You may also like
Bhagyavantha torrent reviews
Andrew M (gb) wrote: Eh thought it was going to show more about how lives are lived there. But just a lot of Dennis Rodman drunk acting a fool.
Rodney D (au) wrote: Great insight into the life of The Godfather of Soul. Chadwick Boseman transformed into James Brown
Kathy K (ag) wrote: Unique period piece focusing on the prominent banking family of the time; its changing priorities struggling to maintain its underlying code of honor. Excellent acting, costuming in the midst of the Boxer Rebellion chaos.
Geoff J (fr) wrote: Enjoyable enough low budget action thriller. Gets points for the dark tone and downbeat nature of the plot. Stil not exactly prime John Woo level excitement here...
Drew R (mx) wrote: The blurb and the video are about two totally different films.For the record the film I like is the Japanese one, which thankfully doesn't have that annoying American intro...
Frances H (fr) wrote: Cute, slightly tongue-in-cheek, but clean enough for kids and parents version of the Saint George and the Dragon story. This film was certainly better than Disney's Dragonslayer that I took my son to way back when and was horrified that what was touted as a kid's movie was so grisly and the princess was eaten! They actually showed her chewed off legs! But this movie was just fun for everybody. Very Enjoyable.
Esther C (au) wrote: Lo que ms me agrada es que la pelcula tiene el mismo rechazo del pblico que el personaje de Christina Ricci en la pelcula. Demasiado bizarra para la mayora, humor muy extrao y cido; si no tienes una perspectiva "open mind", odiars (C)sta pelcula.
Tom G (jp) wrote: Joseph: King Of Dreams is the straight to DVD sequel to the critical and box office hit Prince Of Egypt and it unfortunately pales in comparison to the latter. While its premise follows an equally fascinating Biblical story, it's execution is anything but spectacular. The animation, while strong at times, looks like a cheap Saturday morning cartoon when viewed next to its predecessor, as well as its hammy musical numbers. If it were to stand alone it may fare better, but it's impossible to not remember a much better animated Bible story while viewing it.
The O (us) wrote: keitel portrays the king of rock n roll and fonda plays a marilyn monroe impersonator in this fun filled road adventure.
Caitlin B (jp) wrote: Pretty depressing movie with cowboy hats.
Dylan G (us) wrote: Joel Schumacher made THIS?!?!
Daniel A (ru) wrote: first of all, this five star rating is a general rating to the whole series, aswel as the review. secondly, its a magnificent study, more than anything else. more than the label of documentary or tv show. I saw the whole series, from when the subjects were still children, until they're 49, and I must say, its so damn interesting to see and reflect on how people, in general, evolve, wether mentally or physically. Its also briliant because it provides a comparison basis to the viewers, as it did for me. Its no problem to be 7 and say you want to be an astronaut and prefer to play instead of thinking about girls, its no problem to be 21 and don't have a clue of what to do in the future. these are just some examples of some things that are all part of life and growing up, and this doc proves that quite well.
David N (nl) wrote: David Byrne is an artist that has transcended all medium.
Jacqueline J (es) wrote: I looked at your list of actors and actresses who starred in this film and wondered how do you find a list of the 'seconds' that also played in the film?? just wondering..
William D (jp) wrote: Did you know that the song "New York, New York," which Frank Sinatra made so famous, was originally written for the 1977 Martin Scorsese film of the same name and first performed in that film? I can't believe it, but I didn't know that. I thought it was a song from the 1940s originally recorded by Sinatra. The song was written by the legendary Broadway team of John Kander and Fred Ebb specifically for Scorsese's film and first sung by Liza Minnelli, who starred in the film opposite Robert de Niro. It's good to get that history finally straight. Now for the movie. It's known as Scorsese's only bomb, with the famous theme song its only redeeming quality. I wouldn't go quite that far. There are things about the film that I find wonderful. But overall, it is a failure. I love what Scorsese tried to do. Fresh from his triumph with "Taxi Driver" (1975), Scorsese could easily have gone on auto-pilot, churning out another gritty, masculine, urban neo-noir. Instead he did the complete opposite. He follows "Taxi Driver" up with a musical! My God, that is gutsy. I admire the cojones but not the final product. Scorsese stumbled awkwardly through the whole film; almost every scene has a false tone. The editing is atrocious, with every scene twice as long as it should be. The sets are so cheap and fake that at one point Minnelli virtually rips a railing apart with her bare hands. And they didn't cut out that scene! Scorsese surely chose the cheesy sets intentionally. I think he was trying to pay homage to the movies of the 1940s, particularly the female-driven melodramas (so-called "women's pictures"), which were always filmed on cheap Hollywood backlots. I absolutely love this idea. But it just does not come off well. The only way this could have worked is if the melodrama had been so captivating that it transported you back to the first time you saw "Mildred Pierce." (I can still remember seeing it for the first time on television as a teenager. Unforgettable.) But Scorsese really fell down on the job when it comes to story development -- always a disaster when you're trying to do melodrama. I really never cared about either of the two main characters. So rather than getting swept up by emotion, I found myself limply watching actors pretend to have feelings. It's actually hard to get through this movie. Its running time is also particularly long. It was a courageously un-hip and un-masculine tribute to old movies, but it just doesn't come together. Save for the title song, which is an old-fashioned masterpiece, "New York, New York" is a misfire.
Scott C (ru) wrote: A bit disturbing, but interesting.
Travis B (au) wrote: The suspense in this one is a little too frustrating. You're given long lead-ups for what seems to be an interesting science fiction film with this looming mystery that the main character can't remember what his life was like before the ominous "operation". Upon receiving this malfunctioning "hypo campus implant" you're never certain which settings are real, but unfortunately most of the acting makes it hard to know which characters to believe also. You'll go through some mixed feelings from jumping in and out of reality, the big lead-up to the mystery at the end misses the mark and undershoots. It's an airball, you think they will tie it off nicely and provide this thought-provoking reveal, but it topples attempting to be something greater than it really is. They could have taken this implant and done so much more to implement it into the story. It's convoluted, unoriginal, and misses the mark. Hard to see something get made that could have been so much more.