Ray Fulton, a 55 year old owner of an Ice Cream shop, separates from his long-time wife and decides to move in with his 2 bachelor employees. As a result, all are forced to reassess their priorities. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Ray Fulton, a 55 year old owner of an Ice Cream shop, separates from his long-time wife and decides to move in with his 2 bachelor employees. As a result, all are forced to reassess their priorities.
You may also like
Float torrent reviews
Marcio R (jp) wrote: The movie that introduced me to Ezra Miller. It's such a deep and disturbing movie, with amazing acting.Tilda is the real protagonist here and she is flawless, portraying a frustrated and lonely mother, and so is Ezra with the unnerving and unforgetable Kevin. We Need to Talk About Kevin is definitively a haunting work.
Charlie I (ru) wrote: Insanely gross and engrossing.
Eric H (gb) wrote: A unique perspective on the WW2 movie, but one that suffers from a kitchen sink script, some questionable to bad, acting choices, and a just a plain lousey ending. Still worth seeing though. At least, the Italians speak Italian, and the Germans speak German, take that "Valkrie"!
Patrik A (kr) wrote: min bsta svenska film.. (har allt!)
Harry W (us) wrote: Although I've found Oliver Stone's films to be hit and miss, I needed something to educate me on the Watergate scandal, and a 3 hour biopic about Richard Nixon should surely cover that.Really it didn't. It made me learn about Nixon's role as a president and what his motives were, but it taught me almost nothing about his most famous event, The Watergate scandal. Nixon barely bothers to explain Watergate, but rather the events leading up to it and whose involved, and it seems like director Oliver Stone merely assumed that since most people would know what Watergate was he would explain the aspect of it people didn't know. Well the aspect some people don't know of it is just what the hell Watergate was all about, and I'm one of them. Nixon barely focuses on that and instead spends time trying to juggle the minor elements of Richard Nixon's private life with the story of his involvement in The Vietnam War. Oliver Stone is the wrong director for Nixon, because his direction is very self-indulgent. Considering that Oliver Stone not only is bad at directing biographical films as we learned from the boring Born on the Fourth of July, the stupid W. and the coup de grace, his epic disasterpiece Alexander, he shouldn't handle a 3-hour piece about Richard Nixon. But not just that, because Oliver Stone is also a very bias filmmaker. By that I mean since Oliver Stone served in The Vietnam War and then directed a trilogy of films about the war, one of which was good, his view of the war is very set in its own way. It's as if he uses Nixon to ask a fictionalised Richard Nixon why he was so supportive of all the horrors that Oliver Stone had to experience, and it's as if he uses Nixon as an attack on Richard Nixon supporting the Vietnam war. A biographical film is not supposed to be a commentary, it's supposed to be a Re-enactment of what was really happening, but now I don't know what to believe because of Oliver Stone's mindless self-indulgence. I do know that I respect him less as a filmmaker, but then again considering he made crap like W., Alexander and Natural Born Killers there isn't too much to respect him for in the first place.Another error that he makes as a director is one he always makes which pisses me off every time. He doesn't bother to make his actors look like who they are portraying with a little makeup. A little makeup could have gone a long way, but like in W., the person portraying the president does not look like him. In this rare case, Anthony Hopkins' gripping performance has managed to overcome the poor direction, but one slight difference could have strengthened Nixon significantly, which Oliver Stone failed to pick up on.Lastly, his direction is all about style over substance. He is more focused on creating a film that consistently deviates between a complex narrative timeline and a lot of stock footage imposed over the screen that it's hard to keep up with. Nixon is like an acid trip in parts, and in others it's like standing in a long line to ride a merry go round, because in the end there is no real thrill in watching Nixon. It's pacing is as unbalanced as it's narrative structure, and a film that's 191 minutes long can not have this and still be considered great.Oliver Stone is the wrong director of Nixon for many reasons: Because he doesn't know how to handle a biographical piece well, he's a self indulgent and bias filmmaker, he is largely about style over substance and he never bothers to realise how important makeup is to a character's credibility. He solely is the downfall of much of Nixon.But aside from his self indulgent direction, Nixon is strong in parts. Nixon works in particular scenes, it's just rudimentary as a whole. Scenes that make it easy for viewers to sympathise with him are good because we see the kind of pressure he is under as the President of the USA so there is no trivialising who he is, regardless of how Oliver Stone may try. The script is also decent, and the performances of the cast are all pretty effective.Anthony Hopkins, despite not looking like Richard Nixon, does manage to embody his physicality and voice articulation very well enough to work the emotional drama of the story through its challenges. Anthony Hopkins manages to embody Richard Nixon as best as an ageing Englishman playing an American president can, and his work is surprisingly effective in ensuring that the audiences can sympathise with Richard Nixon well enough since Anthony Hopkins is able to remind us that he is a human being too. He really does a great job.Joan Allen was also effective because she supplied a sense that the story's antagonist or anti-hero depending on your view of Richard Nixon had support as he journeyed through the rough territory of his presidency. She manages to keep a balance of emotional drama with her facial expressions and ensures that she succeeds in her performance.Paul Sorvino was the standout as Henry Kissinger, because he not only looks like him but he completely embodied his manner of speaking and his physicality perfectly. His screen time is small but in that time Paul Sorvino gets Henry Kissinger spot on.The supporting cast also features fine performances from John C. McGinley, Ed Harris, James Woods, Bob Hoskins and Bridgette Wilson.The standouts of the supporting cast are Mary Steenburgen who educates us well on the woman behind Richard Nixon's upbringing and how he learned his morals yet betrayed them, and David Hyde Pierce whose presence keeps the mood serious, and through his intense facial expressions and swift line delivery he gives a strong performance.So Nixon is heavy handed due to the bias and self-indulgent direction of Oliver Stone and doesn't really teach viewers about Watergate all that well, but it's well acted and does have a talented cast.
Sargis G (au) wrote: I don't know why but I really like this movie. Guilty pleasure I suppose.
Kelly w (gb) wrote: kevin can be pretty scarey.
Jimmy J (it) wrote: John Cleese !!! And i haven't seen this movie, yet !
Jeff B (mx) wrote: Broad comedy and romance in the wild west. It reminds me a lot of "The Quiet Man", though it goes to the extreme on the wacky comedy spectrum and is much lighter on the romance--though I think they work in both. Great fight scenes in both, too. This is a lesser known John Wayne movie that probably shouldn't be so obscure because it's just plain fun.
Brendan N (fr) wrote: critics hated this, this film is for the fans. the film is just harmless fun and Kevin Smith doesn't attempt to win awards, he services the fans.
Travis P (au) wrote: I saw Nailbiter last weekend at the Peculiar Film Festival - It's unfortunate that more people don't research a movie before reviewing it. (yes, I understand how dorky that sounds) Patrick Rea's small-budget indie horror film is very entertaining with a brand new horror monster twist. I would liked to see more back-story about the monsters, but the film sets up for a sequel, so we may get more answers.
Braylon B (au) wrote: Its one of the few sequels that actually compliments the movies that came beforehand. The movie is good do largely to the great acting job of Tony Curran who played the antagonist Marcus. He made the movie good because he's one of those villains that can strike fear into the audience. This movie is all about the villain. If you like a good villain this is the movie to see.