You may also like
Crossbow: The Movie torrent reviews
James D (ca) wrote: 5/10 There are only four reasons this movie doesn't get a three (or lower) out of ten: firstly, and most importantly, Michael Caine's performance: even amongst a failing movie he manages to emerge victorious in a riveting performance, which is the main and probably only reason I endured sitting in for two hours, never getting bored and actually being involved with the movie despite it trying so hardly to keep me away from itself. Clemence Poesy's performance and charisma is another reason for which you get effortlessly dragged into the narrative, yet just as quickly dragged out. The othere two reasons are the calm and beautiful cinematography and the ideas the movie is trying to deal with. Yet it simply does not manage to tackle them as much as it thinks it is. The screenplay is so uneven, the drama so uninteresting and senseless, character motivations change randomly throughout and in the end the movie just feels a little too much pretentious. With the exception of the two leads the actora are actually delivering very bad performances and whenever they were talking I was cringing. The movie also relies too much on coincidence and takes too much for granted: continiously throughout it I was screaming at the screen "fuck you, how did that come to happen!?" and to this contributed a terrible editing that cut from place to place in a very weird way. The direction was all over the place and managed to make Hans Zimmer, one of the greates composer of all times, compose a dull score. Despite having some interesting, yet no really noble, intentions and two very good performances from its leads, the movie is a failure in what it wished to deliver and there is close to zero true emotion.
Scott M (us) wrote: overall shit movie but there are some funny moments and some stuff that bad you laugh at it. watched once wont before again
Fred J (it) wrote: A visionary and masterful film. There is a story, it just isn't told in the same stock way. I think the story is a poetically-told and profound one. If you want Rambo and sneer at the idea of an "art film", then skip it. You won't know how to watch it and your commentary will be misplaced. If you understand that politics is elemental, consequential, and, yes, essential, and is more than ideologies and labels and bad guy verses good guy frames of reference, you could get something out of it. If you understand that politics isn't just parties or campaigns, but that 95% of it is what people don't see and don't ever know, you may like it. If you understand that politics is really (or had better be) ultimately about the planet, other life forms, seeing people whole, and each man's soul, or at least have an open mind to seeing a more encompassing view of "politics", you might like it. Skolimowski's best, in my opinion, and that says a great deal.
Timothy S (nl) wrote: There's a reason so many nature-run-amock movies are getting made, and primarily it's because you don't need to put a lot of thought into them. Nowhere is that lack of imagination more apparent than in "Razortooth", the latest killer animal opus to surface on DVD. This one is about a gigantic, meat-eating eel let loose in the swamps of Florida, even though this was filmed in Louisiana, and it's about as bad as they get. Everything about it is lousy, from the acting to the writing, but in films like this I prefer to focus on the special effects. Everything from the larger than life critter to most of the murders are CGI, and it's all just awful and one more example of why these pictures are so easy to make. The eel is simply laughable in every shot that it's in, and several times it almost looks like a sock puppet. In fact, that might have seemed more realistic. You just have to wonder what's worse: the lazy filmmakers who are just fine with putting out junk like tis or the indiscriminate public who is OK with it being this terrible. Still, there are many other problems here. There are the point of view shots from this enormous creature and yet the people its watching can't see it, or the "dead" guy who can barely keep his eyes shit as our hero riffles through his pockets. And you can't help but laugh at the warning of the dangers of global warming over the credits, even though the film's creature was the result of genetic tinkering. There's a lot wrong with "Razortooth". In fact, I can't think of one thing that's right about it.
Douglas W (nl) wrote: Anyone rating this higher than one Star should have their movie pass revoked.
Ryan K (ag) wrote: This is one of those guilty pleasures I'll always find myself going back to.
Andrew D (gb) wrote: The first part, dealing with the executions, is fascinating. When it becomes Fred chipping away at concrete, less so.
Carl E (mx) wrote: Tobey Maguire's finest movie and brilliantly written & directed with a great supporting cast
Catherine X (jp) wrote: Another superb film by Almodovar. The storyline, acting and filming is perfect.
Hans K (kr) wrote: Bertrand Tavernier's 'Round Midnight is the best film about jazz, thanks to its Oscar-winning original music from Herbie Hancock, and Dexter Gordon's outstanding performance as a saxophonist trying to escape achohol abuse. Dexter Gordon does not only show that he is a brilliant musician, but also a talented actor.
Maru E (ag) wrote: Muerte en un funeral
Chad R (us) wrote: I don't care what your reviews say, I loved this film!
Jos H (us) wrote: La mejor versin cinematogrfica del ciclo artrico.
Jan v (ag) wrote: In short: Strong execution of strong story around end of US Civil War, however not about slavery and related violence. Not Django Unchained II, but something completely different I saw this film at the Ghent (Belgium) film festival 2013, where it was part of the section American Independent. You may wrongly assume this is Django Unchained II, given the key words in the synopsis, but it is something completely different. Its main topic is not about slavery nor its embedded violence. Of course, the environment is unmistakeably derived from the end of the US Civil War, and bounty hunters looking for escaped slaves are present in a prominent role too. Nevertheless, the civil war is not the main issue in this film, but rather the unsettling circumstances and the chaos resulting from it, in which process everyone has to make difficult decisions. The whole film kept my attention throughout the full 94 minutes running time. It perfectly showed dilemma's that are prevalent in times of war, like who to follow and who to trust. Not the ending you'd expect, however, which is a surprise until the last 5 minutes.All in all, I cannot say I enjoyed this movie, as "enjoy" would be not the appropriate word for the subject at hand. But casting and acting are spotless, and developments are evenly paced over the time, among which a few you did not expect. I certainly felt drawn into the story along with the main characters, neither of them completely good or bad, just trying to cope with the sorry circumstances. This film ranked 11th for the audience award, score 4.28 out of 5.There was a Q&A after the screening with director, editor and writer Chris Eska, Below paragraphs are not a review, but only reflect some notes I scribbled down during this Q&A.Given the uncommon combination of functions, the very first question was how it is to be a director and an editor in one person. His reply sounded logical, since editing is actually where the final film is made. He admitted that it is not easy to cut away good footage. It still is a very difficult process, but marketing pressure dictates rules for the optimal feature film length.About the writing process: It was not exactly clear from the outset that the US Civil War would become the main subject. Still on the lookout for power structures as a central theme, like in his previous films, and given the 150 years anniversary of the civil war, the chosen subject seems a natural choice only in hindsight. The additional element of black people being used to catch other blacks, just emphasizes the power structure theme, power hierarchies never being simplistic and straightforward.About casting, especially the amazing young boy, 14 years old at the time, and his first time on screen. Looking for a suitable boy, he went to many schools 200 miles around to finally have him. Subsequently he found out what type of character the boy wanted to be. Everything he needed to play such roles, was taught him on the set. It is a delicate process since you cannot easily unlearn things.About the obvious realism in this film, the reply was that he attempted to make a more mainstream film. Maybe the art-house variety, but still making a move in the mainstream direction, where it is most important to grab the audience. At all cost, he avoids to be constrained by a genre, like coming of age.About filming locations: All parts of this film are shot in places that are somewhat symbolic, in the direct neighborhood of the last hold of the confederacy. It proved difficult to find natural spaces, without obvious symbols of modern times, like noises of airplanes or automobiles, or electricity poles and street lights.
Michael L (jp) wrote: early griffith movies are definetely a pain to watch. they are really good cinematically but 2 1/2 hours of silent melodrama does wear on you. that said, this was a great piece of filmmaking and superior to birth of a nation. lillian gish was also a gifted actress who is always a joy to watch, silent or sound