The film narrates the story of a few high-school friends getting back together after a long time.
You may also like
Idukki Gold torrent reviews
Adriana F (gb) wrote: Awesome movie! Better than first one!
Ahmed B (br) wrote: there are a lot of actors who have a lot of worse 'last films' on their credits."
Nate H (fr) wrote: Sorry baby, I had to save Lil Shrimp.
Nicki M (ru) wrote: Starts off well. I was very interested in the 70 year old man who caught fire and then began to grow younger as he healed. Fascinating. But then it got confusing. And I got bored. Quickly.
Nik B (jp) wrote: When getting this film started, I wondered allowed what happened to Jessica Lange's acting ability. She seemed winded and confused even though her character is supposed to be strong and controlling. A few minutes later, I began to realize that the flaw was simply... this is a really stupid script. Love Bob Dylan; I even stand up to his current musical output. But his script, co-written with a Seinfeld writer Larry Charles, simply makes no sense. Dylan is essentially playing himself in a near-future post-revolution US. John Goodman is a clownishly scummy promoter who has bailed old rock-star Dylan out of jail to play a "benefit" concert which is merely a scam to get money to pay off gambling debts. First of all, there is NO reason for the revolution. We're never told why its happening and it plays no part in the storyline described above. All that happens is travelling to and preparing for the gig while we meet many characters who get a chance to just espew to arcane riddles and philosophies that don't fit anywhere in the scene. It's as if Dylan had 14 poems lying around that he handed out to the actors. Here, walk on, read this and leave. I was reminded while watching this, to Southland Tales. Both films deal with a dystopia US, both scripts are a bleak mess, both films have a shitton of cameos. In the end I liked ST because the direction took a fantastic voyage quality. Armed & Dangerous doesn't, nor is it saved by 3 good Dylan performances. Everyone's desire to be a part of getting a Dylan script to screen apparantly did not include giving Bob some constructive criticism.
Juliano K (de) wrote: Nice,... but 2, "normal"
Edward C (ru) wrote: Corky Ramno(2001)Starring: Chris Kattan, Vinessa Shaw, Peter Falk, Peter Berg, Chris Penn, Fred Ward, Richard Roundtree, Roger Fan, Dave Sheridan, Michael Masse, Vincent Passe, Fiona Hale, Matthew Glave, Kip King, and AlBenDirected By: Rob PrittsReviewUNDERCOVER AND OUT THE WAY!Corky Ramno continues the Saturday Night Live jink, which in recent years has frustrated the talented members of the TV program in their efforts to make watchable movies. It's a desperately unfunny gangster spoof, starring Chris Kattan as a kid brother in a Mafia family, so trusting and naive he really does believe his father is in the landscaping business.I submit as general principal that it is not funny when a clumsy person knocks over something in a room, hell I used to do that all the time when I was younger and sometimes still do. The choreography makes it obvious that the character, in one way or another is deliberately careening from one collision to another. It always looks deliberate. Indeed it looks like a deliberate attempt to force laughs instead of building them.In the movie, Corky's father is played by Peter Falk. True, Falk is one of the first guys you'd think of for this role, but they should have kept thinking. He played similar roles so many times that he can sleepwalk through his dialogue, a completely unexpected casting choice might have been funnier. Corky has two very tough brothers(Peter Berg and Chris Penn) who doubt their father's plan, which is that the youngest son should infiltrate the FBI in order to destroy the evidence against the old man.That brings Croky into contact with Howard Schuster(Richard Roundtree) the local FBI chief who is given the thankless comic rask of never knowing more than he needs to know in order to make the wrong decision. There's also Vinessa Shaw as an FBI agent who go's undercover as a sexy nurse. Or maybe she's a sexy agent who geos undercover as a nurse. Such a thin line that separates the two concepts.Corky Ramno is like a dead zone of comedy. The concept is exhausted, the ideas are tired, the physical gags are routine, the story is labored, and the actors look like they can barley contain their doubts about the project.
Darrin C (ca) wrote: I definitely saw the suspenseful scares the writer and director were shooting for. Our menacing, yet mostly absent psycho trucker Rusty Nail had an intense voice and it was funny to see Paul Walker so afraid.
Clay B (fr) wrote: OSCAR AND LUCINDA (1997)
Luke B (es) wrote: I do love a documentary that focuses on weird and eccentric people. Trekkies looks at the fans of Star Trek. It chooses a small group to follow, from a young SFX whizkid that has gone on to much better things, a woman that insists on being called Commander, a dentist with a decorated surgery and so on. This is all cut together with interviews from some of the stars. Where the film kind of failed was in only showing the most eccentric people, and always surrounded by there memorabilia and/or in costume. I never really got a sense of who these people were without Star Trek. This can sometimes make them seem sad and lonely and often psychologically damaged. Luckily, they are having so much fun that you kind of get swept up by it all. The actors seem to take it too seriously though,recounting stories of how the show has changed or saved peoples' lives, from suicide attempts, to how it liberated black people, to how it helped people get over the deaths of their family etc. It's all a bit much at times and it doesn't really express the kind of fun people are having. Not informative, just a gallery of interesting people.
Allan C (kr) wrote: The gender politics of this film are pretty screwy in this gender swap sexual harassment corporate thriller. Michael Douglas is sexually harassed by his superior, Demi Moore. What is Douglas to do when he fends off the advances of his sexy new boss and has to return home with sexy claw marks on his chest? Then what's he to do when Moore accuses him of attacking her? Rich white male victims have it so rough. It's just not fair. Douglas kind of specialized in this type of part for a while, doing this and also playing the victim in "Fatal Attraction" and "Basic Instinct." Those films were much better than this one, which plays out like a slickly made movie-of-the-week. Annette Benning was originally cast until she became pregnant. I can't help but think that she would have brought a different tone to the film, whereas the casting of Demi Moore made this feel more like a sensational piece of trash. The film wants to be an intellectual dissection about power, sex and gender, but it ends up being more of a trashy mashup of "Basic Instinct" and "The Firm." And what's dummest is that is that Douglas could have solved his problems with a pocket tape recorder and just caught some of Moore's continuing harassing statements on tape. Director Barry Levinson and writer Paul Attanasio (along with producer/novelist Michael Crichton) are too smart for this trash. However, it's rather compelling trash that I wanted to see how it all winds up, but chases scenes through 1994 virtual reality are pretty ridiculous. Ennio Morricone does provide a nice score for the film though.
Lisa S (au) wrote: Alright, it's cheesy, got story flaws, predictable, and could be a lot better, but it has a good amount of funny scenes and good actors. Overall, it's so-so.
Christopher S (ru) wrote: Gillo Pontecorvo's somewhat disappointing follow-up to The Battle of Algiers features a further exploration of imperialism and guerilla conflict. Marlon Brando stars as William Walker, a British agent who arranges a rebellion on a Portuguese-held island in order to pave the way from British colonization. The movie has intriguing political content, good direction, beautiful cinematography, but lacks the visceral power and immediacy of Battle of Algiers. Marlon Brando gives an unusually restrained performance, complete with a blond wig and bizarre British accent. Not entirely successful, but worth a look.
Dustin G (us) wrote: Considering what it wants to be and its budget, I actually really liked this movie. It's fun and silly and entertaining. Don't watch this if you don't like B-movies but for everyone else it's worth checking out.
Daniel T (de) wrote: The best part of this film is the story: it's simple. At the same time, it's also incredibly complex. Not too many films achieve this and make it look effortless. This film does. What's more is that the story is deep. Not just in terms of the plot or storyline. Rather, in terms of the message the film gets across to its audience. What we have is a message about the upper class, the lower class, and society. Where do we fit in? Where do we want to fit in? And what will we do to fit in where we want to fit in? Much of the film is focused on the upper class; however, what time is spent focused on the lower class is what really makes an impact. Primarily because the film is made for the lower class. Renoir creates a masterpiece. It's arguably more of a masterpiece than what Welles did with Citizen Kane. Bu that would be a review in its own entirety.
Michael H (jp) wrote: Like many critics may say, it had promise, it had the good amount of intelligence and we are seeing a thriller that maybe has something to deliever, but no. Mercury Rising became so predictable it's like the movie was supposed to be predictable, easily set out. It lacked everything a thriller is suppose to be, there was no drive or excitment, The start had something to offer but after that nothing materilised and it became awful, especcially the end, a huge letdown.
Private U (ru) wrote: I LOVE YOU VIVIEN LEIGH
Ed B (us) wrote: Very funny and a lot of action. I really liked Edge and Kennedy's performances in this film. Not WWE's best film, but very entertaining nonetheless.
David G (br) wrote: the action and visuals are the real stars of this sub par sci-fi adventure.