You may also like
Ek Thi Ladki torrent reviews
Charlie M (br) wrote: With a man who's been scrutinized for so many decades it's difficult to view anything about this with objectivity. Help should come from the director, Errol Morris who is one of the best documentarians. And yet, as he asks his questions there's a clear hostility, with an accusatory tone. The problem with well-edited interview footage is that it's difficult to tell what spurns such a tone, frustration or aggression. Then there's that slick smile Rumsfeld has when answering questions, which in some contexts comes across as callas. A half century of being in politics, it's easy to develop such a look, and here we have the chance to visually study it, reading the face of a man who helped develop military strategy during the most tumultuous times in American foreign policy.Throughout this interview Rumsfeld rereads memos from his entire political career (the man wrote everything down), then each word of it feels questioned by Morris. Definitions of words pop up on the screen, as Rumsfeld rigorously focused on the proper wording to justify his point of view. But when the questions become hard his response is an aw-shucks "I'll be darned if I know."By the end of this he seems more wistful than contemplative. Less devious, and more devoid. And calling him 'Machiavellian' gives and old stubborn man far too much credit.
J B (ru) wrote: Lovely cinematography, but characters are too distant and guarded to connect with.
Michael S (au) wrote: "Where Do We Go Now?" walks a fine line from scene to scene. It's religious subject matter is undeniably touchy, but director Nadine Labaki and co. confront these age old issues with lighthearted farce, sentimentality, hard drama, jarring musical numbers and no little whimsy. Few films could have such element coexist to positive results, but Labaki uses them to strengthen the film. They don't come off as superficial and compliment her vision. This is a great little film that deserves to be seen for a myriad of reasons, most of which is it's impressive thematic balancing act. If you are looking for a stern, serious condemnation of religious indifferences, look elsewhere. "Where Do We Go Now?" is a parable that plays by it's own rules, in it's own world, but screams just as loud.
Jeffrey G (fr) wrote: Compared to the more standard Bollywood films like Dil Se or China Gate, this film is fairly westernized. I was surprised to see Anaida dancing around in a very high-cut mini skirt, or to hear Preity Zinta lying about having sex. The music is quite wonderful, though, and the character development is superb.
Qussay A (us) wrote: "You never know what you will find in the desert."
Thomas G (us) wrote: Punisher War Zone is the comic film fans waited for. While not the perfect movie in itself, it captures enough of the characters and themes to be deserving of it's now cult like following. It's violent, over the top, and gritty. Ray Stevenson nails his part, as he resembles Frank Castle right from the cover of the The Punisher Max run by Garth Enis. Fans of the comic should definitely check it out, and support it, in hopes that hollywood will follow it up and fix its mistakes. Some of the writing is absurd, and over acted, and a little more time to build the emotional side of Frank's broken soul would aid in easing new viewers in. Not perfect, but a damn good time.
Bec E (br) wrote: It's no Kung Fu Panda...
Jayden C (br) wrote: really not interested
Zane T (nl) wrote: This is one of the most cursed movies ever made. Originally titled Turmoil and then Burn Hollywood Burn, this movie is 86 minutes of utter boredom. Alan Smithee was a pseudonym mostly directors used when they felt producers and Hollywood executives recut their movies and interfered with the creative vision. Most of the movies with this directed by credit are terrible and this is no exception. Actually, this is one of the worst movies ever made. Joe Ezterhas recut this movie and director Arthur Hiller disowned it, leaving nothing else but an Alan Smithee credit. Unfortunately, this was viewed as a gimmick. The plot of it is a bunch of Hollywood people talking about a movie that we never see. Actions scenes are lifted from Die Hard with a Vengenance. A trailer is seen being shot but it's not funny. Eric Idle plays a first time director who is tapped to make a $200 million movie, Trio, staring Sylvester Stallone, Whoopi Goldberg and Jackie Chan. But upset when Hollywood exec Ryan O'Neal comes in and re-edits it, he is faced with a dilemma. He can't disown it because his name is Alan Smithee, hardy har har, meaning it's a Catch-22. So, he takes the film and burns it leaving no copies available. This is a mockumentary about this whole situation. Unfortunately, it's not funny. Stallone, Goldberg and Chan all show up, but they seem like they are just using the screen time to get their paychecks. None of them did any press for this movie. As a matter of fact, this movie made worst than Plan 9 From Outer Space or The Adventures of Pluto Nash. Ezterhas, who had risen in fame in the 1990s, couldn't get anymore scripts made until 2006. Richard Jeni, who stars as a Hollywood exec, would later commit suicide. Ryan O'Neal and Farrah Fawcett broke up while he was making this movie. He developed leukemia and it went into remission. Fawcett got cancer and died. Ezterhas, himself, got sick after this movie and Arthur Hiller's next movie was the 2006 little seen National Lampoon's Pucked. Worst, the Alan Smithee pseudonym died off two years after this movie came out because so much popularity was attached to it.
Another V (nl) wrote: In Waterworld, Kevin Costner's Mariner character is not the most likeable guy (especially after you see how he treats Enola and Helen on his boat), although he progresses. He starts out as an extremely ruthless loner, but eventually decides to be friends, not before he has taken away a little girls crayons, thrown Enola into the ocean (apparently not to kill but to punish), and chopped both of their hair short as punishment for disobedience. To top it all off, he sells Helen! Then he changes his mind and tells the buyer the deal is off, and changing his mind is a turning point. From then on, he's their friend. When Enola gets stolen by the Smokers, he goes to get her back. Enola comes to see the Mariner as a father figure apparently, because when he finally leaves, she gives him a hug goodbye.The "Smokers", led by Dennis Hopper as Deacon, are very stylized. In a world with very little resources available anymore to humans, how is it that the Smokers can waste so much oil on all their naughty shenanigans? Just wondering.It's kind of funny that just about everybody in Waterworld is depicted as a pirate. Given the opportunity to take something, they take it, and that's how they all seem to survive. The Mariner is not quite human. He's evolved into an icthyosapien, or fish human, with gills and webbed feet. This enables him to swim down to the sea floor and show us what is under the water: lost cities. Is this a warning? Waterworld is rather unrealistic, but I do like the creativity of it. I was inspired to do a little research to find out if Earth could be that covered with water if the polar ice caps and glaciers were to melt. The answer is a reassuring no, not even close. Sure, some places would go under, but not to the extent of Waterworld.
Altered E (jp) wrote: Predictable plot. Painfully idiotic characters. Cheap special effects. Having watched it at least a dozen times, I find something new to enjoy every time. John Terlesky, the lead from Deathstalker II, has a criminally tiny role, but still makes a fool of himself nonetheless. Also, nobody gets chopped.
Eric H (jp) wrote: It is literally what the title says it is. The DeFoe novel, Robinson Crusoe, but taking place on Mars. So it is really more of a survival tale than a traditional scifi, but that is sort of what makes it cool. Plus a small cameo by Adam West. Same special effects artist who worked on War of the Worlds, and its obvious, being that the alien space ships are EXACTLY the same as the ones in the HG Wells classic. Overall, not the best 60s scifi movie, but then again its really hard to compete with 2001: A Space Odyssey. But that being said, it does a fantastic job of actually following scientific law for the most part, and has some really cool visuals that make it worth a watch.
Dave W (us) wrote: SPOILER ALERTThe scenes of the bat flying are great. The screams are great. But the end is a little bit of a let down. They just shoot the bat with a shot gun and it's dead. I guess that was where horror films were back in the 40's, but that just wouldn't fly in this day and age.
Sheena C (ca) wrote: Very awesome movie must see
Alyan H (ag) wrote: A interesting film. Some great one liners.
Axl L (it) wrote: It's like a weird combination of Reanimator and Lucy. Boring, uninspired, and bland