Let the Good Times Roll
Documentary of a 1950s rock and roll revival show, with split-screen editing to rival Woodstock.
You may also like
Let the Good Times Roll torrent reviews
Mayank A (es) wrote: Nothing much to take from this movie, it's very boring.
Will W (gb) wrote: this is one of the few good christian movies out there im not dissin christian movies, but this is one of the only ones tht have actually opened my eyes to the horror of what is around us im glad that this movie was made
Kristal C (us) wrote: Emotionally gripping from beginning to end, this doc is a true testament to the fact that some criminals are made, not born. Steve James continues to prove that he is one of the great documentary filmmakers of our time.
Chris R (de) wrote: An Exorcist film that relies on gore in order to progress in plot? This sounds strange and it is. The Exorcist was definitely not subtle, but at least it didn't rely on gore. Some horror films just do better without it and this one along with a thing called PLOT could have been much better.
Dr F P (fr) wrote: John Cusack plays his lovable flaw ridden -but charming- self character here we see often and he carries Pushing Tin well but the whole thing is just too long for no good reason. The majority of this is like other movies of the same type but fails on the humor and fun aspects. Also the singing part at the end is so weird. I wouldn't particularly wish to see this again, i found my mind wandering in places but i did enjoy seeing the ins and outs of air traffic control considering i didn't know much about it before.
Dan R (gb) wrote: The story is pretty much a big mess, but it is great to see all these fine actresses do there thing. Cher especially stands out, and it makes me wish she had done more films.
Mara E (it) wrote: Love the story of Dorothy Parker but Jennifer sucked so bad that it was slightly excrutiating every time she opened her mouth.
kyo 9 (jp) wrote: another masterpiece~
Anthony I (ag) wrote: Basic Instinct is campy, schlock-cinema. I was embarrassed throughout the entire film. It's a film set in 1992, written like a cheap knockoff of an Edward G. Robinson 40's film noir, laced with f-bombs. If a throwback was the point, maybe they should've done a much better job. All this film had going for it, and precisely why it was a popular in the 90's was Sharon Stone's sex appeal. She's a beautiful woman, yes. She crossed her legs... OOOOOH HOW SCANDALOUS. Were people really this amused back then?
Phil H (nl) wrote: Is Terry Gilliam riding on the coattails of Monty Python with this film? his cast does include a few Python members in small cameos and the films direction is most definitely bizarre. Not only that but the film looks and sounds like a Python sketch in various places much like 'Jabberwocky' did. Not complaining just pointing it out, love the film title though and those lovely looking opening credits.The first film in Gilliam's off the wall dream-like fantasy film trilogy where the plot basically revolves around escaping reality through imagination...or a dream. In this surreal adventure a young boy is zapped through time with the help of a bunch of dwarfs. This little team go around pinching loot trying to get rich with the aid of a map that shows them time holes to jump through time. On their tail is an evil sorcerer who wants the map for evil purposes and the maps owner the 'Supreme Being' (God?).The film starts off in a very simple manner that is quite enjoyable. Its very similar to the later Bill and Ted franchise as we jump to the Napoleonic Wars and meet Napoleon, then to England meeting up with Robin Hood and then to Greece meeting King Agamemnon. These few segments are good fun showcasing the films main big name cameos such as a rather dull Connery as Agamemnon, a very good Ian Holm as the height obsessed Napoleon and the brilliant Cleese as a rather stiff upper lipped Robin Hood and his cutthroat band of merry men. The Robin Hood sequence is easily the best with Cleese donning a daft over sized green Hood hat and typical cliched Hood attire. He looks utterly ridiculous in his pantomime garb where as in contrast his men are a bunch of dirty filthy violent scum. The other funny angle is the fact Cleese speaks quite normally in his aloof aristocratic manner and his men don't, they are just your standard commoner oiks.Once we are introduced to the villainous 'Evil' (that's his name) who wants the map things kinda nose dive in my opinion. The dwarf team stop time jumping and instead go on the run from Evil but end up in Evil's realm and things just become all too weird. There are some nice moments that are typically Gilliam in visual style and idea, the galleon perched on top of the underwater giants head is a good one. No real clue what the hell was going on there, why the galleon is stuck to this giants head (it appeared to be his hat), why the giant was under the sea and who or what was in that little cottage before the giant crushed it??. Looked like some kind of elephant alien person, quirky little moment but totally off the wall, they just get killed then?.The entire final sequence where the dwarfs and little boy fight against Evil is just a mess really. This sorcerer is obviously pretty invincible yet the dwarfs conjure up all these pointless character from various time periods to fight him. I know its a young persons film but this battle is really quite hokey. Then in the end we meet the Supreme Being who turns out to be (or at least in human form) an elderly man in a suit who can't really act too well, nice concept though.I think the main thing that I disliked in this film was the little boy in the main role. This is an old film sure and the kid actor didn't have to be a great actor I admit but damn he's fudging annoying. His soft weedy whiny voice just grates the whole time and fails to give his character any impact at all, he always begs and pleads like a baby but you can hardly hear him half the time because he's so quiet...and wet. Am I being harsh? maybe, but this kid ruins the film, should of used a girl. The squad of dwarves are the films main hook really...much like 'Willow'. None of them are particularly good actors but they are amusing and they do add to the fantasy charm. Seeing them all dressed up in their nifty warrior-like bandit outfits is kinda cool, clearly Gilliam (or someone) had this idea and knew they had to make a film around it.The film is essentially a kids flick, an imaginative adventure for young boys who like to play war, knights, cowboys etc...In that sense the film does its job and delivers a highly imaginative yarn no doubt. As an adult watching now the film doesn't quite hit the mark for me anymore, I guess the thrill has been left behind with age coupled with the fact the film doesn't really look very good anymore. It has dated quite badly in all honesty and the effects can be a bit dodgy. Like I said the first half set in the few time periods is good but after that it gets a bit rough around the edges. The very end feels too open ended also, definitely needed a more conclusive finish.In the end the film is a fun little ride with some nice visual ideas, but I can't help but feel without those few Python cameos this film wouldn't be half as much fun. You could say its only worth watching for the John Cleese sequence really...but that's just me.
James H (it) wrote: This and Road to Utopia are the two best "Road" films. Lighthearted fun, with hysterically funny inside industry jokes and personal jabs. Great music, funny and even a dash of adventure. Great film.
Julien C (de) wrote: Could have been so much better if it wasn't so slooooooow at times.
Wilhelm H (ca) wrote: Creepy atmosphere in a mediocre but enjoyable horror flick...
Al P (ca) wrote: U havent seen for the Boys?? What is wrong with you man!
Anna H (au) wrote: super scary and had a great plot and story line!