GreasePaint

GreasePaint

When Joey Thurmond, a former professional wrestler and rodeo cowboy, quits the police force to realize his dream of performing as a clown full time, he recruits his family and puts his life's savings into the show. However, pressures mount while on the road when his acrobat is threatened with deportation and the 24/7 schedule puts a strain on his relationship with his co-star and son. Can Joey keep NoJoe's Clown Circus going until the end of the season?

GreasePaint is a documentary film by Daniel Espeut that follows Joey Thurmond and his family as they travel around the country performing the art of American circus
clowning. The movie resurrects the dying art of clowning demonstrated by Joey's love for the craft and makes sure that people see the human side of clowning. While
the over-arching story focuses on Joey and his ability to balance the business and family life| the viewer also hears from circus performers| old and new| discussing
the positive and negative connotations that people have of clowns. Having started the clowning full time| Joey Thurmond has put his life savings and police pension
into his ultimate passion. He overhauls the new show completely with a new background| traveling set| and living quarters. The family starts the year not knowing
whether they will have enough money to make it back home from the road. His wife| Jamie| manages a lot of the day to day affairs and keeps the peace in the family.
Joey's son| ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechersSize
Download   GreasePaint.2013.WEBRip.x264-iNTENSOX2641141081.03 GB

GreasePaint torrent reviews

Toivo K (it) wrote: All in all, Robo-geisha wasn't nearly as fun as I expected from the trailer but... well, at least these guys made something quite unseen. :-)

Harry W (au) wrote: Although I really did not have positive expectations for the film, as it featured a performance from Jack Nicholson and was directed by James L. Brooks who had previously collaborated on the Academy Award winning Terms of Endearment decades earlier.How Do You Know is not a film worth writing a review about because it was just so purely dreadful that it is unbelievable. It is a collaboration between the team who won the Academy Award for Best Picture, Best Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor in 1983 at a new low point. It isn't precisely Jack Nicholson's worst film because it still stands out as slightly better than Man Trouble, but it is a film that is essentially impossible for me to recommend to anyone.How Do You Know is said to be a romantic comedy, but it is completely lacking in both romance and comedy. From the start of the film the plot seems really stupid, and as it unfolds this just becomes more and more obvious from that point on. The entire film unfolds at a terribly slow pace over the course of its 116 minute running time which means that it quickly establishes being a slow film and drags that on for an extensively long amount of time. It is hard to sit through the first quarter of How Do You Know, so the challenge of sitting through the entire film would have to be harder than actually making such an awful film. The premise of the film starts off derivative and ridiculous and just stays that way for the entirety of the running time. It never has any surprises whatsoever, but rather it just numbs the audience to death with its boringness. There are no attributes to the film that I really would call positive, mainly the fact that it was so weak that there was not one point in the movie that I laughed and the fact that the romantic concept in it was so painfully familiar and unoriginal that it was doomed from the start.How Do You Know is a film notable for its terrible production, and it is visible in the film because rarely would a film that had good communication or a strong production crew come out this bad, especially when the budget of this feature is a whopping $120 million. It is inconceivable how the film actually cost that much because the screenplay in the film is so piss weak that it could not have cost anything to keep up with, and the cast do not put efforts in which would justify being paid that much. It is clear that James L. Brooks has lost the plot as a film director and that the production on this film must have been seriously meticulous because the quality of it comes up way too short. The characters are egotistical and so annoying that it is difficult to feel sympathy for them, and the actors do not really seem interested in putting any meaning into the effort. How Do You Know is essentially just an overly long and ridiculously expensive star vehicle for a talented list of actors, but even they fail to take the opportunity seriously because there is not a moment in the film that I found myself laughing at anything that one of them did.Reese Witherspoon really does nothing to justify being cast as the lead in How Do You Know. She has given charming and likable performances in other romantic comedies in the past, but How Do You Know is clearly not one of them because she is stuck with the leading role in a lacklustre film bereft of any good script lines or sense of humour whatsoever. She is a genial presence simply because of the fact that she is Reese Witherspoon and she is a likable actress, but her character is a cheap rendition of romantic comedy stereotypes who is more focused on cheap melodrama than on making audiences laugh. Reese Witherspoon doesn't have much energy in the role, but the script really does nothing for her and presents no opportunities for her to expand her horizon as an actress.Jack Nicholson was the main cast member that I had expected something from. Unfortunately, his effort was so routine and lacking in any basic charisma whatsoever. It does not seem like he is trying at all in How Do You Know and that he was just doing it as a favour to James L. Brook and so that he could walk away with a paycheck of $12 million. Despite being considered one of the best male actors of all time, How Do You Know is his most recent example of a low point, and to add further evidence to the idea that he doesn't care about acting anymore, he has not made a film since How Do You Know.The script does nothing for Owen Wilson or Paul Rudd either. It isn't as disappointing to see them in generic roles because they have been in so many comedies which have proven to be hit and miss in the past decades that it is better never to get your hopes up too high about them. I wasn't happy with their performances, but I didn't blame them because my expectations for them were lesser and so when they ended up stuck with weak characters it was not much of a disappointment. The both of them at least tried harder to put their comedic personas into the film and put energy into their roles, so their characters are a little more likable than the leading two. The two of them at least interact with the rest of the cast better.So despite the presence of talented actors, the performances in How Do You Know are so thin and they match up to the quality of the terrible script and its lack of comedy all to go with James L. Brooks' senseless direction on this laugh-free attempt at a generic romantic comedy which somehow ended up costing $120 million.

Kyle G (ca) wrote: Shamelessly planting itself entirely within a puffy abstraction, Mike Newell's adaptation doesn't pause to consider or justify it and so winds up running the decks on a fast-sinking ship.The original book could avoid this mistake, with innovative language and a fabulist's voice that gave the story momentum; other movies (even silly romantic comedies) can avoid it, by broadening their themes enough to let us inside.But when the only reason for a story -- presented from the beginning as an all-powerful idea -- seems cracked and silly, there's not much hope that it will prove interesting.

Dori A (de) wrote: A young, lesbian couple, very much in love, move into a flat and unknowingly unsettle the disturbing equilibrium of their neighbors to become the targets of their pent-up despair. The film explores a concealed traumatic history that threatens to re-emerge and reclaim its surviving issue. A fascinating social commentary on brutalizing frustrations intensified by poverty.

Megan M (jp) wrote: One of the few irish movies that I can actually caught every word they said! I don't have a real lot to say about this one except that it's very good. I am in love with Cillian's character, how sweet and gentle he is. The story is a bit different from our age today, because there's a lot of killing and no consequences, that is the only thing i really wondered about. At the end, OH did I feel sorry for Colm Meany's character Harry. Poor man gets his house destroyed! His acting is very well done and makes the movie just a pleasure to watch! The nudity is not quite necessary though, it would make just as much sense without it.

Televisnostic I (fr) wrote: The plot made me go 'wow'.

JamesMasaki R (ca) wrote: Douglas Sirk was the best with female melodramas, and although William Faulker was happy with this adaptation, it does fall short on the emotional side compared to the female-centered Sirk films. Obviously Robert Stack and Rock Hudson are an excellent pair as a flying ace and a newspaper reporter, but the female character of Dorothy Malone was just... there. I do have to say, the plane crash scene where the body comes flying towards the camera was a sudden shock!

Eric H (jp) wrote: Howard Hawks and Arthur Rosson's adaptation of Borden Chase's tale of cattle driving across America at first glance (in other words the first twenty minutes or so) seems almost like it won't have much to it, except to glorify the old Cowboys and Indians approach to a western, and to have the lead as a one sided viewpoint over the story. But what soon becomes clear about Red River is that the supporting characters (such as Montgomery Clift as Wayne's son, Walter Brennan as one of the fellow Cattle drivers, Joanne Dru as the lady of the bunch, and Harry Carey as a cattle buyer) bring out a greater sense of humanity to the film, and there are scenes captured by Hawks and his cameraman Russell Harlan that are, for lack of a better word, glorious. Whatever minor flaws come up from the characters is made up by the storytelling qualities of the final product. I'd have to see it again (it was months ago I first viewed it) to know for certain if it's one of the all time best westerns- as some might say- yet from what I saw it is an impressively executed tale.

Matthew H (us) wrote: City Lights is by far Chaplin's best film; it's his funniest, most confident, and best executed.

Sean P (ag) wrote: Worth watching if you know more about the subject matter (which I don't). I expected more interaction between Parker and King but there was very little.

Julie S (de) wrote: Flimsy as you like rom-com with not a cliche-etched stone left unturned but hey, I watched it 'til the end! And I think I laughed OUT LOUD at one bit (watched a few days ago so can't recall for sure). Forgettable fun.

Boogie B (us) wrote: According to Dutch, the Predator is "one ugly muthfu#ka". But this film couldn't be any more beautiful.