On the 100th anniversary of the founding of a watchmaking company in Geneva, Charles Dé the founder's 50-year-old grandson has had it: he speaks eccentrically to a reporter, recognizing his grandfather as a craftsman and his son as a businessman, but is evasive about himself. He gives his family the slip and moves in with a young couple he meets by chance, doing the cooking, reading, drinking, and engaging in philosophical discussions with them. The young couple comes to love Charles. In secret, he stays in touch with a daughter, and the rest of the family hires a private investigator to find him, setting in motion a business take-over that threatens his Bohemian happiness.
On the 100th anniversary of the founding of a watchmaking company in Geneva, Charles Dé the founder's 50-year-old grandson has had it: he speaks eccentrically to a reporter, recognizing his... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Jesse O (br) wrote: A film that just comes and goes without make much of an impression one way or the other. While I do think that it's a bad movie, all things considered, it's not nearly as bad as it is boring. With that said, and this might be one of the only positives I can come up with at this moment, is the fact that the the film is over in a flash. It might not be a good movie and it might not be entertaining, but the film does not wait any time throwing you into what's going on in this small and quiet town. I'll take positives where I can find them. I suppose Dean Stockwell is also pretty decent in this movie, even if he doesn't appear a lot in it. I think there's a good idea here and some of the moments where the tease something or just show you the monster(s) in the background walking away as the camera comes up to one of the characters, or taking their hand away from the wall. I think some of that worked pretty well. The problem is the fact that the film, while not doing so straight out of the gate, doesn't tease the appearance of the 'monsters' before actually paying off on it. It's not like they're really that scary, they look like zombie cavemen or something, but it's strange that the film didn't have you 'work' for the reveal. So many movies wait until the last possible second until they do the reveal that, by that point, it's already too late. This film does it relatively early in the story and it still doesn't do much to help the film improve. It's not like there's that much in the way of horror in the film to begin with. They try, but it felt a little salty and colorless to me, like they're borrowing from other films without any of the effort or thought put into it. The structure of the film is also kind of a mess. Characters and their motivations are inconsistent. It's just all over the place, I can't even explain it. Characters appear in one scene and then are never seen again until the last possible second. Characters go from being unlikable to barely likable. Feels like the film was written in a non-sequitur fashion, where one thing rarely has to do with what came before it or will come after. Look, I like the Chiller tv channel, even though my cable provider dropped it, and I think myself a horror fan, which means I watch a lot of really low-budget horror flicks, but this film just has a TV movie look and feel that just holds it back. Like you can just tell that it was made, essentially, to be aired on Chiller after either a short theater run and/or VOD distribution. There's nothing wrong with that, there's plenty of good TV movies out there, but when's the last time you saw a GOOD made for tv horror movie. I'll wait. This is, obviously, not gonna change the perception that made for tv horror movies aren't any good. I do think that the film got better as it neared the end, and I don't mean to say because the film would've almost been over, don't be mean, you guys. I do think there's some improvement though in how the doctor takes out all the monsters and the 'twist' itself is not bad because it, actually, kind of makes sense within the context of the story. You can't say that about a lot of twists in films. But I still don't think this film was any good. It's on Netflix, so on that regards, it's harmless, but it's not a good movie in any way. It's more boring that bad, but I still wouldn't recommend it.
Erica W (ca) wrote: I couldn't concentrate on this dumb movie. All I noticed was how ugly Charlyne Li is.
Andrew S (kr) wrote: A heavy and oftentimes disturbing film yet also deeply moving. It takes experimental gambles like this to broaden the cinematic art form and make way for new ideas and approaches. for that, i thank gaspar Noe although I can't say i love his film. "Enter the Void" for me is a difficult film with little reward, yet I find myself continuously thinking back to it as a serious advancement in modern film. it leaves a pretty nauseating taste in my mouth, but--like any powerful experience, good or bad--you learn from it.
Maya E (it) wrote: it's against logic! though we have some stupid ppl like this. but it's about body-love rather than spirit-love and such things don't last.
Alex M (jp) wrote: It's not as emotionally stimulating as it tries to make out to be, with too many scenes of slow motion that manage to crop up every so often taking you out of the story, but Gus Van Sant utilizes lead Nevins by giving a performance that makes you feel the guilt and shame he feels for what he's done. The film does do well in show casing the life of skateboarding to almost near perfection as well as capturing the problems teen adolescents deal with on a day to day basis.
Emilio R (it) wrote: One of my favorite dramas as it explores the thin line between doing the right thing or taking revenge. Tense, well-crafted, and boasting excellent lead performances from Oscar winners Ben Affleck and Samuel L. Jackson. Changing Lanes will keep you glued until the conclusion.
Pavan R (ru) wrote: Very average movie on a night out gone wrong...trying to narrate the story of all involved...very average acting and the story itself is quite poor
Trevor D (ca) wrote: I kinda wanted to see it cus Hulk Hogans in it, but as I grew older I realised Hulk Hogan is totally gay.
Dan G (ru) wrote: How was the bathroom buddy,pretty gruesome? Buddy, i had to hold my breath, buddy
Eric J (fr) wrote: Another nice "sunday afternoon" kind of film. Definitely Woody Allen kinda stuff but Bette Midler is terrific and the cerebral laughs are folded in for good measure. Recommended
Grant S (ag) wrote: Somehow trashy and pretentious, all at the same time.A woman starts having strange, erotic dreams. Meanwhile she is resolving an inheritance issue on behalf of a Countess who inherited an estate from Count Dracula. Once she meets the Countess she starts to figure that this case and her dreams may be linked...Well, that's as much as I could figure out, plot-wise. It is all over the place and the plot is really quite token. The whole movie is a classic example of the 70s horror-exploitation genre: horror theme, basic, nonsensical plot, much gratuitous female nudity, all done in a faux arty sort of way. While this may have worked in the 70s, it is quite silly now. Quite tame now too. Not worth watching, for any reason.
THOMAS S (it) wrote: With this movie it was not a bad little bronson flick - the PG rating hurts it some though. Still its CHARLIE!!
Udit C (au) wrote: When the flush of a newborn sun fell first on Eden's green and gold,Our father Adam sat under the Tree and scratched with a stick in the mold;And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart,Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves: "It's pretty, but is it Art?"
Konrad A (us) wrote: I liked this Harry Potter because they where in a competition to win. But it was a little scary and the fighting was good! but it was a OK movie. I do not recommend children watching this
Jacob B (mx) wrote: The performances are tried at their best, but the film is dull and just about storyless.