Cop and ½

Cop and ½

Devon Butler is an eight-year old who dreams of being a cop. He watches police TV shows, knows police procedures, and plays cops and robbers with his friend Ray. One day, while snooping ...

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:97 minutes
  • Release:1993
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:murder,   blackmail,   police,  

Devon Butler is an eight-year old who dreams of being a cop. He watches police TV shows, knows police procedures, and plays cops and robbers with his friend Ray. One day, while snooping ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Cop and ½ torrent reviews

Gareth D (de) wrote: Silly fluff, an underutilised all star cast. Inoffensive stuff tho.

Patrick N (us) wrote: Much different than Wilson Yip's version of Ip Man. An ok film that has good action scenes, but lacks the seriousness in Yip's versions.

Michael R (au) wrote: Decent Little Love Triangle Film...

Luca V (fr) wrote: Possibly one of the most hysterical movies I have ever seen. I was laughing so hard throughout the entire movie; what an absolute failure of a horror flick; what a hack-written piece of garbage. This film deserves one star however for being so comically amusing.

Edith N (de) wrote: A Morality Tale With Wings It is popular, these days, to joke that one is old enough to have watched MTV when they still actually played music videos. And it's true that I am. On the other hand, the point might also be made that I am old enough to have watched MTV when the non-music video programming on it was worth watching. It wasn't even just that there was so much less of it. It's that it was good. Genuinely innovative, some of it. And one of the first shows people mention, when they're talking about innovative MTV programming, is not the [i]Half-Hour Comedy Hour[/i], though that is the first place I saw a lot of stand-up comics who are now quite famous. (I'm pretty sure it's where I first saw Chris Rock.) No, what we mention is [i]Liquid Television[/i]. Which is, of course, where I first saw [i]Aeon Flux[/i], but more to the point, it is where I first became aware of the animation of Bill Plympton. I'm not sure I knew this was Bill Plympton before I got it from Netflix, but once I did, I knew it would be visually interesting if nothing else. This is the story of Angel, a pretty reprehensible guy. We mostly see him in a bar, where he is moderately vicious to people around him. Then again, the people around him are no great shakes, either. We see into their daydreams, and it appears that all any of them want is to be admired and desirable. One day, Angel finds these weird little growths on his back. So he plucks them off and thinks no more about it. But they grow back, and in time, they grow into wings. And they are wings with a mind of their own; the wings want Angel to Do Good Deeds, and he's not much inclined toward it. In fact, he's embarrassed by the whole thing and wants them to go away. Only his attempt to get rid of them draws the attention of a back specialist, who thinks only of the money he could make on the stage with them. Even after Angel has sort of begun to resign himself to a life as a better man, there are people in his life who want to have his wings instead. The thing [i]Liquid Television[/i] taught us, those of us who watched it, is that animation isn't necessarily for kids. The film doesn't have an MPAA rating, I don't know why not, but even leaving aside the occasional moments of female nudity and a certain male reaction at the end which is covered by a blanket, not to mention the violence, this is not a movie for kids. I might have been able to sit through it in the days when I was watching [i]Liquid Television[/i], but I don't promise that. I wasn't entirely sure I was going to get through it today, and only my fondness for Plympton and my awareness of how short the movie is got me to the more interesting bits. For such a short movie, it gets off to a very slow start. There isn't a lot of action through most of the movie, and it's unclear to me how much of that action takes place inside the characters' heads. Indeed, the whole of the film is more of a parable than a narrative. The last moments, which I won't get into here, make that clear. And I don't think most kids would get that far. Another thing which I might have known about the movie, had I put a few clues together, was that it would be essentially a silent film were it not for the score. Indeed, while the film itself credits voice actors, the IMDB page does not. (Entering the film's title into Wikipedia gives you the page for Bill Plympton, despite the fact that the page suggests there is a separate one for the film. But click on the link, and you are back to Bill Plympton.) The most these voice actors would have done would have been things like coughing and grunting. The score is used, as a good score ought, to provide and heighten mood for the images on the screen, but there is no dialogue. It's all music and images. However, the film never feels lacking for all that; there is, of course, artistry in silent films as well. Or nearly so. And if Bill Plympton has ever made a cartoon with dialogue, well, I haven't seen it. Not that I've seen a ton of his work. Though I have seen enough to recognize it on sight. It is a curious fact that, for the most part, he draws all his cartoons himself. I don't just mean that they're all hand-drawn, though they are. I mean that the five artists who made this movie are four more than he usually has working on a cartoon. He holds the record as the only person ever to draw a feature film single-handed. This is, of course, why he's not the world's most prolific cartoonist, though in another sense, he absolutely is. The man works alone. His art style is distinctive, and I would imagine he was pretty exacting about having the other four people replicate it perfectly. It is not a realistic style; smoke in this movie, for example, moves upward in a single cohesive stream, more worm-like than cloud-like. I would imagine that you either like his art style or you don't, but either way, you're never going to confuse him for anyone else. Which, naturally, is what got me thinking about shorts I saw on [i]Liquid Television[/i] twenty years ago and not since, because I knew that style and remembered it from long ago.

Leena L (jp) wrote: To use a quote from another Flixter person: "Well-shot immigration drama that ends on quite a peculiar note".I missed part of the beginning but the end, before turning just weird, was quite realistic as far as I can tell after having visited the excellent museum on Ellis Island. Makes you sad to think of all the tests,humiliation and other ordeals that the immigrants back then were subjected to. Not much has changed in the world........

bill s (ag) wrote: As far as mindless entertainment goes this isn't half bad......B monster movie schlock and I do like me some schlock.

Alex M (au) wrote: perfect mix of comedy and drama

Hannah M (ca) wrote: I wish this movie made sense. It starts off kind of promising, with Hugh Grant playing his typical likable-but-fairly-inept good guy, and I smiled a lot in the first 15-20 minutes or so. But as soon as the girl's family enters the picture, the jokes get cliched and unfunny. If that wasn't bad enough, the story also unravels pretty quickly and by the end I was just left going, "Huh?" Definitely not worth the watch.

TTT C (br) wrote: Here's another film rating.

Nick D (it) wrote: The worst horror movie I've ever seen. It is almost like they wanted the characters to die! Outrageous!

Cyrus t (gb) wrote: Good movie, expressing the triumph of intuition over analysis.