this effort an ultimately underwhelming one. Nonetheless, the film keeps you going more often than not, being nothing too special, but something inspired enough to be enjoyable, even on a musical level. Okay, like the film itself, there's not much that's all that special about this effort's musical aspects, not just because Rachel Portman's score gets to be underused in this rather dryly quiet drama, but because the score itself gets to be about as blandly formulaic as the final product's storytelling, so you shouldn't even go into this film expecting all that much musical flavor, yet you can expect the score to still cut through its underwhelmingness enough color things up to a certain degree with a fair bit of tastefulness, kind of like the look of the film. The visuals of this film are about as commendable as Portman's score, in that they're not all that heavily played up, and when they are, they offer little that's all that flavorful, yet remain adequately impressive, with Bobby Bukowski's cinematography having gorgeously sparse plays with lighting, while art director David Crank sets up a look for the film that handsomely plays upon anything from convincing production value to near-wonderful locations. The film looks lovely at times, and when it doesn't, I suppose its reasonably handsome enough to attract your eye while it waits for a visual to really widen it, but on the whole, even the visual style of the film is kind of lacking in flavor, so if entertainment value is to be kept alive, then we're going to need some liveliness out of the bland storytelling and dramatically thin story concept. Well, as those adjectives will tell you, storytelling is most definitely not as thrilling as it probably should be, but really, as much as I complain about how bland and formulaic this plot is, the story concept is charmingly tender, and John Madden's directorial execution of such a story is with its share of dramatic highlights amidst a consistent degree of endearing charm. The film has heart, and that makes it thoroughly attractive in terms of charm, and that in turn graces entertainment value with some reinforcement, until the genuine high points in relative dramatic effectiveness come into play and further win you over, partially thanks to the performers' noble efforts. Seeing as how this film is dramatically thin, it doesn't give our performers much to do, and many of the members of this cast weren't strong enough at the time to fully compensate enough to carry the performances out of underwhelmingness, but there are talents - particularly within the higher regions in the billing - who had enough winning value by 1993, alone, to earn your investment in their characters as reasonably effective, maybe even compelling as the driving forces for this meditative character drama. The performers certainly deliver on decent chemistry, and enough of it to sell you on the relationships which are every bit as instrumental to the depths of this story as the individual characters by their own right, and do so with the very charm that powers storytelling, whose heart is rich enough for you to see the highlights within this story concept and to be won over as adequately entertained, no matter how much you wish this film had more going for it. Overall, bland spells, powered by dry storytelling and predictability sparked through formulaic storytelling, help in making the natural dramatic thinness too hard to ignore as detrimental to engagement value, which isn't so thinned out that decent score work and visuals, a tender story, charmingly and sometimes effectively heartfelt direction and generally inspired acting can't make "Ethan Frome" an endearing and occasionally compelling, if ultimately rather forgettable drama. 2.5/5 - Fair
(us) wrote: Like Water for Chocolate is a sensual, poignant, passionate love song to the pleasures of exquisite foods and forbidden love.
(us) wrote: In an attempt to capture the magic from lead actors' Paul Bartel and Mary Woronov's film Eating Raoul, this concocted attempt at humor in the world of the Mortuary business infused with that flavor of 80's slapstick fails miserably. Mortuary Academy is about to brothers who are forced to go through Mortuary school in order to collect their inheritance from their recently deceased uncle. Unfunny schenanigans ensue at the mortuary academy, which is ran by Paul Bartel's character (usual Bartel niche where he is very prim and proper, but a little necrophilia is added into the mix, which leads to some amusing scenes) and the head professor is Mary Woronov (basically playing her usual wild cougar in heat character, which isn't necessarily a bad thing). The film tries real hard to be funny and managed to succeed about every 15 minutes, thus leading to about 5 or really funny parts amidst a film full of ignorant gags. I will say both Paul and Mary (who collaborated quite often on other things including the aforementioned Eating Raoul, as well as Chopping Mall and Death Race 2000) were the best part about this film, which they are prominent throughout thankfully. The side cast, and the "supposed" leads that play the Grim Brothers are pretty dull at times. The black gentleman with the Jheri curl hair is quite unremarkable until the very end of the movie when he tries to pick up a rather large and much older appearing black woman who then slaps him and refers to him as a Titty Freak, to which he replies with "Titty Freak? I ain't no Titty Freak!" It's better to watch this scene than to listen to me, because it redeemed a lot of the film and was remarkably hilarious. OK film to kill time with, but nothing special.
(us) wrote: Hard to find revenge flick that had the potential to be amazing - a monster truck killing machine, Ned Beatty hamming it up and sporting a ridiculous 50's haircut, hillbilly culture etc. Unfortunately it spends too long getting to the nub, with some stilted dialog heavy scenes and lame stooges style family sections with Beatty and his sons. Still when the truck finally arrives it has a certain menace to it but it's all a little too late by then. Would make an AWESOME remake though, come on someone?
(de) wrote: 3 Stars, its a good movie, Good JobDirector - Actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Scarlett as wellCharming and Appealing, I liked it
(gb) wrote: "Pitch Black" is a pretty solid blend of action and horror as well as a perfect example of an anti-hero done right. The film is set sometime in the distant future and follows the crew of the ship Hunter-Gratzner on a long voyage through space. The ship's course is so long that the whole crew as well as the passengers has been put into cryo-stasis. When the ship runs into some space debris, the captain is killed and the ship's position goes from bad to worse. Docking pilot Carolyn Fry (Radha Mitchell) assumes command and when it becomes clear the ship is nearly about to crash, she makes the difficult decision to dump all of the passengers, which would kill them all but save the ship. A member of the crew, stops her but the decision has been made and the trust factor is already gone. The ship crashes and she is the only navigator left with the small handful of survivors. These include the dangerous captured murderer Richard B. Riddick (Vin Diesel). Stranded, the people will have to band together to get off the planet on which they have landed. To make things worse, there are far more dangerous elements to this world than just the heat, lack of resources and the untrustworthy survivors; the planet harbors a dark secret, which is about to be exposed. While the plot of the film isn`t really reinventing the genre of science fiction, the characters are what have given "Pitch Black" it's cult following. You can separate the characters into 3 categories: the cannon fodder, who get very little screen time, almost no character development (some of them don't even speak English so you get even less defining characteristics) and are just set up to have more revelations of the dangers of this world our characters have been marooned on. These guys you don't really care about them, but they serve a purpose to the plot. The second category is the likeable, but not super developed characters. These people get a decent amount of screen time, some memorable moments and whether or not they make it out alive, well you really don't know. Included in this category are Rhiana Griffith as Jack, Keith David as Imam and Lewis Fitz-Geral as Paris. Each of these characters spends enough time on the screen for you to start to really care about whether or not they are going to make it and fulfill different roles in the story. Paris is the comic relief, bringing some much needed humor into the film and also being not very bright, sets up a couple of situations that show us that these people are in serious trouble if they stick around on this barren world. Jack is an avatar for the audience, admiring Riddick and confirming to everyone watching that "it isn't just you, this guy really is awesome". Imam brings a nice bridge between everyone else. He's a mature adult so he's taken seriously, compassionate so he ensures no one gets left behind, and a pacifist, meaning he doesn't bring any fighting power to the team, meaning he is just as vulnerable as the other secondary and tertiary characters. The three principal characters are really what make the movie standout. You've got Riddick, who has a kind of superhuman ability that gives him a very stylish look and makes him a very valuable asset later in the film. He's a killer so you never quite know who's side he's on and he's desperate so he's got a reason to stick around with the other humans. Vin Diesel gives the character real personality and while he isn't actually the main character, he's the most memorable part of the film (if you hadn't already guessed that). Opposite to Riddick is Johns (played by Cole Hauser). This is the man that's responsible for Riddick's capture, so the two are opposed from the very beginning. The tricky thing is, both of these guys are valuable assets to the team, but neither can tolerate the other so you know it's just a matter of time before they start going toe-to-toe with each other. On top of that, you get the feeling that there's more to Johns than his "I'm a cop" backstory so there's that additional element of distrust going on. Finally there's the main character of Fry. At the beginning of the movie, well you don't really care for her to be honest. Sure, you can understand the decision about dumping the passengers... theoretically, but dumping all of those people to die, even when the other members of your crew oppose the decision? That's just cold. She knows this too so the whole film she's trying to redeem herself. As you follow her character you do see her evolve into a more compassionate person that genuinely gets to care about the survivors and when she's in peril, you really get worried. On top of all these guys, you've got a pretty decent, if not familiar premise that's fun to follow, some interesting settings, some cool creatures and some decent action, scares and tension too. This could have easily been a forgettable film but somehow all of the crew involved in the film making process and particularly the actors just managed to hit that sweet spot and make it click. Sometimes the low budget does show, particularly when it comes to the computer-generated images, which haven't really aged that well and as I mentioned, the movie is reminiscent of many others. If you get into the movie those will feel like minor quips though so the movie is more than worth a shot, it earns itself a 4 out of 5 stars. (Unrated version on Dvd, August 22, 2013)
(ag) wrote: This movie scared the crap out of me