Per is doing his military service when he finds out that his girlfriend back home in Stockholm is having an affair. He goes AWOL and tries to find a way back home. On the way he meets Hanna... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Ha ett underbart liv
Per is doing his military service when he finds out that his girlfriend back home in Stockholm is having an affair. He goes AWOL and tries to find a way back home. On the way he meets Hanna...
You may also like
Ha ett underbart liv torrent reviews
Derrick M (it) wrote: For those who like the analogue and yearn for the days before digital, when musicians had nowhere to hide behind pitch correctors and multi-tracking. great stuff!!
Liam C (kr) wrote: When the film started I honestly asked myself, where is this film going and why should I care? Then we learn that everything is repeating hence the name. Then it becomes people doing shenanigans because they can and it will have no consequence. This feels natural, honestly if you could repeat everyday, most people would steal cars and break into houses. Come on, don't lie. You begin to think that this is all the film can offer and I was okay with that, it was going to be hollow, sure, but they provided a few jokes and I laughed at them. But near the end, they have to learn to do the right thing in the end, and that it had morals and I walked away satisfied.The cinematography was nice and the makeup was good. The characters were interesting and had backstory to them. It felt like it had no script because swearing was present in every scene and the characters spoke as if they were really experiencing it. The villain of the film is horrible and you can't wait for him to get his comeuppance. This film did something that no film has done before, this film got my heart racing in the last 30 minutes I genuinely thought that these characters could die at any moment. I didn't get what the point of the flashback scenes were, it happens before they wake up and I didn't get why they happened and they're never explained in the end.I liked the film because it deals with a very scary concept to me which is, fate. That always gets me interested, especially when it delves into the darker side of it.If its on, hey, give it a shot. If not, I'd still recommend Groundhog Day...
Zaar D (mx) wrote: um no, not interested
Private U (br) wrote: As much a look at the art world itself as an expos on questionable parenting, My kid Could Paint That is a essential viewing.
Adam F (es) wrote: This 1992 version of "Frankenstein" tries to mix up the familiar story by changing a lot of details, with mixed results. Some of the changes are made for budgetary reasons, other stylistically and some just baffled my mind. One of the changes made is that the monster (Randy Quaid) is not pieced together from bodies collected from slaughter houses and dissection rooms, but is created in what I can only describe as a "duplication chamber". Also notable is that the creature learns to speak English by befriending a blind old man in the woods. The old man thinks it to be a foreigner that does not speak English and teaches him how to talk. It's an acceptable substitution for spying on a family that is teaching one of its members to read and write English, like in the original story. Some changes, like creating a psychic bond between the creature and Victor Frankenstein (Patrick Bergin) are problematic, create plot holes and huge leaps of logic in the story. It's too bad that it was handled poorly because if it had been executed well it could have been interesting. I also have to admit that while the duplication chamber thing is kind of a neat special effect, it doesn't work. The main problem I had with it was that because the monster starts off as a perfect clone of the doctor there had to be convoluted ways for the creature to become disfigured to make the rest of the story work. It just didn't lend itself well to this story.The film has some decent performances, but the plot is inconsistent in its quality and so loosely based on the novel it could almost be its own, unrelated thing. Some elements are introduced then immediately dropped or hastily discarded without much logic. Early on for example, Victor Frankenstein shows us that he is able to create entirely new species of animals by splicing a cat and a snake together and by creating a porcupine/rabbit hybrid. That entire scene comes out of nowhere and is never brought up again. I'm pretty sure it was only included to show off some special effects.Overall this 1992 film is more of a curiosity than a significant addition to the ever-growing amount of Frankenstein-related material. It might be enjoyed by hardcore fans of the book and story of "Frankenstein" that are simply looking for something different. If that's you by the way, check out "Frankenstein Conquers the World", that is one wacky "sequel" to the original novel. Unlike that film though, there isn't much remarkable about this version of "Frankenstein". At times it's hilariously bad so you can easily skip this one. (On VHS, August 31, 2012)
Da Last Good Man Left (au) wrote: Hella funny!! R.I.P. Bernie Mac
Danielle T (es) wrote: Good movie- better than the originally Heidi, I am sorry to say.
Nandi C (fr) wrote: This is one quirky film here. You have Charlie(Jeff Daniels)who meets this eccentric woman(Melanie Daniels)who takes him on a merry chase out of NYC to her home for a high school reunion, but what she didn't count on was meeting up again with a blast from her past, and from there it gets funky.
Galvy F (au) wrote: When our monsters are not as scary, angry or big as we are. We don't understand why it's hard for others to understand us. Sometimes we don't even understand ourselves. Our emotions, characters, stories, imagination all have hidden meanings towards them. We a greater then others think and see who we are, but we continue to believe. We live this enriched high life, because being who we are, is less powerful. If we could just grasp at this raging emotion we have deep within, take control of them, and altogether just be 1 again with ourselves. While we have this dangerous side deep within, are we really that dangerous in real life. Are what things known to dangerous really dangerous, or misunderstood. What harnesses or suppresses this dangerous side only we know. What makes normal people harder to relate to, but strange creatures much more easier. When we see ourselves not in the image of these creatures but how they act and feel. How we see these creatures so alone in the forest, but together, we see they are nothing like us. When we see these creatures craving for attention, craving for fun and adventure, craving for a family and friends. We run away from our problem, in search for a new place that solves our problem. These deep rage deep within, always wants to come out, so does our emotions. What if we got everything that we always wanted from the people we turned too. Are we truly who we say we are, if there is no one there to say you are. The things that make us who we are, what do we do when they are gone? Are we still that thing any more? A king with no people or crown? A monster with no teeth or danger? We have great expectations that far stretches those have ever seen or known. A kingdom for us to rule, feel big, be on top and be happy. Are we still monsters when we are unable to do monster things. When there is something that makes us less of a monster but a human that we exempt our true feelings and intentions to not disband peace and create chaos. We find it hard to accept those who are different and unlike us, that we wish for them to run away. Staying together is more important to others then some who like meeting new people. When we think we are big and a king, to have no plan, have bad decisions and crave this distrustive nature. When this distrustive nature stems from our past and chaos as we heard, lived with and witness. When disagreeing is what separates us all, that we can't help but need to distance ourselves from one another. When we come face to face with our monster, the vary thing that makes us hide, the vary thing we don't know anything about, the vary thing that makes us dangerous. We realize we have to leave our monsters behind us, be there for the ones who loved us, and wants us together. Our monsters will miss us when we are gone, older, smaryer, wiser, responsible always there waiting for when you return. There will always be a place for all our dark monsters to live and go too whenever we need to go there.
Daniel K (br) wrote: 2.5: Solid period piece, but I didn't find myself terribly engaged in the story. Maybe I just wasn't in the mood, but this was not a worthy follow-up to The Makioka Sisters. The ghost story didn't quite work for me. Interestingly, this was the second film I've seen recently that questioned the valor of samurai. Neither were made by Kurosawa. I'm curious how many other films there are out there like it, especially from this era surrounding the Japanese New Wave.
Mike V (kr) wrote: This screwball comedy has some very funny scenes, and the dialogue between Grant and Russell is so fast at times, that a second viewing would be necessary to pick up all the mumblings. Although the editing isn't the best and it does get a little hectic towards the end, this movie is classic comedy, with superb chemistry and timing between these two Hollywood stars. 1001
Juampa G (ag) wrote: Bertolucci further explores his new spiritual interest. Buddhism meets capitalism meets 1990's Seattle.
Jonathan S (au) wrote: A delightful cross-cultural nocturnal community. It will make you think differently the next time you get into a cab. Solid deadpan vignettes from Jarmusch and company.
Chloe A (kr) wrote: 5 stars! I love this film! It's hilarious! It has so many funny moments I can't count and it was just enjoyable to watch!
Ian M (es) wrote: Horrible, horrible, horrible. Jeffrey Jones brought a lot of his personal pain into his performance though.
Gabriel D (jp) wrote: It's certainly exquisitely shot and worth watching on that alone. Admittedly, Scott's ambition is never met by the film, but I have to appreciate his ambition for what it was. And what a bizarre choice it was to have Vangelis score this film. I like his work here. It's synthy, new age quality gives the film a strangely timeless feel.