Heaven Can Wait
Henry Van Cleve presents himself at the gates of Hell only to find he is closely vetted on his qualifications for entry. Surprised there is any question on his suitability, he recounts his lively life and the women he has known from his mother onwards, but mainly concentrating on his happy but sometimes difficult twenty-five years of marriage to Martha.
- Stars:Gene Tierney, Don Ameche, Charles Coburn, Marjorie Main, Laird Cregar, Spring Byington, Allyn Joslyn, Eugene Pallette, Signe Hasso, Louis Calhern, Helene Reynolds, Aubrey Mather, Tod Andrews,
- Director:Ernst Lubitsch,
An old roué arrives in Hades to review his life with Satan, who will rule on his eligibility to enter the Underworld. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Heaven Can Wait torrent reviews
(gb) wrote: another love story...still old tricks.
(es) wrote: Dwayne Johnson (The Rock) is back in a new Walt Disney movie and he have made quite a few good movies actually or well average ones atleast so far. This is a sci fi / adventure flick with some good action scenes aswell for being a Disney production. Not quite for the "youngest" audience actually i would say but other than that its a perfect family movie for this genre. The story follows two siblings with paranormal powers and a taxi driver (Dwayne) must help them escape from a UFO organization.. Overall a pretty good movie with a decent story and great tempo from start til end and i enjoyed it more than expected actually.
(mx) wrote: I liked this one... I always love Lynn whitfield... she's amazing!!
(de) wrote: didnt really like pell james. too... nice for the role...
(br) wrote: The Triwizard Tournament is brought to the screen in magnificent fashion. (First viewing - Winter 2005 in theaters)
(es) wrote: A disturbing & gripping film from director Peter Jackson before he set his eyes on JRR Tolkien. A haunting tale of two girls one from NZ & one from England that develop a strange new friendship.The intensity of their friendship gets worse & worse & their fictional world becomes more real. Kate Winslet was launched to the world in this film & she was truly a shinning talent.The obsessive relationship concerns both parents & as the threat of separation become obvious there thoughts get even darker & they perform an unforgivable murder. A dark film I don't recommend since its not an easy watch.
(jp) wrote: As those of you who read my review of [i]Fat Man and Little Boy[/i] may recall, in my head, the role of J. Robert Oppenheimer in that film is played by David Strathairn. It isn't, of course. The role is played by Reg Barclay from various incarnations of [i]Star Trek[/i]. This, of course, is someone [i]completely[/i] different. However, in this version, he actually is. And, indeed, I think he does a better job, and I think that, in many ways, this is a more complicated and subtle film. The production values . . . well, it's made for HBO, so they aren't actually [i]bad[/i], but they aren't as good. It's hard to compare the casts. Each has a few people whom I consider among the greatest living actors--how do you decide which is the better cast, the one with David Strathairn or the one with Paul Newman? And this one was co-produced by [i]Aaron Spelling[/i]. We know the story, though this one starts with the last train out of Berlin and Nazi Germany and ends with Oppenheimer's new commitment to peace. There is less detail here about the work done and more detail about the wider implications; indeed, about the last five minutes is taken up with various of the players' reactions to the Bomb and its wider implications. We see the comments of Truman, Eisenhower, Einstein. We see Oppenheimer himself, a man who, throughout the film, has been in line with the government's goals, come to announce his desperate desire that the weapon never be used again against anyone. In time, he would lose his security clearance over his outspoken views on the subject. As I said, there's a greater subtlety to this film than the other. We see more of the uncertainty of the project, not of its physics but of its morality. We see Oppenheimer as the willing, even eager, conduit between military authority and scientific uncertainty. As in any other telling of the story, of course, there is the ridiculous governmental belief that it's possible for scientists working in isolation from one another to produce groundbreaking work. Oh, I know--you're going to cite Einstein and Galileo at me. But neither [i]did[/i] work in a scientific vacuum, and neither did the kind of applied physics that these men had to. Certainly we know that Einstein bounced ideas off other people, at least; it is less certain about Galileo, at least so far as I know. But both men had the work of others to base things on. Galileo had the work of Copernicus, for example. I refuse to get pulled into a conversation about whether the Bomb should have been dropped; I've refused for years. There's too much uncertainty on either side. I don't know where I stand on the subject, and nothing any of you say will make me certain if the historical record cannot, I promise. What I have said, what I [i]know[/i], is that I would not have wanted to be the one to make the decision to drop the Bomb, and I would not have wanted to be one of the men who built it and therefore had to bear the psychological burden of those deaths. The movie is more about those choices than the physics.
(au) wrote: I remember liking it a lot, and loved the opening song.
(de) wrote: Practically perfect! Funny romantic and thrilling. Very few movies are this good. Mathau is wonderful in the lead and Glenda Jackson is droll and beautiful. Ned Beatty is hilarious as a bureaucratic idiot promoted to a position of authority in the CIA based on his politics. Well worth seeing. Hughly recommended!
(it) wrote: Government health official Widmark has 48 hours to motivate a sluggish New Orleans police squad whilst in pursuit of a couple thugs once a plague-stricken foreigner is discovered shot dead at the pier. Elia Kazan stages his scenes wonderfully and gives a glimpse of the hard lives spent on the docks four years before 'On The Waterfront.' Widmark is very curt and demanding with everyone he deals with, however this negative character trait is neatly explored in a conversation with his wife during a short break in the manhunt. Jack Palance looms menacingly in another meaty bad guy role.
(gb) wrote: O Golly, golly...this looks really good....
(au) wrote: Just watched a interpretation of Katherine Hepburn of a repeated scene under a special psychological circumstance... and it was amazing! I want to watch it!
(ca) wrote: This film really is a bad one. The plot is extremely predictable and the characters are unpleasant and boring. What's more, this film doesn't seem to understand that the franchise's icons are the Raptors and the T-Rex, as this film basically spits onto both of them. Also, the effects really have downgraded a lot, which is strange considering the grander budget. Unlike "The Lost World", this film doesn't give the feeling of a "Jurassic Park" film, but rather feels like a rip-off of said movie, trying to cash in on a great franchise. It gives us all the well-known things of these films (dinosaur in the rain, big dino, little dino, etc.), but that's the problem: it doesn't give anything else that made the other films great, and instead tries to be relatively short to keep the kids entertained. Personally, it's a guilty pleasure of mine to watch (hence the rating), but I can acknowledge that it is a very bad film.
(kr) wrote: Truly a sad ending, but an amazing film. Right in my top tens. Can't ever forget Will Sampson, he'll always be missed.
(es) wrote: Richard Lester continued his quest to drag this franchise into the ground. From the changes he made to the ultimately theatrical release of Superman II and this film, it's pretty sad. This film shows a synthetic kryptonite laced with tobacco tar, splitting Superman in two: a good Clark Kent and a bad Superman. This leads to a showdown between the two in a junk yard. This "split personality" story was really lost on me. It was interesting to see what an "evil Superman" might do, but I still didn't like it. The opening sequence was also laughable, but in a very bad way. Pryor served up some comic relief as a computer programmer that gets in with the wrong crowd but doesn't save this film. When Joel Schumacher got the Batman franchise gig, I'm pretty sure he called Richard Lester for some tips.
(au) wrote: Seeing as man had not yet been to the moon this is quite an inventive effort. The film though does struggle with the long periods of non dialogue and non action.