You may also like
In the City of Sylvia torrent reviews
Tom W (us) wrote: Worth a watch. Dark humor. Filmed like a western movie from the older days.
Paul D (us) wrote: This is a very small film but it is well done. It is based on a true story and it is acted beautifully. It does have it's slow parts, but otherwise it is decent.
Kevin M W (nl) wrote: The buddy cop dramedy revisited and made relatable by the spot on performances on it's lead players. The plot setup is somewhat far fetched but its nada but a thrill rise after all. And while not Hope and Crosby, the banter often is not too far from them either.
Jesse O (fr) wrote: This film is a pretty cliched look at relationships between people of different societal classes. Agathe is rich with a stick up her ass, she's pretentious and frigid. Patrick is poor and he's unrestrained, says what's on his mind and is really kind of sleazy. Opposites attract eh? So yea, you've seen this before and will probably see it again. The film certainly gets some good laughs out of Patrick's politically incorrect personality, and Benoit Poelvoorde does a good job at making this character likable, in spite of all his faults, but there are some moments in the second act where the movie just slows down tremendously and kinda loses its charm. Admittedly, the film tries to give Patrick a little depth with the narrative of how he tries to do everything he can to keep his son. And the fact is that Patrick is not just what he appears to be at first. They don't tell you a lot about his past, but you know he's gone through some shit and that's thanks to Benoit's performance. Basically, the film works past its cliches thanks to Isabelle Huppert's and Benoit's performances. It's kinda weird seeing Isabelle doing this type of movie, she usually does these films where she's playing incredibly serious characters. While, for the most part, the character is very serious, there are some surprising moments of comedy from her character and it was, while refreshing to see, strange at the same time. If you're looking for a light comedy that's easy to get into, then you're definitely barking up the wrong tree. The framing of the story reads like it's gonna be a light comedy, but it's nothing like it. I like that the film focuses on the characters, but I just found the entire film to be lacking something that would've taken it to the next level. There's just something in the second act that brings the film to, almost, a complete stop and it doesn't really recover until it's far too late. Still, it's a decent movie at best. Not bad at all.
Kevin F (fr) wrote: Upon hearing great reaction regarding the original All-Star Superman comics this film is based on, I was greatly intrigued to see how the film would manage condensing such a long epic into a 75 minute feature. Unfortunately, it seems that All-Star is little more than two-bit. The story is an unfocused mess, seeming to throw everything at the proverbial wall in the hopes that something may stick, but very little actually does. The film goes by at such a blisteringly fast pace with such unfocused direction that it seems to get lost halfway to its conclusion before finally being guided back on course during the last ten minutes. Despite good ideas, they are marred by uneven direction and poor pacing.
Chris P (es) wrote: Great movie. You cannot tell that it's a low budget. Greatly made and filmed.
Paul N (jp) wrote: This is a great little film. Inventive. Imagintive. Clever. Quirky. My three kids (ages almost 6 to almost 10) laughed riotously through most of it, and I was laughing quite a bit as well. There was none of the sappy mush-headedness that seems to characterize so much of children's fare these days. If anything, at times the movie bordered a bit on the other end of the spectrum, though rarely enough to cause issue.Stop motion photography utilizing quasi-mobile toys. The jerky motion fits the imaginative nature of the film very well. Characters engage in adult behavior such as flirtation and drinking, but nothing scandalous. My only complaint with the film was the inappropriate language at times. Yes, I know that this is 2012. But I still find it unnecessary to include swearing (hell, damn, bastard, Jesus Christ, etc.) in a film that will be very appealing to children. The film would have been equally wonderful and enchanting without these unexpected intrusions, and it's a shame that they felt that they were appropriate. They aren't.Otherwise, this is definitely a fun way to pass an hour with your kids.
Jono M (ag) wrote: I'm a huge Ricky Gervais fan and have been since I first set eyes on The Office. Since then, he's been the creator of some really enjoyable TV series (Extras and An Idiot Abroad) and been heavily involved in some pretty good movies (Ghost Town and Cemetery Junction). With all that in mind, how did he make something so bad in Special Correspondents? Maybe I took it too seriously, but the plot was completely nonsensical and rarely funny. The only enjoyable part of the movie was Kelly MacDonald, who played her nice, sweet character really well.
Bhavya t (it) wrote: Add a review (optional)...
Deadly V (nl) wrote: A great "little" film
Robin P (it) wrote: All I remember is it was wierd.
Russell G (us) wrote: An alright offering, though he doesn't create and army of whorish monster ladies like I was expecting. Nor is it a remake of BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. It's just a bit of a love story really.
Indi V (br) wrote: Lazenby's only film as 007 has been both hailed as one of the best in the series and as one of the worst. The truth is it's a little more in the middle.Let's start with Lazenby's performance. He isn't bad. Granted, he does sound a little bit like Tony Curtis's Cary Grant impression from Some Like It Hot. Yet, Lazenby is just kinda... there. He doesn't detract from the film, but he doesn't really add anything to it, either. It's not entirely fair to blame Lazenby completely. The film does him absolutely no favors and lets both him and Diana Rigg down spectacularly.Even though 007 isn't exactly Hamlet, the characterization in this film is pretty close to non-existent. Bond is incredibly bland in what should be his most personal adventure ever (Well... at least until Daniel Craig came along 37 years later). Diana Rigg is pretty forgettable, too. Then again, she's given next to nothing to work with. Her performance is much like Lazenby's. Doesn't detract, but doesn't add to it either. You just don't buy the fact that this is the woman Bond would quit the service for. The novel has this issue as well. Bond's entire line of thinking pretty much boils down to "Sure. Why the heck not? I'll marry this girl."Telly Savalas as Blofeld falls into the same camp as Lazenby and Rigg. Doesn't add to it, but doesn't detract from it. He, at least, is given a little more characterization. Dude's more interested in being declared count than poisoning the world's crop. Pretty interesting for a guy who in the last film told us "Extortion is my business."The action is terribly edited. This is Quantum of Solace levels of bad. Still, there are a few saving graces. Switzerland looks incredible. The cinematography is gorgeous. Lazenby does the final moment of the film really well. Could he have been a good Bond? We'll never know, but he definitely should have at least come back for Diamonds Are Forever (wait... that's the worst movie of the franchise. Maybe Lazenby was smart to bail after all). The film felt like it want to sink him before giving him a chance to swim.
Tiffany N (us) wrote: I so need to get this movie one of my ALL TIME FAVS!!!!