You may also like
Fractures torrent reviews
ChinYing Y (es) wrote: I hope that I will find some good rickshaw drivers like Amal...
Clay B (au) wrote: BLUE COLLAR COMEDY TOUR RIDES AGAIN (2004)
Isadore H (nl) wrote: Blade: Trinity is the final installment of the 1980's Blade trilogy. While the first two were fun and gritty, and there are flashes of that in this one, overall, it fails to pick up the same style that made the first two great. The villains are incredibly one dimensional and have almost no depth whatsoever, and a lot of the acting is from bad to just okay, aside from Wesley Snipes who is great as usual as the hero Blade, and Ryan Reynolds, who steals virtually every scene he's in as Hannibal King. Dracula, the main antagonist however, is straight up bad, a poorly written script and some ho-him acting from Dominic Purcell was really disappointing. The special effects are great as usual, but it barley distracts from what is just not a very good movie. Blade: Trinity is not without its moments though, and that may just put it over the edge for some
Dan N (ag) wrote: I can't describe how awfully I wanted to see this film. I was really dying to get this somewhere. And finally I found it. And I got disappointed. Big time! I got disappoited by Inarritu's film the most. I expected somethig special from him, and all I got was... well... black... I was surprised by Sean Penn however, great film! My favorite still would be the Israeli one. I mean, come on: one shot!?
Ian C (es) wrote: An underrated Ridley Scott flick. The great man is a con artist with OCD. The ending is quality.
Rick E (ru) wrote: Playing out like an extended episode of ?Cops?, Evenhand is a ?slice-of-life? film centered on a pair of small-town Texas police officers. Rob Frances (Bill Dawes) is the new transfer, levelheaded and good with people. He is partnered with Ted Morning (Bill Sage), a handsome, John Wayne type whose years on the job have left him somewhat jaded and cynical. The film follows the pair as they go about the daily rigor of their jobs, often dealing with the same people over and over again. Ted has taken a special interest in a young junkie, Toby, and his attempts to straighten him out ultimately lead to tragedy. The story meanders a bit in the beginning and doesn?t appear to be headed anywhere until the midway point. Directed by Richard Greenberg (best known for 1989?s Little Monsters), Evenhand offers a realistic view of police work. It is often comprised of boring routine but, when the unexpected does happen, it also provides an incredible rush of adrenaline. In between calls, we are offered glimpses into the lives of the characters that are intended to establish the camaraderie between them and offer insight into their private lives. For whatever reason, the script invests more time into fleshing out the Frances character and we learn very little about Morning, which is unfortunate considering the way the film ends. Dawes (Fiona, Just 4 Kicks) and Sage (Boys, If Lucy Fell, Sin) are terrific and it?s easy to forget that they are simply actors playing cops and not the real deal. Folks who are accustomed to a Hollywood rendering of police life (gun battles, crooked cops, protracted chase scenes, larger than life criminals) probably won?t like Evenhand. They may find the pacing too slow, the action unexciting. But, for those who seek a more realistic portrayal of the men in blue, Evenhand is a decent choice.
Grant T (ca) wrote: Similar to One flew over the cuckoo's nest but with all females. Ryder and Jolie have exceptional performances but the plot had its rocky moments. On the other hand, it was overall a very solid film that grasp the difficulties of diseases and mental hospitals
AD V (nl) wrote: Someone remake this PLEASE!
Greg S (kr) wrote: Predictable enough in story to lose points, but still a unique spin to the western genre. Nicholson does an okay job, making a likable but not lovable western comedy. Some of the talent, though, was wasted IMO.
Blake P (jp) wrote: As of 2013, Steven Spielberg is a legend. Meaning, he is first and foremost, the most well-known, most trusted, most bankable director in Hollywood, because he can do anything, and he can do it well. But in 1974, Spielberg didn't have that kind of status. He was a then unknown with talent still growing. "The Sugarland Express", his feature film debut, may not be as established as many of his films (even though "Jaws" was made only a year later), but it still is a great deal better than most debuts, let alone most movies in general. But yet again, could you expect less from a filmmaking genius? The story follows Lou Ann (Goldie Hawn) and Clovis Poplin (William Atherton), a young couple who lose their baby to the authorities when Clovis lands himself in jail. Lou Ann isn't an idiot, and doesn't plan on being labeled an "unfit mother". So she helps Clovis escape from jail, and they hitch a ride to Sugarland, where their baby's adoptive family resides. Their "hitched ride" doesn't go smoothly, as the driver is pulled over. When that happens, Lou Ann, in desperation, steals it, and so begins a high-speed chase that eventually leads to the Poplin's kidnapping a young police officer (Michael Sacks) who gets in their way at the perfect time. The action lasts for days - and of course, it doesn't end smoothly. Easily, "The Sugarland Express" could have a "Gun Crazy" feel: with an attractive couple in their mid-twenties who just so happen to have a dirty past, it would be easy to love to hate them. But Spielberg somehow directs with a very light touch, turning in popcorn fare that he later perfected. The car chases, the shoot outs, the clever dialogue, the rural setting, etc., lead to B-movie gold, but everything is filmed with such knowingness that it isn't a cheap adventure in an exploitation theater. The scenes often times are forced to balance both action and drama, and there's a realness in its midst that makes even the nuttiest events feel as though they are really happening. It's a very fun romp, and much of that fun is great contributed to by its actors. Hawn gives one of the her best performances as the determined Lou Jean, who is reckless, dangerous, but sweet and well-meaning. Her on-screen husband, Clovis, played by Atherton, seems much more nave, and the fact that he is in jail, rather than Lou Jean, is a bit shocking. They aren't a fun-seeking couple, a la "Bonnie and Clyde". They simply are so desperate to get their baby back that they would do anything, even risk their own lives. They are young, in love, and inexperienced in life: that's what makes them all the more likable. By the end, Spielberg reminds us that even the most entertaining stories, even with the most entertaining characters, don't always end with a rinky-dink happiness that we hope for. "The Sugarland Express" may be bittersweet, but it's a dramedy that gives us an idea of how early on Spielberg was a force to be reckoned with.
Donald Skull P (us) wrote: Allen is perfect and Donna Reed is a dream.
Orlaith M (es) wrote: dis movie wAS dssoo good1
Steve N (es) wrote: What a dark and scary place it must have been inside writer/director Sam Fuller's head, noir-ish in tone and texture and populated with all manner of Runyonesque reprobates. That Widmark's sneering grifter Skip McCoy is the "hero" of this odd blend of crime drama and espionage thriller is testimony to the notion that Fuller had unconventional ideas about characters and archetypes. He dispenses with good guys and bad guys, replacing them with flawed cops and virtuous villains and making people out of protagonists. In constructing such complex characters he was, in many ways, far ahead of his time. Thelma Ritter is wonderfully tragic as an in-the-know small-time information broker whose greatest ambition near the end of her life is to avoid Potter's Field and be buried in a plot all her own. Like many of its dramatis personae, the film has a coarse exterior that can be hard to penetrate, but has a beating heart underneath that may take a second look to fully appreciate.
Mirkku S (jp) wrote: This movie has some issues, but overall it's almost as amazing as the first part.
Tim S (fr) wrote: The Onion Field has real potential to be a very compelling film. There are tons of great character pieces with a complex plot, but it all somehow just doesn't go anywhere. This film is based on true events, but I'm wondering if the actual events were portrayed as is, and if so, did they need to be so true to them? I'm not going to spoil the entirety of the film, nor am I going to get into a discussion on dramatic character development and satisfactory story, but it basically winds down to nothing. Dramatic tension tries its hardest to kick in at times with little to no pay-off. This, to me, seemed more suited to be a Broadway production rather than a film. Two hours of complex plot and emotionally unsatisfying events make for a very dull film, despite the talent behind it.
Paul F (nl) wrote: A classic western styled movie and excellent adventure all in one
Howard E (jp) wrote: A few months back, when two US presidential hopefuls were engaged in a war of words over their wives, one of them was asked by interviewer Anderson Cooper why he was behaving, well, let's say, "unpresidential". His response was, "Excuse me, I didn't start it." Putting aside who said that pearl of wisdom, the notion that two wrongs make a right, is not just infantile, it can also be quite dangerous.Lance Armstrong might not see a problem with that philosophy though. He certainly didn't back in 1994 when he decided that the only way to beat his doped up European bicycling competitors was to take performance enhancing drugs himself. What was he thinking? Everyone who had been following his career to that point knew he was an excellent one-day racer but he definitely wasn't podium material when it came to the gruelling Tour de France. Prior to that point, the best he had ever done was to win the 8th stage in the 1993 Tour. Contributing to his poor chances going forward was the fact that in 1996 he underwent painful and debilitating treatments to rid his body of advanced testicular cancer. His doctors had given him less than a 50 percent chance of survival, yet there was Armstrong just over one year later powering up a French mountainside as if it was something he did every day. When he won the first of his seven Tour de France victories in 1999, analysts and competitors alike all knew he was doping but they couldn't prove it. Armstrong, with the help of Italian doctor Michele Ferrari, had done what no professional cyclist had done before - he figured out how to cheat and not get caught.THE PROGRAM is directed by Stephen Frears, who received an Oscar (R) nomination in 2006 for his film, THE QUEEN, and is based on the 2012 book, "Seven Deadly Sins: My Pursuit of Lance Armstrong", by Sunday Times journalist David Walsh. The film follows Armstrong (Ben Foster, THE FINEST HOURS) from the time he makes the decision to win the Tour at all costs to his dispassionate admission of guilt on national television in 2013. In between, we see a man who would stop at nothing to cheat and ensure that his clean reputation remained intact. That was no small feat considering his team members all knew about the doping. They were doing it too, but there was an omerta, a term used by the Mafia to mean "code of silence", in place and anyone who broke that code was not only out of Armstrong's protective bubble, they were either bullied into silence or crushed by him with a hefty lawsuit. His loyal legion of fans, many of whom included members of the press, were always there to vigorously defend him.The film shows the lengths that Armstrong, Ferrari (French actor, Guillaume Canet) and his team's director, Johan Bruyneel (French actor, Denis Mnochet; INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS), went to make him a racing legend. Even when he failed a drug test in 1999, Armstrong was able to convince the UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale) that the corticosteroid in his system was due to an approved cream he was using for saddle sores. The UCI bought his explanation because, as he told them, his participation in the sport was good for the sport. He was not only making himself rich, he was making them all rich. So they turned a blind eye and the doping continued - EPO, growth hormone, cortisone, steroids and testosterone. And when the UCI and USADA (the US Anti-Doping Agency) developed more sophisticated testing methods to identify EPO in the bloodstream, Armstrong began a program where he would give himself a transfusion of his own highly-oxygenated blood. He was always one step ahead.Foster portrays Armstrong as (in my non-medical opinion) a psychopath and, as I was watching the film, I couldn't help but wonder why Armstrong wasn't slapping Frears, screenwriter John Hodge and the producers with a lawsuit for defamation of character. So I checked out the 2013 documentary, entitled THE ARMSTRONG LIE, and I realised that Frears, Hodge and Foster got the character right. Even as Armstrong came clean on national television, there was no remorse in his eyes, his speech or his posture. If he could do it again and not get caught, he would.THE PROGRAM is fast-paced and interesting to watch, and Foster does a great job clenching his jaw the way Armstrong does, but its weakness is that it doesn't tell us anything more about the man and his motivation than the documentary does. His meeting and subsequent marriage to Kristin Richard is barely covered, yet in his TV interview he admitted that she was well aware of what he was doing. Similarly, Sheryl Crow is only mentioned as someone he is friends with. They dated for a few years and were engaged for about six months before she called it off. (Interestingly, neither (now ex-wife) Richard nor Crow has ever gone public about what they knew or why they left him. For Kristin, her silence may be tied to her divorce settlement but for Crow, there should be nothing stopping her.)Even with its flaws, THE PROGRAM is still worth seeing. However, if you haven't seen the documentary yet, I highly recommend watching that one instead (or as well).