Vivenne is a teacher of Welsh comprehensive high school in the long hot summer of 1976. She determines to bring back the rock and rolls to the year end show by putting on a glamorous musical version of Shakespeare's The Tempest with help from her young distracted students. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
You may also like
Hunky Dory torrent reviews
Paul B (us) wrote: Found footage movies were largely irrelevant post Blair Witch but received well by Paranormal Activity (the first one obviously) but this low budget British entry is very well done. Following a group Vatican investigators sent to look into reports of paranormal activity in a West Country church, the scene is set for an easy rehash of what has gone before. This does something a little different in its location and approach with Gordon Kennedy & Robin Hill proving a fine double act. Writer/Director Elliot Golding ratchets up the tension and unnerving atmosphere, with several brilliantly scary scenes, to a unique & disturbing finale in a solid movie only slightly let down by the script.
Damien F (au) wrote: An angsty, feisty chick flick with the 2 Ellens ? Pass the popcorn and count me in. It's about the corpse of upper middle American life. A minor niggle:is that in this ensemble piece the incidental characters were a bit too obtrusively one note/ incidental. ( Popping eyes,& popping food, martinis, and reactionary ideas in their mouths.) Also, the story of a family that can't bond does feel a little unstuck in parts. A nice surprise is Demi Moore; she isn't half bad as a harpy with all the moves. Moments of gorgeous cinematography and apt music make this mainly enjoyable. I do wonder though, why has the hour/forty movie gone out of fashion ?
Adrian S (fr) wrote: A quietly devastating portrait of a seething pool attendant caught in a maelstrom of jealousy with his son, and makes an impulsive decision to draft him into the army. And it all goes downhill and lyrical from there.
Josh B (ca) wrote: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wwwwhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anders A (jp) wrote: Hopefully not Lynch's final movie. The subconscious darkness unfold a thousand empires. As the story diverge into another doom love story of death, going from high class to the bloody streets of pulling tricks. It's a endless long dark travel into the core of pain.
Donny W (fr) wrote: I honestly think this is one of the better Marvel movies, mostly because it does not focus on "BEING" a superhero/heroine. It takes a Marvel character, diverts from the comics a bit and ventures into the realm of magic/mysticism/philosophy, which is refreshing and original . The music was great, the acting was great, the story was great - I think this movie is severally underrated.
Najmi L (jp) wrote: the best soundtrack ever :D
Christine B (fr) wrote: A black comedy from Tom DiCillo that has a lot going on in it and is just plain bizarre in places. It's worth watching for Denis Leary and Steve Buscemi's performances and there are some real laughs in it although most of the characters are just too weird for mass public consumption (the scriptwriters and teenager who hires thugs to kill her father)...which could definitely be attractive to some!
Private U (jp) wrote: i want seeing this movie. i need korea subtitle. maybe this movie is really best. i want seeing.
John M (ca) wrote: Fairly minor heist movie, directed by Sidney Lumet. Good performances, but you can see certain developments coming a ways off. And, the ending is pretty TV-movieish.
Kyle M (gb) wrote: A nice, smart look at the process of broadcasting the news with dramas that circulates to the business outside of the green room by a nice cast and their performances to fulfill the likeness of the characterization and some humor they bring along to make this film a really good one to enjoy. (B+)(Full review coming soon - with better wording)
Tuukka P (nl) wrote: The Coen brothers debut feature about a bar owner hiring a private eye to kill his cheating wife and her lover. Film noir references are clear and so are the talents of the brothers. Visually and story wise we're in a very familiar Coen terroritory and the simple plot is fully explored and taken to ends very few see coming. A big promise of things to come and an excellent movie in itself.
Cameron J (es) wrote: Speaking of heresy, the film itself is so rebellious against what is considered right that it dropped the "The" out of "The Exorcist", and yes, this film is so unexciting that I just questioned why there's no "The" in front of "Exorcist" anymore. Seriously though, if you ask me, this is pretty much "Exorcist Episode V: The Devil Strikes Back", and I'm not just saying that because James Earl Jones is here, I'm saying that mostly because there are too many prequels to this series, so I may as well call this the fifth installment. Shoot, the material is so dried up with this sequel that this may as well be the fifth outing for the "Exorcist" series, yet regardless of what you think about this film, the Devil is back with a vengeance, and quite frankly, I'm surprised it took him so long to catch up with Linda Blair. I don't know if it's so much money that's the root of all evil, as much as it's celebrity, because after "The Exorcist", Blair could afford some pretty good drugs, as surely as more than a few decent career moves got Richard Burton some fine alcohol. Hm, I was about to question why they got people with backgrounds that aren't all that holy to be holy people, - corrupted or not - but Burton was such a big drunk that he's perfect to play a priest, and at any rate, this film's purity is so questionable that the psych doctor in this film is, of all people, Louise Fletcher. She will soon know what Jack Nicholson is talking about when he asks someone if they've ever "danced with the Devil in the pale moonlight", and by soon, I mean in twelve years after this film, when Tim Burton's "Batman" came out. Forget the Devil, I'd be more afraid of being possessed by Jack Nicholson, or at least I am now that this film has kind of watered down the thrills behind Satan's work, and while that's not to say that this film is quite as messy as they say, it is to say that this film has its limitations, even on paper. I'm not asking that this film's story concept be quite as juicy as its predecessor's, - which, to be fair, wasn't exactly wealthy with potential - but this subject matter is even more minimalist than a predecessor that was arguably too light in scale and dynamicity for its own good, and to make matters worse, there's some questionability within this mythology, which is sometimes intelligent, but also sometimes fairly cheesy. If nothing else, the film's story concept seems cheesy, because William Goodhart's and an uncredited Rospo Pallenberg's script is so cheesy, at least at times, when dialogue hits fall-flat moments, and histrionics come into play, reflecting a certain consistency in subtlety issues. This film holds the potential of being smart, but many of the lapses in subtlety are glaring, with some being, well, kind of dumb, and no matter how much entertainment value and highlights get the final product by as decent, the writing lowlights are hard to deny, particularly when they begin to fiddle with the integrity of characterization. I suppose characterization is passable, and many of the performances are certainly endearing enough to bring the improvably drawn characters to life, but on paper, there's something lacking about developmental depth, resulting in undercooking that distances you a bit from the characters, especially considering that this film has a good bit of time that it could have dedicated to exposition, but ends up dedicating to draggy, repetitious material that meanders along, stressing natural shortcomings and being itself stressed by atmospheric pacing problems. Really, the film might not be quite as slow as its predecessor, and yet, when the meditativeness that was much more prominent in 1973's "The Exorcist" comes into play here, it's not quite as effective as it should be, having engaging moments, but many more moments in which material is not soaked up enough to compensate for atmospheric dry spells that dull things down and further distance you from a film whose writing, alone, places plenty of challenges before your investment. The film isn't quite as big of a mess as they say, but it's still a mess, and a big enough one to where mediocrity stands as a very real risk, backed by dynamicity, dramatic and pacing shortcomings that make the final product, at the very least, a substantially inferior sequel that held quite a bit of potential. I was joking earlier, when I boasted that material in this series has already dried up, because this is a pretty different sequel that stands to be more, but doesn't exactly fall as flat as they say, being flawed nearly to no end, but nevertheless with highlights, even stylistic ones. Now, in a lot of ways, the film falls behind the stylistic value of its predecessor, and by its own right, this film's stylistic value isn't all that special, but it's still worth mentioning, at least in a visual respect, as William A. Fraker's turns in a cinematographic performance whose tasteful emphasis on sparse lighting makes the brighter moments haunting and the darker moments chilling, especially when backed by imagery whose technical value has become quite dated, but remains adequate enough to enhance the telling of this tale, which perhaps needs as much help as it can. Again, this film's story concept is improvable, having questionable elements, or, if nothing else, too much minimalist, but quite frankly, there's still potential here, thanks in part to a mythology that may be particularly questionable in some ways, but is either intelligent at times or simply endearing within its own context. As for the basic plot itself, it's messy, even on paper, but still with some intrigue to its ambiguities and layers that may not be great, and are certainly undercut by writing issues, but can still be see through highlights in storytelling, as well as highlights in the portrayals of the characters who drive quite a few elements. Acting material is even more limited this time around, after a very dramatic predecessor, and there are a few mediocre supporting performances, but on the whole, decency is found throughout this rather charming cast, with leading man Richard Burton standing out about as much as he can with thorough charisma, as well as a few gripping layers as an open-minded man of God who begins to tap into dark religious depths on a revelatory and dangerous adventure. Burton carries the film about as much as anyone, and he's not the only endearing force in this cast, so the onscreen talent is there, even if the offscreen talent is limited, and yet, the performances found on the screen are not the only ones that get you by. There is still a good bit of credit due to director John Boorman's, whose efforts are messy, but have distinctly notable highlights, for although tension is much more limited in this film than it was in the predecessor, with effective imagery and genuine highlights in material bite, as well as some strong elements within the great Ennio Morricone's tasteful score, Boorman crafts an atmosphere with effective highlights that punctuate a consistent degree of intrigue that keep the bland spells - of which there are many - from dulling too far down. Really, what saves the film is a fair degree of entertainment value, for although the final product is a mess, it's not so faulty that I couldn't stick with it as a reasonably charming and sometimes effective thriller, regardless of its many shortcomings. In closing, natural shortcomings, backed by a questionable mythology, go emphasized by enough cheesiness, underdevelopment and pacing unevenness to threaten the final product with mediocrity, but through a striking visual style, decent performances, - particularly that of Richard Burton - and adequately intriguing and sometimes effective direction by John Boorman behind a fairly engaging story concept, "Exorcist II: The Heretic" emerges as a, for me, endearing thriller, even if it does fall a considerable ways short of its predecessor. 2.5/5 - Fair
Trevor D (it) wrote: There's a lot to like in this, Hammer's third "Dracula" sequel, but a lot of the potential of the first half is squandered when none of the elements set-up are really followed through. There's an interesting dichotomy established with our atheistic hero Paul (played by a terrific but sadly obscure Barry Andrews) and other characters of faith-- you've got Maria giving into temptation, Monsignor acting as a bigot towards those that don't share his belief ("You're not a Protestant, are you?"), the Renfield-like Priest wracked with guilt over his weakness of will, and even Dracula himself who endows a great deal of emotional value towards the symbol of the cross. The latter is one of the most interesting elements, with the Count embarking on petty revenge as a result of his castle being "defiled" by religious symbolism (which seems to indicate the cross is more than just a weapon or source of physical weakness for the vampire).The pace is kept up nicely , the gore flows a-plenty (making this one of the most laughable "G" ratings of all time) and these various characters collide in some interesting and exciting ways, but in the end none of the subtextual elements really come to fruition; the visual and vocalized metaphors about sex and innocence and faith and guilt mean very little in the end. Still, it's a bloody fun ride getting there.
Orlok W (de) wrote: Mizoguchi Explores the Darker Side of the Street--Brutal and Riveting!!
Vadim D (ag) wrote: There is a lot going on here. Some good, but mostly bad. It's unclear what Tony Scott was doing here and why the film plays more like an elaborate music video than a comprehensive film. However, the real life story behind the film is fascinating, and you can't say Scott wasn't original in his take on a biopic