Blind Melon's Letters from a Porcupine

Blind Melon's Letters from a Porcupine


  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:72 minutes
  • Release:1996
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:Blind Melon's Letters from a Porcupine 1996 full movies, Blind Melon's Letters from a Porcupine torrents movie

This posthumous tribute to Blind Melon documents the band's ascendancy to the top of the charts, including extensive footage of live club performances, their set at Woodstock '94, late-night television appearances, and behind-the-scenes footage of the recording sessions for their final album. Songs include "Soup," "Toes Across the Floor," "St. Andrews Hall," "Soul One" and "No Rain (Ripped Away Version)." . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Blind Melon's Letters from a Porcupine torrent reviews

Carlos M (es) wrote: Because it follows to the letter the conventions of the genre, this is an efficient yet passable horror movie that doesn't come close to being as scary as The Conjuring but offers some good moments here and there (like the elevator scene, which is particularly terrifying).

Jeff B (kr) wrote: I found this film relatively underwhelming. The main issue is that the film tries to be too narrative or a film about fiction too lyrical, and instead of being something of merit, like a best seller, it turns rather pedestrian in the process.We've got a writer (Roy Jansen) who's trying to get published but can't, so he finds a manuscript in an old briefcase bought at a second-hand shop and publishes it as his own. The story is being told by an author, Clay Hammond (Dennis Quaid), and as the movie unfolds, one may begin to wonder who the narrator is. Is he the plagiarized author, the old man, or someone else? For we have a story within a story within a story. Hammond who is telling a story about Jansen (Bradley Cooper) who later in the movie is being told a story by the old man (Jeremy Irons). Of course you have some wonderful actors here, but the material just seemed a bit strained, as if the film in its attempt to be taken seriously bit off more than it could chew. I don't know what it is about films that portray authors a particular way, but they often seem to get it wrong. How do I know? I've been writing for years and have a degree in writing. I've never experienced the tragedy and melodrama most writers in films have, and neither have my writing friends. We aren't full of angst, drugs and alcohol, or some muse that makes us appear different from anyone else. Stuck in Love comes to mind when I think of writers portrayed very unrealistically. The Words wasn't as bad but close. And I love Irons but the story telling just got boring after awhile and seemed to suck the energy out of the room rather than build it, maybe because his part went on too long. Just tell the guy you wrote the book already. All this flowery melodrama just ain't working (Remember Dora's analysis of Rory's book? "In this one, you're just so real.") Writers are often told to just get to the point, don't bore the reader, but maybe screenwriters don't get that same message. This just sounded like a writer who doesn't know how to write talking about how a writer writes. Right? Oh well. The final scene between Hammond and his love interest Daniella seemed to actually be going for something a little ethereal, some mystery, merit, and depth, but then the conclusion is just plunked in the viewer's lap at the end. OK, the Jansens's were happy. Wha--?. And finally, why the old man came forward to tell Jansen that he had plagiarised his book is never given a satisfactory reason. Again, promise of something of merit and import is just left cold on the table. Not terrible but certainly not something to write home about, if you will.

Tyler B (de) wrote: This movie is one of the more inventively crazy movies I have ever watched but I totally enjoyed it. Does not make much since but it's not supposed to, that's what makes it so good.

Nora S (nl) wrote: Simply the best film ever made hands down. No matter how many times I see it, it still has me in stitches at certain points and tugs my heart strings at others, and it's so complex & detailed both visually and emotionally I often notice new things I didn't notice in the previous hundreds of viewings. This movie proves that Will Ferrell can actually ACT, and isn't just a free traveling peep show. Tina Fey is brilliant as always, they should have voiceover actor/actress categories at the Oscars, and if they did Will & Tina would have won. The film should have won best animated feature, as good as How to Train Your Dragon was it wasn't good enough to beat this. DW should have released it a month later, coming out in November it was passed over by many who were saving money for Christmas and they couldn't even justify it as a holiday family event film. I've met a few hard core fans of Ferrell's who hadn't even seen anything about it years later, DW did a pathetic job of advertising it. Everyone I've ever told about it, some of whom I loan a DVD to, has loved it, and watched it multiple times too. If you haven't seen it, you must. You won't regret it.

Indira S (ag) wrote: that too predictable movie. u can watch it for fun only

Maranda F (ag) wrote: This was cute and Gabriel Macht was gorgeous. Yum!

Russell H (us) wrote: It was pretty cheesy but sort of entertaining.

Bavner D (kr) wrote: Secara keseluruhan, banyak yang menganggap film ini hanyalah sebuah placebo. But, I refuse to that opinion. Film ini bukanlah sebuah film yang hanya tampil dengan komedi-komedi sentimentil yang berlatar dengan nilai-nilai kemanusiaan. Menurut saya, film ini malah menawarkan sebuah tontonan yang menyenangkan, tidak membosankan dengan kisahnya yang sangat inspiratif.

Aunti K (fr) wrote: Based on fact, this is the story of a woman who was raped, beaten, and imprisoned just for being a woman. After she escaped imprisonment, she became the leader of a bandit outfit and terrorized the people who had been so cruel to her.

Mort P (br) wrote: It's hard to believe so many good reviewers chose to knock down this exceptional movie (yes, I mean an exceptionally good movie), unless of course they read each other's reviews and were ashamed to write an approving word. How that could be the case, I can't imagine. So I'll just say the apparent consensus is wrong, and by no slight margin, either.

Garrett C (fr) wrote: Not as revelatory in the art or story as one would hope, but if you want a strange way to spend an hour it's not a bad choice.

Gregory W (jp) wrote: awesome classic from mexico's golden age

Brandon S (mx) wrote: It may be relatively unfeeling, but the screenplay was just wordy and complex enough to hold me. David Cronenberg puts the movie on Robert Pattinson's shoulders, and here's how I know he's secretly a great actor, he handles it perfectly.

Corey B (fr) wrote: Younger Morgan Freeman, he as always carries the movie, a typical 80s movie though with all the cheese