You may also like
Do and Dare torrent reviews
Jodi D (de) wrote: As always, Robert Carlyle's performance is nothing short of beautiful. Nuanced and layered as his characters always seem to be. He's a man who makes mistakes, but you feel for him, want him to pick himself up and be better. The only thing that holds me back from giving it 5 stars is the ending, which felt a wee bit unsatisfying and anticlimactic.
Duncan N (au) wrote: Decent, it didn't suck at all. The setting was cik, and it's visually pleasing. The story line had some fun complexity to it that I think merited James McEvoy's and Mark Strong's acting skillz. I think it had some cool, like, political or social undertones about class struggles or w/e. The movie film features (sorry, spoiler alert? I mean, not rlly, what I'm about to say is a pretty generic thing in films like this, but if you wanna go into this movie knowing NONE of the finer details, then stop reading) what I think is a, by now b/c of its use in so many cop/detective action-dramas, generic element, namely injured-cop-obssessively-seeking-the-1-suspect-who-got-away, but it does it in a really good way, which I'm all for, and this feature also has some complications that you don't see every day in cop/detective dramas like this.
Phillip D (ag) wrote: Oh look, another utterly predictable, unbelievable, ponderous independent gay romance film. Gay cinema really needs to grow up and move beyond these cringingly bad movies or it will garner all the respect of a $3 Mexican telenovela.Boring and implausible accountant in the daily grind of a 7-yr relationship with a tedious control freak "stumbles" into an affair with Minnesota under shaven guy. Their non existent "chemistry" is director-suggested from their first encounter - a ridiculous and totally non believable session of longing looks and awkward silence while giving driving directions after Minnesota guy gets lost in the neighborhood (that could pass for a redwood forest park). An hour later they bump into each other while antiquing... I kid you not. It's a Sonoma Valley-wet dream.Then add padding and cliches: silent longing stares, accidentally wet clothes, chattering parents and token straight couple friends, and the torn between two lovers-dreck reduces this mess to sheer boredom. The problems just keep on coming: The acting is as wooden as the trees in the title, there is a creepy and pointless blurred out full frontal scene in the first 20 minutes that made my skin crawl, and after an hour or so of this, I was left caring about just one thing: No, you should not buy those garbage bags without a coupon. Just wait until they go on sale or buy the brand that is. Everything else just doesn't matter and doesn't happen except in movies like this.
Brandon S (jp) wrote: Ranks among Van Sant's finest while Penn's performance ranks among the finest of all time.
Joshua Z (nl) wrote: Horrible movie. American Poop should be called Piece of Sh*t movie!
Sara S (mx) wrote: haha! awwww! yikes. those are your reactions to this movie. the trekkies in serbia were the touching segment. their feelings about star trek were so much more poignant.
Tang H (ru) wrote: The first Pang Ho-Cheung's movie i've watched. love him since watching this...all his movies have own style~
arshi r (ca) wrote: Grade: C- Grass is a documentary about Marijuana regulation in the 20th century America, from Roosevelt to Clinton. Narrated by Woody Harrelson, the film is always at least mildly interesting, even if it is seemingly all on the surface; it doesn't dig deep enough, or give us anything new to really ponder. The film is comprised in a sort of montage of old reel footage, including showing the anti-marijuana propaganda campaigns in American. The film does a pretty hack job at showing us the players involved in stigmatizing this drug, an effect still reverberating today. The film does explain how certain acts were passed, sometimes with literally no congressional oversight; obviously something we struggle with today. But the film never gets deeper, in fact my own head was way ahead of the film, and I found myself filling in all kinds of gaps. Harrelson keeps it afloat, with some of his natural charisma. It's also funny, and then scary, at seeing the almost exponential increase of money the American Government has thrown at the Marijuana non-issue in futility, simultaneously criminalising non-criminals(usually normal young kids) while sending their judicial system through thousands of hours and billions of dollars of pointless criminal cases. OH THE PAPERWORK! The film alludes to the Elephant in the room; that the America government and other "American interests" benefit immensely by allowing all kinds of illicit drug trade to flow. The CIA's drug ops and even what is going on today with heroin in the War in Afghanistan. It adds to the vast pile of "money unaccounted for", which could probably swallow the planet in one bite. All of the stuff above is only hinted at though, or merely presented as opposed to analyzed. As I said the film is more worried about the roles of the President's and the idiotic and detrimental decisions they have all made on the Marijuana non-issue; I was satisfied when the movie said that in fact Marijuana is not the problem, its marijuana law that is the problem, and the web of ill effects it spins. Just look at how the government has warped societies entire paradigm on the issue of marijuana. The history of Hemp has been transformed in the 20th century, to the economic and social degredation of all, domestically and in most foreign markets. And it all started in America, when they took the Marijuana issue to the G20 and had global agreements made on the controlling of Marijuana distribution; you can maybe begin to see how the establishment has connected the trade of marijuana with its own institutions, which in turn have access to the banks which fund their governments (including America;in fact, especially America). The corruption behind the history of Marijuana is just a small piece of an overwhelmingly vast and interconnected puzzle. But it is a common topic among many, and therefore has the power to enlighten people to the larger issues at hand with economic and judicial problems we will certainly have to deal with in the near future.
Timothy P (ru) wrote: Many laughs with typical muppet humor. Lacked some of the wit and plot of the other muppet movies. The lack of songs was a major flaw.
Kerby H (kr) wrote: It's mildly funny but is pretty interesting and features another solid performance from John Cusack. The love story did not make much sense, but Martin Blank was a very complex character.
Bobbie C (br) wrote: hilarious.. a really great movie!!
William W (ru) wrote: As I neared the big 5,000 in terms of movies watched (at least according to my admittedly-crapola memory and IMDb), for some odd reason, I thought of Frank Sinatra, whose films I had seen quite a few of recently, and I decided to check out the private-eye films he made in the 60's, when his superstar status, both in terms of acting and performing, began to wane, as tastes changed in that tumultuous decade.Apart from 'Them!', 'In Like Flint' and a truckload of Our Gang comedic shorts from way back when, I hadn't seen any of director Douglas' works, though he's fine with the material and does quite a good, if craftmanlike, job here. Sinatra must have been comfortable with him--they worked together earlier in films as diverse as Doris Day's 'So This Is Love' and the Rat Pack's 'Robin and the 7 Hoods'. I loved how he was obviously fascinated with Lee Remick's eyes and really took advantage of Panavision's 2.35:1 aspect ratio to show how captivated she was with Sinatra's Joe Leland and therefore couldn't dismiss him entirely from her life.It struck me, after recently seeing films from just a few years before, like 'The Manchurian Candidate' and 'Some Came Running', how Sinatra's party days were starting here to catch up with him, but his work here was solid, and I would heartily recommend it, both for fans of his work and of detective tales from the period in general. I now look forward to others he did in the era (also for Douglas): 'Tony Rome' and its sequel, 'Lady in Cement'.Odd that he wanted his wife-at-the-time, Mia Farrow, to play the part that eventually went to Jacqueline Bisset, that she refused (the film she was working on was behind schedule), so he went to the set of 'Rosemary's Baby' and served her divorce papers! Ouch!
Rohan S (us) wrote: decent movie worth a watch
Daren F (kr) wrote: I am not a huge fan of sport movies but this is not your normal sports movie, first off Hepburn and Tracy star together for the 7th time and are marvelous together and it is very fun and has some really entertaining direction. The sport scenes take up a lot of time and there fore the story is a little flimsy, but then of course any comedy with Hepburn and Tracy takes almost the same route I hate you your nice I like you I love you we should marry or something along those lines (but what a formula). The sport scenes are really well shot and with Hepburn being a natural athlete they can be taken to a whole new level. The comedy is not insanely high but it is just a fun movie that is really easy to enjoy.
Brad S (ru) wrote: Finally got to see this French Surrealist masterpiece from Jean Cocteau after having wanted to watch it for over a decade. It's a beautiful film with great practical effects and gorgeous cinematography. It stars Jean Marais who was also in Cocteau's version of "Beauty and the Beast". this is a MUST for all cinema lovers!
Greg W (ag) wrote: Adequately serves as escapist entertainment for WWII audiences
Ps J (us) wrote: the closest thing we'll ever get to good Lovecraftian movie, eh?
Oscar S (es) wrote: a nice breath of air for a late evening. lacking in a more imaginative direction that may have propelled it into somthing greater