It's Not You, It's Me

It's Not You, It's Me

Thirty-year-old Javier (Diego Peretti) is a surgeon and in his free time works as a disc jockey. He decides to marry and move to the United States with his girlfriend María (Soledad Villamil). They make all their plans; they wed, and then María is the first to move and make contacts in their new home, while Javier packs up in Argentina and prepares to start his new life in the States. While he is on the way to the airport, he receives a call from María telling him that she is confused and has been seeing someone else.

Javier and Maria live together. Discontent with life in Argentina, they plan to migrate to Miami in search for a better life... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


It's Not You, It's Me torrent reviews

Ed C (fr) wrote: One line summary: Bad dubbing, bad screenplay, not scary or suspenseful.--------------------------- The film opens to a dream, then the writing down of the dream, then the discussion of the dream between the young woman Helen, and her analyst, Dr. Hoffman. Helen also does automatic drawing now and then, including after vivid dream. The opening dream concerned a young woman in the time of the Crusades being murdered by a Knight's Templar in armour. Helen's discussions with Hoffman are as vague and inconclusive as one might expect from a man who prescribes mind-numbing drugs. One thing definite from Hoffman was a set of photographs that match some of Helen's automatic drawings. Based on this match, Helen accepts tickets from Hoffman to travel to the castle depicted in the photographs. Hoffman's hope is that Helen finds the sources of Helen's dreams. The castle that Helen seeks has become a museum maintained by Yulin and a colleague. Yulin kicks out Helen, whose curiosity is instantly engaged that much more. She engages some of the locals to break into the place. As it turns out, the museum is in financial troubles, and insurance fraud is contemplated to bail out the museum. Helen's escapade gets resistance from those about to commit the fraud. Just to tie up the whole story, someone dresses up in Templar armour (and weapon, the 'sin reaper') from the museum exhibits and starts killing people involved in the double break in. So, will an explanation emerge from the carnage of the opening sequence?------Scores------ Cinematography: 4/10 Some of it is fine, a lot of it is just plain poorly done, particularly the night photography. Sound: 3/10 The voice track to the audio sucked rocks. Lance Henriksen's voice and accent were fine, for instance, but not so much in sync with the movements of his face. The accents were to shudder at. Helen was supposedly an American, but her accent was broad and English. The English sub-titles for the German sentences looked more or less OK, but the dubbed English for the German speakers was between unintentionally humourous and stupid. Acting: 2/10 Lance Henriksen's performance was OK, but the lip-sync editing failure rather spoiled that. Screenplay: 2/10 Oh, goodness. The three threads I noted did not mesh up all that well. The dream of a past life seemed at first just the delusions of an ill mind. The unification at the end seemed a bit weak. With a good director at the helm, this should have been chilling or hard-core scary. As it was, it seemed boring and tedious; I could barely wait for the film to end. The thread of a troubled mind trying to be made healthy was just lost. The thread of insurance fraud seemed a red herring at best, and seemed to have little to do the rest of the film.

Mad M (de) wrote: The most remarkable part of the movie is Sean Bean's performance (even though you partially hate him). When he's not on screen, the movie feels like it's lacking and there's a bit too much of that.

Amanda H (ru) wrote: fab van damme thank u mam

Robert I (au) wrote: This is perhaps the BEST direct-to-video sequel I've ever seen. Funny and creative. And Allison Mack! Holy cow!!

Zachary M (mx) wrote: Boasting a lot of stunning visuals the movie is just as interesting as it is frustrating to watch. The main problem is that I really don't have any sympathy for one half of the main characters. Jennifer Tilly's character seems shady and untrustworthy, but by the end she seems to be redeemed and has a happy ending. One she really doesn't deserve. It seems she's no different from her gangster husband and his colleges, and yet she gets what she want in the end. Its things like that make it hard for me to get over in movies. With a different ending this could have been a lot better, but as it stands it feels a bit meh. A poor ending will do that to you.

Nicki M (es) wrote: Yeah, it's bad, and kind of racist, but I think it's probably well intentioned, just done badly. It has that bad 80's kind of appeal. Wanted to hate it, but just couldn't.

Ethan B (it) wrote: I can't say that there's much to love in Fading Gigolo. Maybe it's because I can't relate. A quarter-life-crisis, sure, but not a midlife one. But to say that the movie is bad would be largely incorrect. The film, for the most part, is harmless. It's a sex comedy for older men, but it doesn't do much to offend. It even purposely keeps it classy by pervading lounge jazz in the background the entire time. In fact, there's not a whole lot of silence in the film, now that I think of it.Fading Gigolo stars John Turturro, who also writes and directs, as Fioravante, a florist who becomes strapped for cash and is counseled by his good friend, Murray (Woody Allen), into becoming a male prostitute while Murray manages him. Turturro plays his character as a man of few words, and Allen--well--plays a version of himself of course. This time, his normal insecure idiosyncrasies take on a slightly more sordid personality.Narratively, it starts up quickly, but meanders a bit after the first 30 minutes or so. One of its biggest weaknesses is the dialogue, which is very stiff when any character besides Woody Allen is speaking. It's not so much the verbiage, but the characters' rote delivery of it. The banter between Turturro and anyone else (sans Allen) feels routine and phony. It's actually painful at some points. The highlight would have to be Woody, who provides us with the comic relief amongst otherwise arid characters. Not that they don't have depth--they're just all written as very laconic. It takes some odd turns here and there, and doesn't quite seem to know where it wants to end up. There are some brief touches of surrealism throughout which actually give the film much of its character. But overall, it's a movie that has a purpose. You have to commend it for trying to reach a certain audience--one that isn't so often approached.Twizard Rating: 72

marty b (fr) wrote: It was a good movie!!!!!~?~?~?~?