You may also like
Billy Connolly: Erect for 30 Years torrent reviews
Ryan S (ru) wrote: Though I laughed a few times, this is a mediocre movie.
Evan H (ca) wrote: This movie is plain out ridiculous! It has so much drama in it and tries to be funny, but comes off as being rather boring and dramatic!
Adriano B (fr) wrote: Hark's One Armed Swordsman reprise is brutish, animalistic, feverish, rich of steel tempered, rather than aerial, fights, more akin to the straight, uncompromised violence of 7'0 gongfu and spaghetti western flicks than traditional swashbuckling or revisionis Wuxia. Like "Mad Max in Peking". A big win.
Gary S (it) wrote: We're not allowed that's for sure.
Reece L (ca) wrote: Admittedly, Metropolitan is filled with relatively loathsome characters, but their overly-beleagered affectations eventually become endearing after the audience is made painfully aware of the fact that they exist as aimless slaves to tradition, sitting around having pretentious conversations about nonsense out of a vague sense of societal duty. What makes it more substantive than its spiritual-sibling Kicking and Screaming is this underlying sense of fragility; this way of life isn't sustainable and the characters know it. While it mostly operates as a slightly satirical look at an insulated bit of a culture so elitist as to be almost-foreign, Metropolitan also offers commentary on the empty nature of class distinction and unearned societal clout with a consistent stream of witty jokes that both ridicule and celebrate this bizarre part of wealthy American life and make it a successful piece of filmmaking.
Charlie F (au) wrote: This is one of the smartest movies I have ever seen. It smartly takes society and encloses it into a group of people, which in this case happens to be an orchestra. By enclosing it in an orchestra it perfectly depicts the concept of a group of people who are supposed to work together in harmony, in order to achieve a mayor common goal. What happens in the movie, is what happens in real life; you start to see the different personalities and conflicts in society, from the bureaucracy of unions, to the fight of egos, to the differences in points of view (some members liberal, some conservative), to the existence of those who care and those who don't, to the "revolution", etc. Although as an art house movie it can be a bit "slow", it has many very funny details most of them given by the same character's personality.
William C (ru) wrote: Bakshi is so brilliantly twisted. Coonskin barely edges this out.
Troy (kr) wrote: A hgue hit in the 70's. but now adays is better knwon for it's vechile chases. The film had intrestung characters considering the lack of depth, but Burt Reynold's charm helps make the film watchable. ned beatty is not in top form in the film, but at times provies adversity to reynolds. overall an ok film, not as great as expected, but watchable.
Dave J (ru) wrote: Monday, June 2, 2014 (1962) Panic In The Year Zero! SCIENCE-FICTION DRAMA/ SOCIAL COMMENTARY The idea about law that cannot be maintained after a nuclear attack or an apocalypse evolved from this movie which I like to think was the bases for George Miller's "Mad Max" movies. Directed and starred by the actor himself by the name of Ray Milland, this low budget feature has a fascinating feel to it since it does invoke questions about our humanity as a whole. In this case, Harry Baldwin (Ray Milland) is doing whatever it have to take to protect his family after the country became lawlessness, even if it meant doing things he wouldn't necessarily do too. His family also includes his wife, Ann Baldwin(Jean Hagen), his son Rick Baldwin(Frankie Avalon) and his daughter, Karen Baldwin (Mary Mitchel). The downside is that Ray Milland is working with the low budget he has and it shows since the entire environment doesn't look too much like the apocalypse, but as long as the idea is there, nothing else really matters. And the few movie critics who disliked this film are viewing this movie like it was made for today's audiences instead of when it was initially made which was back in 1962. 2.5 out of 4 stars
Denny K (us) wrote: good movie, horrible and boring ending.
Carlos M (nl) wrote: Julianne Moore steals the scene as what seems like an older version of Lindsay Lohan with a Mommie Dearest complex (think of Christina, not Joan) in a cynical story full of horrible characters who are forced to face their ghosts in ways that would leave Freud aroused.
Jason O (au) wrote: This movie wasn't funny at all, and not even that entertaining. I haven't seen many Selleck movies, but this one didn't leave a good impression. Oh well, least we see a nice naked Japanese butt take a step or two at one point.