$ellebrity

$ellebrity

Fame today is more than an obsession. Fame has become what millions of us follow, believe in and seemingly what we care about most - as well as a billion dollar-a-year industry. But what does our intense fascination with celebrity say about us? And how much is too high a price to pay for our own curiosity run rampant? "$ELLEBRITY" is a candid dialogue about the tone and texture of celebrity, past, present and future; an examination of our pop culture; and an honest look at the quality of our media consumption.

Celebrity photographer Kevin Mazur gives an all access pass to life behind the velvet rope and in front of the camera. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

$ellebrity torrent reviews

Leslie D (jp) wrote: Zero budget slasher that rips off F13 & TCM. Irresistibly entertaining because the badness works in its favor. Adding to the fun is the bad filmtransfer including VHS-like drop outs, fuzzy image, dull colors and was shot way too dark. VHS Grindhouse quality on DVD if you will.

Andrew W (ca) wrote: Well wasn't this just a toxic family adventure. The acting was a delight...but boy that family was screwed up.

Shayla M (gb) wrote: SO HOTT!! HAHA love it!!

WS W (es) wrote: Totally pointless.But, ah, there were 2 Cate Blanchett in the same frame from the segment .

Robert G (kr) wrote: It was here and there, but mostly here incidentally.

Norbert P (jp) wrote: The correct order: 2; 4; 3; 5; 1.

HaLeY p (gb) wrote: okay, no, HOLD UP. the title of this movie is worth its weight in solid mockery gold. i sort of have to see it!

Christopher G (mx) wrote: Wonderful acting, wonderful story!A must-see for everyone! It's funny and heartwarming at the same time!

Brian S (mx) wrote: After Halloween (1978), Donald Pleasance returns in another of Carpenter's very entertaining cult horror films. This one is definitly one of the best. It's well made, the acting is okay and the special effects are gory and gruesome. The whole film, in general, is pretty good, but actually one of the best scenes are the dream scenes themselves. And you can also find some returning actors from Carpenter's previous "Big Trouble in Little China" (1983). Recommended !!

Peter P (br) wrote: gotta see this!!! this is a remake and wanna see how Samuel L.Jackson do as in Sho'Nuff.

Joseph C (mx) wrote: Rope is one of Hitchcock's lesser known and underrated -- yet verybrilliant -- moments. Did you notice how the continuous flow of the camera (Hitchcock disguised most of the necessary cuts rather deftly) climaxes in the penultimate conversation between Phillip, Rupert (James Stewart) and Brandon? The kinetic movement of the camera "becomes" Rupert's theoretical POV (and the late David Kentley's probable POV) as he muses with the dangerous (and drunk) young men about exactly how he would have murdered David. Rupert falters for a moment in his mock planning, avoiding the obvious choice of placing the body in the large chest, while the camera moves swiftly in the opposite direction that Rupert describes.The characterization -- or how the audience occupies the spaces of the characters -- is more disturbing than the murder itself. For the whole party/film we are forced to watch the hapless victims of the deceased's father, fiancee, and friends as they are unconscious of the irony that only Phillip and Brandon are cognizant. The audience is identified neither withPhillip/Brandon or with the family/friends alone, but strangely with both: we, ourselves, were given special access to the murder and have been with Phillip and Brandon from the beginning. It is this identification with those we would not -- socially and publicly -- wish to identify with that Hitchcock makes the most of (this isn't the first time, and it won't be the last that he would use this phenomena.) The experience of suspense builds in this time we have spent with Brandon and Phillip and in our (partial) allegiance to these characters. Imagine beginning the film ten or even five minutes after the opening credits -- the audience's experience of the party would be almost utterly identified with the family and friends of David. The party would seem (as it did to many of them) as simply bizarre. Hitchcock's placing of the murder anterior to everything gives the body a kind of "signifier"- like quality: we "know" it is there, but it effects us in it the traces of its presence (in this case, tucked safely away in the chest and the memories of the hosts/guests. The chest is a signifier for the body itself, which we never see again after it is placed inside.)Hitchcock's camera is far more alienated in this film than in his former and latter works, and while we could say this was no doubt influenced by his technical choices, I prefer to see the camera work as a meaningful artistic structure of the film. The camera fluidly captures each macabre moment as it glides from one conversation to another, each darkly cast by the disturbing subtexts of the murder and the unknown presence of the body. For my money, Rope is suspense in one of its most pure and rare forms: the audience knows everything -- motive, the hidden body, the murder weapon -- and we are left too squirm in our seats.

Andres B (ca) wrote: good old action movie!

Tom H (br) wrote: a good movie with great acting and decent dialog, but the plot seems too simple. i just expect more from Peckinpah. but in his defense the studio changed some things that made Peckinpah disown the whole feature.

Michael H (it) wrote: Really. Really. This is a movie where I don't get why everyone has rated it so high. It's a bit like u2, everyone loves the band but I can't seem to get why. Do I need to be a sheep and follow everyone. Sure, it's got a few funny bits in it and acting is fine, but it's like being on a sailing ship in the middle of the pacific, waiting on something special or funny to happen and all you do is wait and wait and wait and all you might find is a piece of mh370.

Matthew Y (jp) wrote: The worst movie I've seen all year. . . and it's David O Russell? WOW, it's a long way down from the top