You may also like
Karle Pyaar Karle torrent reviews
Caroline R (jp) wrote: this film was horrendous and most likely had a budget of 10p (at a push) the acting quality was truly shocking and proved to be infant level (and that's an extreme compliment) the description isn't misleading but gives you false hope and would've been a great film if had good actors, quality & realistic props.
Luke S (br) wrote: I was not sure how this movie would turn out. But trust me. For a fun night with friends and a hard time getting to sleep this movie is your best choice. The last ten minutes will screw u over
Jarkko S (br) wrote: Norjalainen draama saamelaisista. Elmnkatsomukseni laajeni. Lysin etnisen kulttuurin josta suomalaisena voin olla ylpe.
Jho R (mx) wrote: I really need a guide to why we should care about these characters. The editing was interesting though.
Oscar E (ru) wrote: A frightful, harrowing experience i hope never to have to repeat. I cant even concieve of the circumstances which led to me watching this.
Cj O (ag) wrote: Not only does the story fail to make the overused look original, the music doesn't fit the creepy Jim Henson aura that any movie from that studio carries, whether it's Fraggle Rock or not.
Bob S (nl) wrote: the fact that riptorn was in this movie, this movie about pot is why i liked it.
Corey P (fr) wrote: Worth watching if you watched the Project Greenlight series, which will make it more palatable. It's not much as a film but it would play well as mainstream TV I suppose, and/or for a certain audience. Many corny scenes, but Quinn and Pollak are good in their roles, so the rating is relative.
Brian R (es) wrote: It is mainly about five women who dance and make their living at a strip club called The Blue Iguana. The women seem to be looking for some kind of redemption of the sorts but I didn't find any or couldn't understand what was going on. Some of the women are shown as hysterical with no sense of self worth whatsoever and need to calm their nerves by indulging in alcohol and smoking ciggarettes. There is one girl who seems sort of straight played by Sandra Oh who loves going to poetry sessions and becomes attracted to a guy there. Daryl Hannah is the worst in this picture because her character is pretty depressing and lost. Im not really sure what made her take on a role like this but embarrassing nonetheless. Meg Tilly's performance is also a very sad let down. Michael Radford's film is a disappointment and maybe his picture would have worked if he just sat down and really worked on a polished screenplay instead of trying to do a Robert Altman improvasational ensemble piece. Maybe Paul Thomas Anderson could have made this a little more enjoyable. NOTE: Although I put down Darryl Hannah's perfomance her documentary "Strip Notes" is more gritty and fascinating then Radford's movie.
Carl W (gb) wrote: [i]Review coming soon.[/i]
Knox M (de) wrote: Considerably more depressing than A Boy Named Charlie Brown, Snoopy Come Home demonstrates human attachment, even when Snoopy is ironically the most human character in the film.
Edith N (fr) wrote: A Little Too Caught Up in Frank Sinatra I have read, though I cannot confirm or deny, that Otto Preminger did not care about the controversial nature of the films he made. What he cared about was the money he made from using the issues. Before I knew who Otto Preminger was, I had seen the episode of [i]M*A*S*H[/i] wherein they spend the entire episode trying to get their hands on a copy, because they heard it was released without a Code seal. Only to discover that it is very dull indeed, and the closest it gets to shocking is the use of the word "virgin," certainly unusual enough in film at the time. This movie, too, was initially released without a seal. Preminger, I believe, claimed that the movie was too important to be kept from the screen by the petty morality of Joe Breen, or however he phrased it. And it is true that what was shown on the screen in those days was lagging behind what the American public was comfortable with. However, I would not characterize this as a shockingly true portrayal of much of anything. Frankie Machine (Frank Sinatra) has just gotten out of a heroin treatment program. The doctor has assured him that, if he goes back to the old neighbourhood and the old ways, the old job, he's just going to go back to the old habits. Including heroin, of course. But of course the truth of things is that he doesn't have a lot of choices. He's got a wife, Zosch (Eleanor Parker), who was paralyzed in a car accident--his fault--and he has to take care of her. Oh, except that she isn't paralyzed. She's just fooled him into believing she is so that he won't be able to leave her. He would want to for the lovely Molly (Kim Novak), who is married to her own drunk. Before Frankie went up the river, he was the best dealer for a gambling ring, the man who could get the cards to do whatever he wanted them to. The guys in the racket don't want to lose that, and they know that the way to keep him is to control his addiction. Honestly, I find Frank Sinatra's career disappointing. I suspect this will shock his fans, but there we are. His voice was okay, though I don't think it was all that good. The problem is more that he was capable of some fine performances and didn't reliably give them. A lot of his movies are based on the idea of hanging around with his friends, having a good time. The Rat Pack. And I have to tell you, Rat Pack movies aren't actually good. On the other hand, there's this, and there's [i]The Manchurian Candidate[/i]. There's [i]From Here to Eternity[/i]. In short, there are movies wherein he puts in good performances. Maybe he wasn't the best actor of his generation--and it's certainly a good thing he wasn't cast as Sky Masterson in [i]Guys and Dolls[/i]--but he could have made better movies than he did. Unlike Elvis, he seems to have chosen to make the bad ones, too. They were fun for him, which is great, and doubtless people went to see them, because they did keep making them. But he could have done better. Of course, this movie has its fanciful aspects, too. I'm sure it seemed gritty for a major studio release of 1955, given its themes, but Hollywood so seldom does a good job at showing the real lives of poor people. Supposedly, Zosch has been all but starving while Frankie is gone, despite his employer's promise to give her money "regular," given that Frankie went to prison over one of his employer's games. However, she is still carefully dressed and has artfully disheveled hair. There's Sparrow (Arnold Stang), the whimsical fellow who's "not smart enough to be running around loose and too goofy to be locked up." But he does okay, and we are to see him as funny, not pitiable. Somehow, he keeps a roof over his head. He doesn't look ill-fed or ill-groomed; no one does. I understand that book and movie are fairly different, but it seems to me that no one involved in the making of this movie really knew what being poor, much less addicted to heroin, is like. I am pleased with this movie from a strictly historical perspective, mind you. The Code needed to go. The purpose of the Code was to make every movie acceptable to everyone, and that's just ridiculous. Having purely family movies is a good thing. Being able to watch a movie with your kids? That's important. But you don't have to watch every movie with your kid any more than you have to read every book with your kid. I think the ratings system needs an overhaul, but the ratings system is also better than the Code's requirement that [i]every[/i] film be tame enough for a four-year-old to watch. Movies like this one were what broke the Code and helped make way for ratings and the idea of adult movies in the sense of "not for kids." I think this also exists in the world of exploitation films, however, though it is a particularly quality example of the genre. Whether Preminger did the movie for socially redeeming reasons or not, the movie did a little to change the world. In this case, every little bit helped.
David B (ca) wrote: Forget the plot. This movie is notable for its spectacular aerial photography of the B-36 Peacemaker and B-47 Stratojet aircraft in the SAC fleet. The refueling of a B-47 from a KC-97 is pure poetry.
Eric H (fr) wrote: Now i'm a fan of chezzy movies. I love toho movie, i like some direct to video stuff. heck i loved Dude where's my car. But when you take a great game like mortal kombat (even though it is mindless violence, buts that's what makes it so cool) and make a hard blown, fatal attempt, crashed before if even took off POS like MKA, well, theres only so much one can stand. I remember going to the theaters when this came out, when i was younger and craved the mindless action and violence of mortal kombat, and loving the first one, only to sit in a dark room for an hour and a half, watching this debacal before me in a sold out crowd (half who were on the train of thought as me as thinking that this SUCKS!) I was ashamed that i paid to see this. This was the first movie i ever thought truly sucked. Even in my younger age, when i would watch anything and like it, i walked out of that theater that day, with just a little less respect for mortal Kombat, and a very disappointed kid. I hope that new line does the right thing and burns and crucifes all remaining copies of this movie. Burn MKA. BURN!!!!!
Jim F (es) wrote: Schmuck turns hip movie. Not too bad. Laughed a few times. I think the movie tries to make a lot of points about shallowness. You know