You may also like
Hans Brinker torrent reviews
Irene S (es) wrote: good movie about a black family that travels from Michigan to Alabama in the middle of segaration in the 1960's and how their summer vacation to their grandma house was anything but a normal summer vacation. well written and acted.
Silje S (ca) wrote: Interessant film, gode skuespillere (ny Jack Nicholson??),annerledes...men fullfrte ikke helt sitt potensiale. Men verd se hvis man er i det morbide hjrnet, og er lysten p noe som ikke er typisk Hollywood.
monica f (ag) wrote: I was expecting a movie more related to the historic periods it was placed in (Franco's Spain and Cuban Revolution) But I don't think the movie really delivered much in the political-historical sense. I wonder then what is behind the decision to go back in time to set the background of the movie if that particular period has not importance for the plot at all? I liked the cinematography but I think the movie was too slow for a film noir and the acting was not all that good.
Jonathan P (mx) wrote: Kinsey is a picture that perfectly demonstrates that immense talent that Liam Neeson possesses. From tough guy to feminine gullible doctor Neeson is able to do it all with the utmost believability. Kinsey is the true story of the first professor to really look at the subject of sex in a scholastic setting. While it is a bit mature it is done so tastefully and provides great talking points that resonate even by today's standards.
Abel D (gb) wrote: Definitely for the art crowd, 'Ark' is primarily an experimental piece in stretching the limits of rehearsal, timing and planning, but not much more. Its story is completely inconsequential, and merely serves to encapsulate Russian History in one slick package for the sake of the experiment.
Robert F (br) wrote: Not as good as the toxic avenger (1986)
James B (nl) wrote: it's basically the perfect old-fashioned misogynistic wet dream.
Miroslav G (au) wrote: Timothy Dalton's second and final venture into the shoes of James Bond is a step down from it's predecessor. The movie has Bond chasing a drug lord in revenge for his injured friend, Felix Leiter throughout the whole film. This gives Dalton the excuse to be even darker in the role, so much so that the movie is the first Bond film to be rated PG-13 and it's too dark for its own good this time around and it loses its entertaining factor. I guess the whole revenge thing just sounds good in concept but upon execution falls flat with the Bond films (just look at Quantum of Solace). Due to this, the film at most times feels like cheap 80's action flick more than anything else, especially a Bond film. But what mostly causes this film to suffer is that Dalton is trying to portray a dark and serious character in a film where darkness and realism were not present, except for his portrayal. Fact of the matter is, the reason why Dalton's Bond and his Bond films weren't appreciated at the time was because it's not what the people of the time wanted to see. The 80's are notorious for having cheesy, campy, and over-the-top action movies and the people of the time just weren't ready for such films like The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill. And the makers of these two Bond films knew this, and they knew if they were going to get people to see these two movies, they would have to keep some of these campy and ridiculous factors from previous installments intact, which is why these two films somewhat suffer. The two Dalton movies were ahead of their time, and it would take nearly 20 years for people to get sick of camp and ridiculousness and want a dark Bond. Simply, you can't mix over-the-top cheesiness with dark, serious characters and themes and expect it work out. Overall, it's decent but a step down from it's predecessor and is just simply confused on what kind of film it wants to be.
Marty Y (au) wrote: A beautifully nuanced love story. Cate Blanchett is transcendent. Rooney Mara is a revelation. Excellent in every possible way.