In Los Angeles, Emily Brown is a kleptomaniac and addicted in pills that misses her father and is having therapy sessions trying to resolve her compulsion. She has a record in the police for shoplifting, and her mother Teresa is a compulsive shopper. The security guard Nick of the Bernstein's department store sees Emily through a camera and becomes fascinated for her. When Nick gets in trouble dealing ecstasy, he presses Emily to help him in a robber of Bernstein.
- Stars:Meredith Bishop, Jsu Garcia, Leigh Taylor-Young, Henry Czerny, Michael Nouri, Michael Irby, Kirk B.R. Woller, Michael E. Rodgers, Mark Chaet, Hannah Castelluccio, Teala Davies, Jeff Garvin, Edward W. Gately, D.J. Harner, Al Israel,
- Director:Thomas Trail,
- Writer:Ethan Gross, Thomas Trail
In Los Angeles, Emily Brown is a kleptomaniac and addicted in pills that misses her father and is having therapy sessions trying to resolve her compulsion. She has a record in the police ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Klepto torrent reviews
(mx) wrote: Tries to capitalize on the success of the first film, it succeeds just enough. A few laughs and that's it.
(ag) wrote: Only saw the last 15 minutes of it, and that's 15 minutes of my life I'm not getting back
(gb) wrote: You would think that a movie where a jazz musician (Mickey Rourke) gets in trouble with a mobster (played by Bill Murray!) and while on the lam he discovers a girl (Megan Fox) with angel wings working in a circus sideshow would be interesting. How could you go wrong with all those interesting elements? Mobsters, circus freaks, angels, Mickey Rourke! Well Passion Play found a way, a triumph of failure. This would-be parable just sleepwalks from scene to scene, rarely making much of its fantastical sci-fi elements. Fox swears she's no angel, just a girl born with bird wings, and people let this be a conversation ender. Rourke's character is a pathetic coward who nets little empathy. Not reverent or weird enough, Passion Play was the passion project of writer/director Mitch Glazer but the movie feels devoid of anything approaching passion. The actors seem bored, the romance between Fox and Rourke is a non-starter, and the lame ending borrows a page from An Occurrence at Owl Creek as a last-ditch attempt to interject some meaning into this unholy mess. The only reason I can foresee (sober) people watching this is for the mistaken belief that they might glance upon some heavenly nudity from Fox. Sorry boys, the gal keeps her purity. The entire production is just so wrong-headed and listless; I can't even work up a good dose of bile to proclaim its utter inanities. This is a terrible, silly, puzzling, dopey movie made even worse by its pseudo-intellectual twist ending. Nate's Grade: D
(mx) wrote: The only proof you need that Andrew Garfield is one of the best actors out there right now. A great movie.
(mx) wrote: The idea of a unmotivated asian-american who loves basketball but has to help his family by winning a ping pong championship is certainly an original idea...but the movie is flat. It's just not very funny and ends up being pretty predictable.
(mx) wrote: This was an extremely disturbing movie and Jessica Alba was excellent in her role as a prostitute. The scene where the sheriff is punching her in the face is so hard to watch and yet believable that I had yell out loud stop hitting her...it was a horrible feeling to watch him hit her..but so relavant to the role. I think the movie is really good A+ a must see movie. 5 star
(au) wrote: Seriously better than the first one! Great fights, nice scenes, realistic story. Did not expect that.
(nl) wrote: The wife and I finally gave this one a look and I was very pleased with it overall, a dark and fun children's story with just enough of Neil Gaiman's trademark weirdness to make certain that I stayed engaged.Well worth a look.
(es) wrote: Assassins was somewhat enjoyable because of the good action and good acting from Sylvester Stallone and Antonio Banderas. However, Julianne Moore was disappointing and the script was terrible. The pacing was also really slow and the roles between Stallone and Banderas would have been better switched around. Still, it's decent to a certain extent, but rather dull as a whole.
(kr) wrote: Hahahahahaha, he knew I'd rate it this.
(nl) wrote: This sounds like gone in 60 seconds. Eleanor?
(au) wrote: Too stage-y by half. The acting is uniformly strong, but the characters themselves don't feel at all like real people.
(mx) wrote: Strange, experimental, and intelligent. Extremely stylized, a little ahead of its time as well as too artistic to have become a blockbuster, but a worthwhile watch.
(de) wrote: one of my personal favorites. Wes Anderson at his best.