Butterflies Are Free

Butterflies Are Free

Striving to be independent, the blind but determined Don Baker (Edward Albert) moves away from his overprotective mother (Eileen Heckart, who won an Oscar). After settling into his new San Francisco digs, Don meets kooky neighbor Jill Tanner (Goldie Hawn). Don's quick wit and good looks disarm the free-spirited Jill, and before long they're more than just friends. Will Mrs. Baker's incessant meddling destroy Don and Jill's budding relationship?

A blind man moves into his own apartment against the wishes of his overprotective mother, and befriends the freethinking young woman next door. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Butterflies Are Free torrent reviews

Samuel N (de) wrote: Scared the f***ing shit out of me one of the best horror movies buying for sure

Alexandra R (br) wrote: Such a funny movie. A few moments of "yeah right" but mostly hysterical and very entertaining.

Bhaskar R (us) wrote: Watch it for Parineeti :)))

Raymond A (gb) wrote: great movie and GREAT cinematography, story was great and movie kept me on my toes.

Ryan M (it) wrote: 4.9/10 I try to watch as many art-house films as I can; not because I'm a hipster and think that such stuff is always better than the mainstream offerings from Hollywood, but because art films are genuinely interesting, and once in a while, along comes a masterpiece. And then again, also once in a while, there comes an art film that nearly ends all art films; one that's either just-plain-bad, too controversial to swallow, or an effort from a director who had better impress his followers...or else. Julian Schnabel, the director of "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly", definitely has some seriously visionary work to follow that film up with when it comes to his newest feature. "Miral", alas, is one of those art films that doesn't nearly fit the definition of a masterpiece. In fact, it's a mess of artistic vision and melodramatic, uneven storytelling. It doesn't work in the slightest, but it is not a bad film. Bad films are annoying, and while there are PLENTY of annoyances to be found here, "Miral" has some good aspects to it to at least try and overshadow the bad ones. However, in the end, things just feel so out of place and over-stylized that you have to stop and realize that this mediocrity fest IS from the guy who also made the said film, "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly". Now THAT was a great movie; while this film is just barely half the one that the earlier film was. The film chronicles Hind Husseini's establishment of a Jerusalem orphanage, as well as the establishment of Israel. Husseini first discovers over fifty homeless children living on the streets, and she decides to take them in; feeding them, and giving them shelter. In a matter of time, which is like, no time at all, really; the fifty kids have grown to about two thousand, and this is where Husseini decides to build the orphanage for all the children. The film's titular character, Miral (Freida Pinto) is sent to the orphanage after her mother dies, and her father almost forcefully sends her off, as he cannot take care of her on his own. Miral is unaware of the problems growing in the outside world; but she evolves into a very beautiful, very intelligent, and respectful young woman. She is given a chance, finally, to realize the troubles that surround her when she is assigned to teach at a refugee camp. This is where Miral opens her eyes and sees the violence, the problems; and some of the beauty. Schnabel decides to show one side of the story being told here; the "other side". I respect his artistic vision, as I do believe he is a true artist, but this is the first film of his that I've seen in which it's sort of a win-win situation. You want beautiful cinematography, taut direction, and good leading performances; you've got 'em. And hey; just because I didn't feel anything whatsoever with this story does not mean that you won't. Obviously Schnabel obviously felt something; maybe you will too. I wanted to like "Miral". I wanted to be one to praise it in spite of all this critical panning it has received, which surprised me when I first saw the reactions of various critics, but I can't lie; I must speak the truth. I did not like the film. For every good thing, there was also a plethora of bad ones. The drama felt weak, I never really cared, and thus, I felt bored; which is strange, because I expected Schnabel to be the silent, observant type. He exercises some craft here, he gives his film an interesting look. But that just isn't enough. The film won't win much support in terms of its political themes, just as it won't have many admirers as a film overall. And it shows; I now realize why "Miral" has gotten such negative critical reception. I don't necessarily hate it, as some people seriously do, but there's not enough going on here for me to recommend it. Once again; it isn't a bad film. It's just an unfocused, nearly joyless and most certainly bland one.

Edward C (es) wrote: Looper(2012)Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, Paul Dano, Noah Segan, Piper Perabo, Jeff Daniels, Pierce Gagnon, XU Qing, Tracie Thomas, Frank Brennan, Garret Dillahunt, Nick Gomez, Mark Hester, Jon Eyez, Kevin Sitwell, Thirl Haston, James Landry Hbert, Kenneth Brown Jr., Cody Wood, Adam Boyer, Jeff Chase, Ritchie Montgomery, David Jensen, Kamden Beauchamp, Josh Perry, David Joseph Martinez, Wayne Dehart, Ian Patrick, Craig Johnson, Robert Harvey, and Sylvia JefferiesWritten&Directed By: Rian JohnsonReviewHUNTED BY YOUR FUTURE, HAUNTED BY YOUR PASTMan it's been a long time since I've seen a Bruce Willis action movie, I think. Anyway Looper sounds like a female lead film, now that I think about it, come on you know it does and it would be a comedy. But maybe someday someone make a film of what i'm talking about, where chicks loop their tounges.The actual film is about a Looper(men who are hired by future Mafia to kill men with a bag over their head)who gets the one thing all Looper's dread the Loop cut. Where the Looper is sent their future self to kill. But once he meets his future self(played by Bruce Willis) he's told by Bruce Willis Looper that he's here to kill the rainmaker(the new crime boss from the future cutting off all Looper's.) He meets a woman named by Emily Blunt and from there things start to escalate.When I first saw the trailer in 2012 I thought looked good but I never saw it. Thank goodness because the pacing was kind of actually no not kind of but really freaking awful in the first 30 minutes. But once it starts booming and the plot starts running it's course it becomes a fun and eventful film. Another thing that was hard to get into was character, not that it lacked character development but the only that I could get into was Emily Blunt's character Sarah and her son SID(the future Rainmaker). Espically SID I really wanted to know more about him and maybe about his father. He forms a friendship with the Looper Joe and believes he's there to protect him and his mother.The camera shots in this film are great. When it gets to exciting sequences it can get slow but then start booming in a fast-paced motion which I really enjoyed when it was on. I think that Looper is a great piece of original material taking an old concept such as time-travel and making it something very dramatic again. I'm going to give Looper a four out of five.

Jos L (jp) wrote: Me resulta imposible dejar de asociar a Tailandia con el cine de Weerasethakul y quizs por eso, esta agradable pelcula no logr emocionarme del todo. Bella y muy bien fotografiada comienza apostando por lo menos convencional y termina a lo ms cine indie norteamericano. Una mezcla que funciona en equilibrio,pero sin arriesgarse a ms

Paul B (nl) wrote: I loved this movie. Michael Sheen is just incredible. This was a precursor to his famous roles as Tony Blair and David Frost. It is a deep dark journey into the world of mental illness, with no punches pulled. Outstanding

Lanky Man P (ca) wrote: Cheesy, tacky, and terrible. It gets worse, Kevin James is apparently funny.

Adam M (fr) wrote: fairly badass has scencs that are my life verbatem on occasion

Tessa R (kr) wrote: The first one was the best, I must say.

Aj V (us) wrote: A good thriller, Caine is great in these kinds of movies. I wouldn't have thought of casting Reeve, though, but he's not bad, and played his character well. A few of the plot twists are a little predictable if you watch a lot of thrillers, but the ending is very surprising. This movie is a lot of fun, and I recommend watching it.

John V (br) wrote: Demasiado Hippie. Un supuesto film de "culto" que pueden dejar pasar.

Liam C (nl) wrote: One of the things that makes this quite unlike the rest is that our main character is actually given a real reason to go back into the line of duty as opposed to just being goaded back in because he's, 'one of the best'. This film gave our main character a real reason to care and actually want to go back and solve this case, the person behind it all was unique also because of his reasoning behind what he did and overall I really did appreciate the amount of creativity that was put into this film, regardless of what reviews say. There were a few things in the plot that happened that I felt to be really coincidental, like, the fact that the specific heart that McCaleb needed just so happened to be available when he needed it, or the fact that a criminal would wait around and watch from a car or on foot as investigators look at their crime, and while that is a clich of many cop-based stories, this film actually explains those and makes it fit into its plot in a realistic way. Even if McCaleb had caught up with that person at the start we wouldn't have a story. There were a few things that seemed a little odd, like, it did seem kind of odd for someone to just grab McCaleb at the ATM, would someone really do that? But they even make that fit into the plot. I thought they would say no to that worker being there but he was, however, I feel like that supposed suspect at the factory was odd, would an innocent person really attack McCaleb, force his way to see his badge, break a window and run off? Perhaps I missed something but it also felt like that character was pointless after they exited the film, in a way that really wouldn't make much sense for them to run away if they were innocent either. However, it is in their as a red herring and perhaps that character was blackmailed by the actual person behind it all.I thought the film was well told and very intriguing, the film had a very good introduction with good music and, like I have noticed in other films directed by Eastwood, starring him, they seem to circle back on themselves with how they start and end, with the opening and closing shots, also with the same music. I also noticed how the camera seemed to zoom in on McCaleb's face when he first appears, which seemed funny. The pace was fast and I was very interested in what happened, mostly because of the three stories being told at once and the attention to detail our characters get, the family that requested the help in particular are good, especially Raymond. The cast was well chosen and very good but I did notice how big actors were chosen for the smaller roles and given where the plot goes, it makes sense. I feel like they only cast Angelica Hudson because she was a big name in a relatively small role to make it seem less odd to the other big actor in a small role that eventually goes on to be the one behind it all. I also found that the film had its funny moments, mostly thanks to Paul Rodriguez, who reminded of me Vince Vaughn for some reason; I found the amount of attention given to the doughnuts to be oddly humours, while Arrango says they don't need them and yet eats them anyway. The film also has a couple of great one liners in there as well, of course here's one before the big bad is killed but one of which had McCaleb being called a cowboy, which caused a smile. Also, we see McCaleb ignore the drink his friend got and then later on that friend would drink a beer whilst babysitting? The only thing I didn't really like was the reveal of whodunit and the reason for that is because I knew the second that character came on screen that they did it. I don't sit around predicting films because what would be the point of that? However, sometimes things just click when you watch a film and this was one of those times; I don't know, there was just something about the way they were introduced that really spelled it out to me. However, I guess I shouldn't really hold that against the film just because it clicked for me like that, although, I have heard that it was very obvious anyway, so maybe that is a problem in general. I saw that character with an earring at one point and while not the one that the supposed suspect is supposed to have; it flickered in the sunlight at one point and seemingly drew attention to itself, although I'm sure that was a coincidence. Also, after that point, that character just becomes a crazy lunatic which doesn't make sense with the script, up until that point they had been hiding it perfectly and seemed like an ordinary person, so the moment they are revealed they just switch on the crazy? However, I've seen that done many times before and I guess when you don't have to hide it you would just be open about it, there is no reason not to. I also don't understand their way of thinking; they told McCaleb that two characters went home but soon after it is revealed that McCaleb knows what is going on so then the person behind it all reveals they actually kidnapped those two. So, what? If McCaleb did not know what was going on would he go and free those other two? And if he did they would just tell McCaleb what was going on anyway. Never turn your back on a man with a gun and later on when he turns around and shoots that flag quickly because of his reaction, while he probably has those reflexes because of his line of work, best not to waste bullets, especially in the situation he was in. It also seemed kind of weird to have the person behind it all show that number of his before it was really needed. When he mentions his name I did think it was 'noon' from how he said it, but of course it couldn't be, but at least he spells it out so McCaleb could get it right, even though he states he knows how to spell it. At one point McCaleb says something about how the smallest detail can make a case all the more easier to solve and while that line is said casually in dialogue, it really does set up that moment where they solve the issue of the code number. While I said earlier that the pace was good, after revealing whodunit, it does seem like some of the film was just stretched out to reach a passable running time because it is hard to believe someone of his stature couldn't figure everything out. True, he had been out of the game for a long time but when a child points out the mystery behind the code, you do start to wonder; however, it is a very small detail that most adults would over look because of the fact that they would be looking really deeply into it to find some a huge hidden meaning. Although, some could call that an excuse and I thought it was a phone number the very first time we see it.There also some other odd parts, despite the character's history, if someone saw him out in the open with a shotgun, surely he would be arrested right there and then? It isn't like he had a badge. He should have hidden that gun and walked up on that car before doing anything, he'd have more of a chance of capturing that person, then. Also, right after this scene they go and do something else entirely; wouldn't you put out an APB for a seriously damaged car? There was also a point where we see McCaleb writing numbers down in a notepad and I thought that was because the time on the video skipped, but it is brought back in, in a smart way. I also thought, from one piece of dialogue that the people in the footage getting shot in the shop were having an affair of some kind, but that goes on to be explained very well. There was an odd bit where McCaleb pushes someone on the street because of who he thinks it is by his shoes and the proceeds to shoot a gun, it made sense for the plot but like I said with the shotgun thing before, despite what he is doing, surely he would have some repercussions for that. I also couldn't understand a few lines because the audio was strange, it focused on the dialogue in the background so we could pay attention to it but in turn making the dialogue we should have heard, too quiet. There was also a rather odd romantic scene, while thankfully not on screen very long just because long sex scenes are boring in general, it was odd to see that character kiss McCaleb's scar... Despite what I have said, I did enjoy this film quite a bit; it was smart, different, and interesting. Clint Eastwood does typically great work in front of and behind the camera and it is just a very watchable film. I have heard that the book was different though, which is strange when I have also read that the person behind it all was much different and even though I have heard the book does have some very 'out there' moments, it seems odd that they changed it. And when I read, before the film, that the main character's heart had something to do with catching a serial killer, I thought that this film would deal with the supernatural in one way. However, it is funny to read that they make reference to this film in future books. This film is also another example of how reviews can be different depending on where you go, at the moment it has 64/100 on metacritic and a 6.7 for audience as well as a 6.4 on imdb and it has 53% here and 40% for audience, even if sometimes that can be a terrible indication because 'Miami Vice', for example, was well received on metacritic and I really did not like that. I'd say I agree with metacritic and IMDb because I did enjoy this film quite a bit and I seemed to have gone against what I usually do and not write a lot for an Eastwood film that he stars in, but it was going to happen at some point. Blood Work', which is a great title as well, was a very enjoyable film.

Leon W (de) wrote: Good film, Brian Cranston is excellent