Here Comes Mr. Jordan

Here Comes Mr. Jordan

Boxer Joe Pendleton, flying to his next fight, crashes...because a Heavenly Messenger, new on the job, snatched Joe's spirit prematurely from his body. Before the matter can be rectified, Joe's body is cremated; so the celestial Mr. Jordan grants him the use of the body of wealthy Bruce Farnsworth, who's just been murdered by his wife. Joe tries to remake Farnsworth's unworthy life in his own clean-cut image, but then falls in love; and what about that murderous wife?

Boxer Joe Pendleton dies 50 years too soon due to a heavenly mistake, and is given a new life as a millionaire playboy. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Here Comes Mr. Jordan torrent reviews

Christina B (br) wrote: Omg too cute...diamond glitter sparks

D M (gb) wrote: A small town experiences some deaths and disappearances which leave officials with no answers. When one man discovers that mutant meat-eating slugs are to blame, he is laughed at. Soon it is discovered he is correct and the source of their new powers is a toxic dump. Some gruesome scenes, but all-in-all solid, average 80s fare.

arielis n (kr) wrote: muy iris IUCN mens urbe kernel Pellos

jay n (ru) wrote: Cute ultimately sweet movie. Some good performances some ragged.

Perrine B (ca) wrote: excellent! une petite histoire o on part en vacances en colonie avec tous ces gamins. Un bronz soft version kid :). jean paul rouve est trop bon

Michael K (es) wrote: Wililam Shakespere re-imagined for a modern audience. Despite its overtly gay themes, its a joyous celebration of dreams. Some of the best movie music in a while!

Brian V (es) wrote: Joseph Goebbels famously said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." So it came as no surprise that the greatest socialist propagandist of our generation, Michael Moore, would continue to tell the "Big Lie" that we would all be better off if we just gave up "evil" capitalism for good and drank the communist Kool-aid. No, "Sicko" is not a biopic about the infamous director (although his book "Stupid White Men" is autobiographical), but a man that continues to manipulate and distort the facts while attempting to pass himself off as a legitimate documentarian is truly sick indeed. NOTE: In my previous reviews of Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine, you can read about how Moore exploited an amputee (who fully supported the President ironically), resorted to using a phony mock-up of a newspaper article (with the wrong date!) and how he selectively edited a speech by Charlton Heston (who was well-known for his work as a civil rights activist) to make him appear racist and insensitive. In the beginning of Sicko, we are promised by Mr. Moore that the film wouldn't be about the approximately 50 million Americans without health care (yet another lie) and then he proceeded to go around to various countries and attempt to show how much better they have it than Americans with socialized medicine. To be fair, I did see one thing in this film that I agreed with. In the final credits, Moore included a wonderful quote by Alexis de Tocqueville: "The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults." And as if to add more credibility to these words, Mr. Moore reminds us that Tocqueville was French. Of course, the truly enlightened in every country understand that the way to repair faults is with less government intervention in our lives not more. And since Mr. Moore is shameless when it comes to selling out to the French (ostensibly to win another Palme d'Or) and quoting dead Frenchmen, let me use this opportunity to quote another dead Frenchman Fr (C)d (C)ric Bastiat: "Who would not like to see all these benefits flow forth upon the world from the law, as from an inexhaustible source? But is it possible? Where does (the government) draw those resources that it is urged to dispense by way of benefits to individuals? Is it not from the individuals themselves? How, then, can these resources be increased by passing through the hands of a parasitical and voracious intermediary?" Bastiat also popularized what is known as the Broken Window Fallacy, the idea that there are hidden costs associated with purposely breaking windows (among other things) so that a certain segment of society (i.e. glassworkers) can gain from it. Never has a film been more deluded by the Broken Window Fallacy than Sicko. Just listen to Moore gush about how the French get free laundry service from the government! There are no hidden costs there, right? And these "necessary" perks are not available in the US because Americans are the most selfish, uncaring people on the earth, right? So this filmmaker would have you believe. Consider how he portrays a woman being tossed out of a health care facility like refuse. He conveniently fails to mention that under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act it is illegal to refuse people emergency service due to their inability to pay for it, but why bother to state the facts when depicting human suffering is such effective propaganda? Furthermore, if these catastrophic events are really occurring and bodies are piling up in the streets, why doesn't Mr. Moore do something about it immediately?! I know it's hard to give up such a lavish lifestyle, but perhaps he could forego riding in chauffeured limousines (maybe even skip a few meals?) at least until this "disaster" is averted. So delusioned by his Robin Hood approach to save the world from capitalism and oblivious to the true cost of socialism, Moore interviews residents of Cuba about the "great" benefits of universal health care and how cheap it is (more broken windows). No mention about how under law 88, any dissent whatsoever would get these Cubans up to 15 years in prison. This would be like asking a slave if he was being treated well right in front of his master. One of the Cubans Moore interviews happens to be Aleida Guevara. No mention, of course, that her father Che was an ardent socialist and mass murderer who executed thousands. The irony was apparently lost on Moore. Of course, the genocide in Latin America pales in comparison to the atrocities perpetrated in places like Russia, China, and Cambodia in the 20th century. In fact, regimes calling themselves socialists have murdered over 100 million people since 1917. Millions more perished because their governments couldn't feed them. These are the real, explicit costs of socialism that you will never see in a Michael Moore film. He seems to be more concerned with obscurantism and self-loathing than telling you the truth. The apex of Moore's self-hatred comes at the point in the film where he dejectedly asks the audience, "Who are we? and what has happened to our soul?" So I will end this review by answering these questions. Just as far-left academians, politicians, and socialist filmmakers are conspiring to make us feel guilty for our vast wealth and telling us we are the most greedy and miserly group of people that ever lived, America has set an all-time record for charitable giving, donating more than 295 billion dollars last year, more than any civilization in the history of the world. Notice how that is not money taken by force and squandered by a parasitical and voracious intermediary (i.e. the IRS, socialist governments). But surely this must be a mistake becuase Mr. Moore is telling us that the French are so much more compassionate. Perhaps the French don't produce as much as the evil Americans who profit on the backs of the poor. So how much did these countries give as a percentage of their gross domestic product? That would be 1.7% for the Americans and a whopping 0.14% for the French. So much for Mr. Moore telling us how selfish we are in relation to the rest of the world, especially the French. Could it be that this filmmaker is so deluded by utopian dreams of a society with the basic principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (as quoted directly from Karl Marx by a French doctor in Sicko) that he is willing to deceive his audiences to achieve it? After all, the end justifies the means, right? Fortunately, the majority of Americans are not fooled. They understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch (neither free healthcare nor free laundry service) and that the society that Mr. Moore wants us all to have in reality would make everyone equally poor. And so it is that Mr. Moore has discovered a powerful medium (film) and means (deceitful propaganda) to achieve his desired end (socialism), just like those that came before him... wonderful people like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Guevara, and Castro. Thankfully, we are not all drinking the Kool-aid just yet.

Kat K (mx) wrote: SWADES (2004). What a beautifully intelligent movie! A true love story - not between a man and a woman, but between a man and his country. One of the newer style Bollywood dramas that don't have the elaborate song and dance numbers - though SRK does dance a few times (ALWAYS love to see him dance). As SRK plays an engineer working for NASA - more than half of his lines are in English - which is a treat. Even someone not familiar with (or not a fan of) Hindi films would love this one!

Allen K (fr) wrote: Emotionally, this is a tough film to watch but it(TM)s well worth the sacrifice to learn about the fate of so many children in Romania.

Leena L (gb) wrote: Good, but weird experience in a very disturbing way. Excellent story, based on a real life murder case and a obsessive relationship. Kate Winslet is just brilliantly scary and charming in her first film ever!

Kyle B (nl) wrote: A great ensemble piece that definitely makes me see where Paul Thomas Anderson got influence for his many ensemble pieces most notably Magnolia. Julianne Moore, Tim Robbins, Jack Lemmon, Frances McDormand, and Annie Ross were the stands outs performances wise. It plays more off like a miniseries with many episodic moments and at times I just asked for it to get to the point but overall it is well acted and written enough to keep you into it

Mike T (mx) wrote: great movie about the chicago white(black)sox that threw the world series

Blake P (fr) wrote: "Ladies and Gentlemen, The Fabulous Stains" has been referred to as the music industry satire that never was (release was inept back in 1981, resulting in a late-in-life cult following), but I'm more struck with the notion that the film is the music industry satire that shouldn't have been. Taking more established versions of the subgenre into consideration (Brian De Palma's bizarre "Phantom of the Paradise" instantaneously comes to mind), "The Fabulous Stains" is all attitude and no depth - it should be more vicious in its commentary, should have a catchier soundtrack, and should develop characters that prove themselves to be more than just placeholders for the plot to stand up straight. But, alas, "The Fabulous Stains" is never the parodical minx it clearly sets out to be, failing in its every move besides its invention of Corinne Burns, the haughty heroine of the film whose small-time iconhood suits her well. The movie revolves around the thorny rise to fame of its titular band, a girl group of The Runaways caliber minus the talent. With Diane Lane giving a killer performances as Burns, the frontwoman, some of the depiction is visceral and inspired - but the ineffectual establishment of the story by screenwriter Nancy Dowd makes everything slightly soggy. Dowd's biggest mistake derives from the way we never really feel the moment in which Burns decides that the rock 'n' roll lifestyle is for her. We know that her mother recently died, that she hates school, and that rebellion is paramount in her existence. We do get a glimpse of her going to a concert and having the time of her life. That, most likely, is what Dowd believes to be her come to Jesus moment. But that quick representation is thin and unpersuasive; there's an overall feeling that Corinne Burns and her friends become rock stars because they can, and that deteriorates the film's attempts to dig in deep. None of The Stains know how to play their instruments, anyway. They merely ask the manager of a couple of flagging acts stopping by their town if a joint tour is an option. Agreement is made and the road is hit, though it's a rocky one that isn't traveled upon all too successfully. Burns's pissed off 'tude leaves audiences revolted, their music too awful to make an excuse for acerbic behavior. But as time wears on, Burns's loud mouthed messages (and wild attire) begin to appeal to disaffected teenage girls around the country. Backlash, though, is a veritable possibility, considering The Stains's most popular tune bashes 9-5 culture when they're working young women themselves. But "Ladies and Gentlemen, The Fabulous Stains" is never much more than a great idea, characterizing itself as an unconvincing take on overnight stardom too humorless and too shaky to have much of an impact. I suppose it all is meant to be a stinging response to the idiotic, exhaustible nature of fleeting era definers (one must look in the direction of the Sex Pistols, of Bow Wow Wow, for example). But Dowd's writing is not astute enough to support such lofty ambitions, and the soundtrack is too stale, too riot grrl lite, for toe-tapping or anything resembling our own love of The Stains. I can see a better film lurking underneath "Ladies and Gentlemen, The Fabulous Stains's" flashy exterior, and its lacking of a punch can only be described as disappointing, especially in the face of Lane's extraordinary performance. But analyzing the frightening characteristics of fame, specifically in the area of music, is not such an easy thing to do. While "The Fabulous Stains" has admirable aspiration, Underdeveloped is its middle name, and it's a shame that potential turns to waste as time passes.

Chris B (fr) wrote: Susan George annoyed the crap out of me throughout the film!!!

James H (ag) wrote: It's certainly high on melodrama and tends to by a bit cornball and over the top, but it certainly is well produced and well acted by Jane Wyman and Agnes Moorehead . Rock Hudson however is poor. First rate cinematography, art direction and costumes. The score is a little overbearing.

Gordon H (ru) wrote: Funny Action-Adventure Blast!Originally Written November 25, 2010--After surviving an assault from a squad of hit men, retired CIA agent Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) reassembles his old team for an all-out war. Frank reunites with old Joe (Morgan Freeman), crazy Marvin (John Malkovich) and wily Victoria (Helen Mirren) to uncover a massive conspiracy that threatens their lives. Only their expert training will allow them to survive a near-impossible mission -- breaking into CIA headquarters. What a funny, action-adventure blast! Willis is brilliant in this role as a retired CIA agent who assembles a team as eccentric as they are deadly! So funny and exciting at the same time. It's like Die Hard meets Ghostbusters! Four-and-a-half stars.

Matthew G (gb) wrote: A worthy sequel to Shanghai Noon.