Because he's the oldest, Jake has been the man of the house, since his parents divorce. When Mom starts seeing Sam, who always seems to be trying some new way to get rich quick, and declares he's the man of the house now, Jake puts up with it. Until he discovers Sam's illegal activities.

Because he's the oldest, Jake has been the man of the house, since his parents divorce. When Mom starts seeing Sam, who always seems to be trying some new way to get rich quick, and ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Firstborn torrent reviews

Cynthia S (es) wrote: I read the book a long time ago, but I still remember bits and pieces. This story nicely depicts that book, in my opinion. No movie can EVER completely follow a book, nor should it. These are different interpretations of a story. This movie was very well done, moving, and beautiful. I greatly enjoyed the parallels made with the modern world, and the ancient. This movie does not need to be compared to the book. It stands quite well enough on its own....

Joe W (fr) wrote: A humorous movie loved it laughing through it.

Tim M (es) wrote: some curious characters, scenarious and imagery but doesn't come together as a story. feels more like a pilot for a series where things will get explained more later on

Mohammed A (kr) wrote: It's good movie to watch

Zach S (de) wrote: Far too long of a movie that tries to cover too much, so in a sense it's almost too short. It became a slog as Ali just wasn't very likeable. Jon Voight as Howard Cosell was amazing though.

Judith P (es) wrote: I'm not into romantic movies, but I sure love the romantic story here.

Grant S (jp) wrote: Mildly interesting, and not one of Eastwood's best. Ostensibly based on John Huston's making of The African Queen, yet uses a fictional director in Huston's place, and other fictional characters. Feels quite amateurish in its performances and direction in the beginning, but gets better as the movie goes on.Ultimately, it does explore some interesting themes, but feels quite preachy. Eastwood's performance is irritating - basically he tries some sort of American aristocrat-accent, and it just comes off as fake. Jeff Fahey generally can't act, and this movie is no exception. Supporting cast are OK.

Andi Z (ag) wrote: Zapped again is a spin. on the first movie with a little more thrills it is about this group of friends. who get Revenge on the cool kids. who ends up taking over there hang out. they find a way to win back there room. by putting flea power in water. with the help of hotdogs. then the give them out at the carnival. when the people start eating the hotdogs they start to itch. this movie is really funny to watch. & add to your List!

Jessica H (it) wrote: Who ever was in charge of casting needs a lesson in temptation and acting ability.

Jonathan S (ca) wrote: I was expecting more from this movie. It should have been suspenseful, but long parts of it dragged. It should have been thought-provoking, but it was predictable. It should have been complex, but it was heavy-handed. I'll give credit were credit is due: Hackman, Dafoe, and MacDormand play their parts well and there are several nail-biting scenes like the burning of the church, the opening car chase, and a black man dressing up as a klansman so he can kidnap and interrogate a backwards cop. But sadly, most of the antagonists and side characters are one-dimensional stereotypes, the music blares to let you know when a scene is important, and much of the plot feels repetitive instead of building to a climax. I've seen a lot of documentaries cover this material better as well as "12 Years a Slave" and "To Kill a Mockingbird." Go check those out.

Brett B (au) wrote: An excellent flick with a lot of psychotic behavior going on with an all-time performance by the Hopper who plays an ether fulled madman named Frank. Some great lines throughout and solid showings by the supporting cast as well.

Blake P (mx) wrote: Look into the eyes of Greek goddess Medusa and you'll find yourself suddenly turned into stone, not solely because of petrifying fear but also because of a masochistic curse placed upon her. Gaze into the eyes of "Nosferatu the Vampyre's" Count Dracula and you might want to turn into stone - to be in anyone else's presence would be much more favorable. Despite silky good manners that suggest he's little else besides a serpentinely eloquent nobleman blessed with high class courtesy, terror overcomes you the instance he makes his way into the room. He does not resemble a man but a monster, a being who is one with the night. His skin is as pale as the glistening moonlight that only sometimes dares to hang over him; his eyes are beady and bloodthirsty, feral even. His body is hairless, untouched by a sign of humanity. His ears are pointed like a portentous bies, his fingernails and teeth sets of ivory daggers varying in size. He seems to glide, not walk; he exists as nothing, as no one - he's perhaps older than the universe itself, a force of personified evil impossible to arrantly distinguish. His design is directly based off the mysterious Count Orlok of 1922's legendary "Nosferatu," a German silent film (directed by F.W. Murnau) that exploited the horrors of vampirism before it was turned into iconic camp in 1931 by Bela Lugosi. This 1979 quasi-remake, written and directed by uncompromising iconoclast Werner Herzog, is hardly an homage (or is, at least, too good to feel like one) nor a shameful rip-off: it's the spiritual, modern counterpart to a cinematic great, untouched by unnecessary comparison because it, in itself, inspires dread on an individualistic level. Herzog, both visually and technically, derives a sense of nightmarish beauty that haunts us long after we're through with its menacing inflictions. "Nosferatu the Vampyre" initially stars Bruno Ganz as Jonathan Harker, a real estate agent assigned by his boss, the mad Renfield (Roland Topor), to travel to the Transylvanian mansion of Count Dracula, an enigmatic recluse who wishes to buy property in Germany. Tasked with enforcing a lucrative deal, plans are made to stay with the grandee until a final decision is made. The expedition is somewhat protested by Harker's wife, the doe-eyed Lucy (Isabelle Adjani), but it's understood that Dracula's potential purchase could do much for business. Harker isn't much skeptical; this kind of work is nothing new for an experienced man of his distinction. But warning signs steadily appear the closer he gets to Dracula's evasive manor. The journey is peppered by numerous instances of strenuous paths that no man should ever find himself wandering on. Villagers fall deathly silent so long as the count's name is simply mentioned. But Harker is too determined to let his instincts get the better of him; it's not like his client can hold him prisoner once he arrives. If disquiet becomes too overwhelming, he can leave if necessary. The second Dracula (Klaus Kinski) greets him at the gates of his home, however, Harker is instantaneously afflicted by uncertainty. As his customer looks more like a beast than an average man, the forewarnings that affected him before arrival suddenly seem to bear more weight. As the nights proliferate, Harker is victim to several strange, dream-like exchanges with the count; impacted, too, is Lucy, who is saddled by a recurring nightmare of future desolation. By 1979, there had already been several adaptations of Bram Stoker's classic novel (or, at least, several works indebted to the source), making Dracula a figure so recognizable and so familiar that the public, in no doubt, were past automatically recoiling in fear at the mention of the villain's name. Herzog's adaptation alters familiarity so painstakingly that the story no longer hints at mundane repetition. His art design, so eerily dank and so intrinsically saturated, evokes alarm that never settles down; the film is an expertly sculpted mood piece as contemporarily artistically pulsating as it is distinctly old-fashioned. Like a silent movie, it doesn't seem to be of this Earth, existing in a separate galaxy in which evil proves to be almost apocalyptic in power. Herzog's direction is nothing short of transcendentally brilliant. Most haunting about "Nosferatu the Vampyre" is its final act, whereby Dracula eventually does make his way into Harker's German town and therefore leads the city into ghastly chaos. As citizens roam around the premises looking lost, fires burn left and right, animals, especially rats, scattered about as if to reflect unsalvageable humanity. It is this stretch of hopeless pandemonium that best summarizes the film's atmosphere - it's one where our existential fears cause irreversible imbalance in our stability, and that's more terrifying than any blood drinking creature could ever be. Still, Kinski as Dracula is pretty paralyzing; the role is transformative for the temperamental actor, who, despite his famously unpredictable emotional palette, sat through agonizing four hour long makeup application sessions without putting up a fuss. Avoiding mimicking the easily schlocky performances of Lugosi and Christopher Lee, Kinski is better in sync with Max Schreck characterization in the 1922 film, utilizing ghostly bodily movement and minimal facial expression as a way to convey the idea that Dracula is more of an entity than he is an outright being. Resulting is a disturbing performance that stands as one of the best of Kinski's career - here is a role that begs to be enacted with the mindset of a stage actor, hammy and mockable, and yet Kinski brings it to life with phantasmic determination. Supported by the flawlessly cast Adjani, whose glassy beauty imitates the untouchable attractiveness of a silent screen siren, and a convincingly heroic Ganz, "Nosferatu the Vampyre" epitomizes that rare ideal that onscreen terror can be lush and richly designed, a feature regularly ignored in a genre that prefers ugliness to poeticism. Herzog has outdone himself.

Sarah G (kr) wrote: I was really impressed with the look at the dangerous career of flying airplanes and especially of the comradeship that naturally rises among pilots. As much as I usually like Jean Arthur, her character was the only flaw in an otherwise excellent movie by being overly irrational, but Arthur is too charming for her character's flaws to harm the movie too much.