Theo, an Inuit from the Arctic, travels to New York City to warn world leaders about the catastrophic impact of global warming on the planet. Upon arrival he meets a homeless girl named Chloe, who has an unusual vigor for life, is mildly delusional, and completely obsessed by Bruce Lee. Together, they will save the world. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
You may also like
Chloe & Theo torrent reviews
Domenic D (br) wrote: The material is uneven, but you can sort of feel him in there, his spirit, where he came from, big moments, not all necessarily original but he can be surprisingly funny! I laughed. (that wholeMitch ongoing story was really a blast) I'm no fan of the guy, not even as a boxer really. But he is Mike Tyson, he's an icon. He's also a man who has to come to age and reflect on his life, as we all do, and personally I think Spike Lee was able to bring some order to this chaotic man on stage, and make it interesting for the viewer. You have to give the man a break really. He was, and in many ways still is, somewhat a brute, struggling with his past, trying to make sense out of it. But it takes guts to do this and come out. It's really not a fact finding mission as in adocumentary piece, despite the title - you get themes with some media support and varying levels of engagement from Tyson, from the very personal to the somewhat detached. On the whole I found it was pretty successful. Who would have thought?
Dee H (de) wrote: No real story line.... title and description hype it up but there isn't much here. It is slow from start to finish. And messy. Sometimes you don't even know what's happening. Very poorly done. It had potential with what the story line was supposed to be but it dies horribly. I won't be watching it again.
Shayna P (ru) wrote: The documentary online is better.
Regency G (kr) wrote: It was a pretty good movie though that would probably be the wrong word for it. It was gritty for sure, very brutal, but it was great too in its own way. You have to have the stomach for it for sure.
Ethel C (us) wrote: A movie for children. Ok for its type
Mark W (ca) wrote: It's confusing, that about sums up my experience to be honest... It was an average low budget type movie, but really very difficult to get into and understand! I'm the first to admit it has an interesting concept to it but it wasn't written right and surprisingly not much actually happens in the movie itself! Really not worth the watch if I'm honest!
Ed C (de) wrote: One line summary: Ghosts, revenge, confused parentage, murder, obsession, but no scares.-------------------------- Rachel is a successful roving reporter for a television station. One evening she comes home and all seems well. A home invasion occurs and the thief kills her significant other by stabbing. She's in shock. She loses her job, her place of work. She goes back to her home in Fillmore with her parents George and Marge, then gets a job at the local television station. Her first assignment is an ongoing one in which she is to report on some of the high points of the local architecture. When she goes to first stop on the list, the 'Sullivan House,' all seems as usual until she goes upstairs. Then she hallucinates a brutal stabbing of a woman by an enraged man. On her second visit, she meets Arnold, a photographer who is investigating paranormal events using very sensitive photographic equipment. When they are about to uncover a paranormal event, a big fellow gets in Arnold's way, then stabs him to death. Stephen does some research, and finds that Arnold was killed some years ago. Oh, my. The Chief would rather that Stephen and Rachel quit poking around the Sullivan house. So of course they go there the same night. The Chief gets a complaint about their skulking around, and confronts them in the house. Unfortunately for the Chief, Dr. Sullivan, who owns the house, has gotten out of prison, and he stabs the Chief to death. Rachel figures out that the killer is her father and the ghost in her first hallucination is the ghost of her birth mother. Does Rachel help resolve the ghost's psychological problems, so that the haunting stops? Will any of the cast survive Dr. Sullivan? Are there last minute surprises?-----Scores----- Cinematography: 6/10 Camera shake. Stupid camera angles. Sound: 5/10 There are some big shifts in volume for no particular purpose, except perhaps for shock effect. Acting: 0/10 Alexandra Holden and John Burke are both terrible in this film. Their delivery of lines is just poor, and their external affect seems irrelevant. Micah Costanza was wretched as Deputy Murken. Mike Korich as Arnie Howard was no prize either. Screenplay: 2/10 Does Rachel ever mourn Brian? Why is Rachel so snotty toward her parents? Why was absolutely nothing in this film scary? Bad writing.
Rowena C (kr) wrote: wtch it on tape when ma dad rent it 13 years ago,n now i'm stil lovin it . jz found out Rio's plot is kinda similar in some ways
Ben P (nl) wrote: Banderas' acting was nonexistent and DeMornay can't carry a movie by herself. The "twist" ending was pretty bad, too.
David L (fr) wrote: I am not a huge Franco fan but I can say this his films contain such bizarre imagery, odd-ball stories and brazen disregard for the social status quo that the man is just fascinating. Female Vampire represents one of his most off-kilter efforts to date. The story is nearly impossible to describe, but here goes; Countess Barthory (the lovely Lina Romay) is on vacation in Europe. She is mute sex maniac and a vampire/succubus. Her henchman (also mute) goes about collecting willing subjects for the Countess for her to feed her lusts. And that is about it. Most of the film is filled with slow, dreamy sequences interconnected with shots out a car window, which are the only scenes the Countess speaks. Lacking in plot on a grand scale, Franco fills the running time with as much full-frontal nudity as can be packed in a film. Wisely choosing not to go down the hardcore road (unless your watching the badly re-edited German X-rated version) the nudity and sex come off as genuinely erotic. Romay spends almost all of her screen time almost completely nude; either rolling about in some kind of horny-angst or fulfilling the same desires. A nice touch to the couplings is that while she must kill her companions to sustain her own life (she is a vampire after all), after each death she seems both deeply remorseful for having to take life and yet more aroused than before. Like a drug addict, the more she gets, the more she needs, the more she hates herself. The film exists is a wide range of cuts and editions, but three main versions seem prevalent. The Bare Breasted Countess aka the "R-rated" cut; Female Vampire aka the "NC-17" cut; and the re-edited porn version. Of them all the "NC-17" is by far the best; the weaker versions are to dry and the hardcore version features explicit footage obviously spliced in from a different film. Oddly watchable and one film Franco fans shouldn't miss anyone else should just check you brain at the door and enjoy.
Cine M (it) wrote: Sophia Loren and Marcello Mastroianni are indeed the perfect pair of actors from the 60s. No wonder they did so many films together. This trio of different stories shows off this dinamic italian duo. Bravo!!
Frdric I (gb) wrote: Un film politique de Kazan sur la rvolution mexicaine et sur les questions connexes au problme rvolutionnaire: la violence, l'exercice du pouvoir, la trahison des idaux, la transition de la guerre la dmocratie,... Trs beau rle pour Brando.
Catherine (it) wrote: Yet another successful Tyrone Power film.
Mohammed A (de) wrote: Genuinely one of the best Bond films ever made. Diana Rigg's acting is phenomenal and chemistry between the two stars is amazing. I can't believe people talk trash about Lazenby's acting. He is superb as well.
Ryan B (es) wrote: Alright so I'm very positive that this was the first movie that I read before I watched the movie and I have to say the book was much better than the movie, in fact, I think the movie was a pretty big let down, I mean it was still somewhat good but they took some of the stuff that was in the book and didn't include it in the movie that I thought was pretty important, especially the ending. Alright now that I got that out of the way, let me get to the movie itself. The acting was pretty good, I'm kind of a fan of Harrison Ford and he's almost always good at the roles he gets. The villain played by Sean Bean also did a fairly good job, he could have done better though. Though it's considered, well I'm not sure whether it's considered an action movie or a political drama, either way it lack both action and political stuff. The ending is what I'm most disappointed about. The movie itself wasn't that great, but the bottom line is, I wouldn't watch it again, it wouldn't be worth it. Read the book. Unrecommended