Murray Hallam shows you how to build an Aquaponics system from recyclable materials that you can do yourself.
- Stars:Murray Hallam,
You may also like
DIY Aquaponics torrent reviews
Barry L (gb) wrote: Goonies for grown ups
logan g (ca) wrote: Good but could have took a little more risk like straight outta Compton but still amazing
Logan A (it) wrote: Holy crap. I had no idea Adam Sandler's dedication to making painfully unfunny and annoying movies started this long ago. This movie is proof that Adam Sandler has shockingly not necessarily gotten worse over time, despite the comedy-holocausts he's churning-out for a quick buck these days.Everything about this movie is annoying, pointless and unfunny. Sandler continually mugs for the camera and breaks the fourth wall in a desperate attempt to make the writing seem clever. Speaking of the writing, it literally felt like something a talentless 7th-grader could have written. It's spastic, obnoxious, immature and never really delivers any pay-offs.For a movie about stand-up comedians I find it interesting that not one...not ONE...joke throughout the movie was either funny or worth repeating. This is one of those rare movies where the writing is so bad that it literally contributes nothing to the movie's quality. It's utterly worthless in the scheme of the movie.As for the actual plot, the writing contributes nothing to that as well, as the narrative is shockingly confusing and nonsensical. This is a movie about stand-up comedians on a cruise-ship. This should NOT be a difficult series of events to convey.This was one of the most painful movies I have ever had to sit through. There was no budget. No writing. No plot. No believable acting. No real characters. No real progression of events. Nothing. Nothing to make this film worth recommending to anyone with a functioning brain-stem.This movie is agonizing to sit through. It feels like watching a play preformed by amateur high-schoolers that giggle at diarrhea-jokes and people slipping on banana peels. Do not watch this movie out of curiosity. Do not watch this movie for any reason other than masochism. This is an atrocious relic of a bygone era where companies actually cared LESS about producing a final product with any quality than they do now. Stay away. Stay away unless you're a die-hard fan of bad cinema.
Alec B (ru) wrote: While certainly not the worst film centering on an emotionally-repressed older man and his affinity for a younger woman, Magic in the Moonlight does tread into some familiar and uneven territory that has characterized Woody Allen's work over the past fifteen years. That being said, it's a decent film with all of the charm and neurosis to bit, even if it leaves the audience wanting. Like most of Allen's recent fare, it's nice on the eyes, sharp on the tongue, and has all of the cumbersome baggage to come with it. Magic in the Moonlight focuses on misanthrope Stanley Crawford, this film's Allen proxy, an incorrigible prick and English stage magician of the 1920's. As a side-hustle, Stanley debunks phony spiritualists who prey on the buffoons desperate enough to believe in the afterlife. Enter Sophie Baker, an American flapper-type and apparent psychic, who has bewitched a wealthy family vacationing in the scenic Cote d'Azur. Called on by his frenemy and fellow magician, Stanley travels to France to unmask the wide-eyed Sophie for the fraud he believes her to be. The rest of the story is basically how you would imagine it would be. Magic in the Moonlight excels most during the front-half of the film. It chugs along into nonsensical territory, sometimes hinting at the smallest depth that comes from pondering life and mortality. If for nothing else, the film works best while the two leads are in contention with each other. As Stanley attempts to find falsehood in Sophie's necromancy, his pedantic nihilism plays well against Sophie's saccharine charm. Unfortunately, as soon as the leads find themselves in one another's good graces, the film comes to a screeching halt. While compelling as adversaries, Stanley and Sophie lack any semblance of chemistry as lovers. This is, for the most part, not the fault of the actors, who both seem to give it their all, and mostly falls on the vacant script. Sophie is paper-thin, and Stanley is almost too plodding to be a believable suitor. As the the movie continues on, it become more and more difficult to accept their affection for one another. In the back-end of Magic in the Moonlight, the plot-twists are abundant and happen quickly, often with little to no payoff. These are not Unusual Suspect level twists either, most are mapped out from the very beginning. If they're not, it's only because they have little place in the organic progression of the script to begin with. While not uncommon in this brand of screwball humor, one of the worst parts of these prolific twists is that they often change the trajectory of Sophie's character development. As the twists grow, the already vapid Sophie seems to become dumber and dumber, albeit not without charm. While the script fails to meet expectations, the backdrop and design are stunning. Cinematographer Darius Khondji finds so much beauty in the French Riviera that it diverts the audience from the phoned-in direction and sloppy editing. All in all, Magic in the Moonlight is a fairly run of the mill romantic comedy, made worth it if only for its irresistible cast. While it may not be the best Woody Allen film, this middling attraction might appeal to die-hard Allen fans, while serving as a pleasant distraction for the rest of us.
Charles E (nl) wrote: Pointless, boring storyline.
Susan E (nl) wrote: Unbelievable! Phenomenal film, phenomenal story! Big ol' burly guy sitting next to me had tears in his eyes! Not a "must see", you HAVE to see this one!
Andrew J (us) wrote: Funny in many parts, pretty standard plot line (but I wasn't expecting more). Enjoyable.