You may also like
Lullaby torrent reviews
Chantel B (mx) wrote: i love cillian murphy as a villain (not that he necessarily plays the villain here) but there is something about him, his acting, idk there's something.anyway, interesting movie. definitely different. idk if i could live knowing there is a specific clock/time to the end of my life. that has to be the most stressful thing ever. on top of that, the simple things you want or need, you pay for them with your time, not money, time. one of my biggest pet peeves is having my time wasted. idk how i would survive without killing someone.
Neil H (es) wrote: I really enjoyed this movie..... Came across it by accident, and I am glad I did.
Cody L (au) wrote: Excellent character study of a film, and the three leads do a great job. Especially Emmy Rossum and Zach Gilford.
Hrant B (ru) wrote: Milk is based on a true story about the first openly gay politician to win a political race in the US government. Harvey Milk played by Sean Pean gave a great performance and definitely deserved an Oscar. This was a good movie with a wonderful cast. I would definitely recommend it.
Steve O (it) wrote: i switched this off after around 20mins thinking it was complete twaddle. i was wrong, this film is great! Where 'what just happened' attempted to satirize the ego-circus surrounding movie-making 'dark reel' scores a direct hit and manages to be both humorous & surreal to boot, whilst also maintaining the horror element in true 'scream' tradition bar the fact that the murders are genuinely shocking as they are quite realistic. All the cast are great, in particular, lance henriksen, who gets all the best lines & has a ball. also tiffany shepis has a new number 1 fan, me! finally the director should get a big shout, as josh eisenstadt has deftly crafted a movie that works well on lots of different levels, reminiscent of david lynch in the lighter moments, i shall definately check out his other films on the basis of this. most enjoyable film i have watched in a long time.
John R (us) wrote: Great characters, keeps you guessing.
Konrad A (kr) wrote: A good movie but more creepy every time. I thoughts the ghosts where creepy and what a intense movie! The fighting was good!! I like how Serious black says get a way for my god son and then punched Lucius. I thought that was a funny line. Kids should not see this. But hay what a great movie!!!
Allan P (es) wrote: noh, titsa vaadatav film
Alice S (jp) wrote: Finger-snapping, head-bopping fun! Tom Everett Scott is effortlessly cool with his ugly-sexy mug, and Liv Tyler is luminous and effervescent. Steve Zahn looks suave and uncharacteristically the most grown up of the bunch. The O-nedders. Hyuk.
Steve H (mx) wrote: It's as if this is the first part of the story.....good as far as it goes, but stops in the middle. And no information as to why Trevor acts like that. Maybe he needed a girlfriend lol.
Kumar S (ag) wrote: Watch the film, but make sure you read the book
Cameron J (ru) wrote: 1969 saw an explosion of liberal hippies, what with all that Woodstockin' and what have you, so it's only that real men got quite the collection of nitty gritty westerns, with this one being the grittiest, as it tells you in the title. Seriously though, 1969 was a particularly important year for westerns, because "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" united Paul Newman and Robert Redford, while "The Wild Bunch" broke boundaries with western violence and anti-heroism, and John Wayne finally got his Oscar, you know, for his remarkable diversity on display here. Yeah, Wayne is good in here and all, because, come on, he's John Wayne, pilgrims, but he doesn't have much to do at all, let alone much to do that's different from usual, so maybe the real cowboy who deserved Best Actor was of the midnight persuasion. Yeah, nevermind about "The Wild Bunch" being the cowboy film which tested censorship boundaries in 1969, but it's still a little grittier than this film, which is so commercialized that Glen Campbell shows up, further convoluting the difference between southern country and the old south. Come to think of it, Robert Duvall and Dennis Hopper show up, too, so this film seemed to be great for the early stages of notorious performers' careers, with the exception of Kim Darby. Well, in all fairness, even though Darby is the real lead of this film, I mean, how could you possibly be remembered when you work with John Wayne delivering a mighty and totally distinct, Oscar-winning performance? Sarcasm aside, Wayne is good in this film, and the film itself isn't too shabby, even though, also like Wayne's performance, it tends to slip into formula. I suppose familiarity is among the bigger issues of the film, but by no means the biggest, as the film seems to be making attempts at freshening things up in some places, it's just that it generally falls into trope, upon trope as a traditional, 1960s western, complete, unfortunately, with certain dated aspects. The usual '60s Hollywood stuff that has since failed to fair especially well against the tests of time, whether it be cheesy lines or sentimentality, if not melodramatic, all of which reflect the film's finding difficulty in gaining a great grip on weight, as surely as it finds difficulty in gaining a great grip on scale. A dramatic adventure affair, this film alternates between intimacy and sweep a little unevenly, and while that is hardly a huge issue, it does result in some heavy blows to a sense of urgency that, quite frankly, isn't exactly helped by the pacing of the film. Clocking in at a fair ways over two hours, the film tends to wander around more than it ought to, with near-monotonously overdrawn set-ups, followed by expendable filler during the body so plentiful in quantity that storytelling often devolves into aimlessness, exacerbated by some limp-feeling direction. The film is generally very entertaining, but honestly, there are some cold spells to Henry Hathaway's directorial atmosphere which aren't so much bland, or even all that problematic at all, yet still carry a disconcerting laziness to their feel. There's really not much to complain about here, and what criticisms you can make are rarely that big of an issue, but there are subtle missteps here and there throughout the course of the final product, and when they fall behind a certain sense of self-consciousness to Hathaway's direction, entertainment value, maybe even reward value is threatened. Of course, in the end, the entertainment value is firmly secured on the whole, anchored by generally inspired storytelling, and flavored up by some nice scoring. As you can imagine, if there's barely anything new to this 1960s western's narrative formula, then there's just about nothing new to Elmer Bernstein's score, which still at least takes worthy notes from typical western film formulas, with a subtle sweep that compliments a sense of adventure almost as much as the film's production value. While not especially extensive, this film's art direction does a decent job of capturing the time portrayed in this portrait on post-Civil War south-central America's land, well enough to immerse, but not as much as that aforementioned sense of adventure that is further complimented by the art direction, and anchored by Henry Hathaway's direction. Like I said, there's a certain sense of laziness, or at least a sense of nervousness to Hathaway's directorial storytelling, but he doesn't slip so far that compelling momentum is lost, as he sustains it enough with subtle entertainment value, as well as with subtle dramatic highlights, to endear the patient towards the heart of this adventure drama's story. A potentially fun and tense study on the dynamics of three unique characters on an adventure to claim, if not exact vengeance on a murderer on the run, this story is conceptually dynamic with its structure and tone, and if no one else does justice to such potential, it's Marguerite Roberts, whose script is overdrawn and a little melodramatic, but highlighted by plenty clever dialogue, amusing lighter set pieces, and memorable characterization. Particularly as a coming-of-age drama, this film is thematically worthy, drawing parallels between adult adventure's genuine fun and dangerous realities, all on a path to coming into your own as an independent individual, with a certain intimacy that is done justice by Roberts and, to a lesser extent, Hathaway, but still not as much as it is done justice by some endearing performances. Glen Campbell is charismatic, with some sharp chemistry with his peers, and Kim Darby does a perfectly decent job of capturing both the formal attitude and emotional sensitivity of a young woman who is wise, but not strong beyond her years, while John Wayne steals the show, playing himself, make no mistake, but therefore coming well-versed with a high charisma that is controlled in a way which sells Rooster Cogburn's grimy charm and heroic stance. The film's strengths are subtle, and as the flaws gradually bear down on the drama as it progresses, momentum slips, almost into underwhelmingness, but through it all is a classic adventure opus that entertains and compels enough to reward the patient. When the chase is done, the many conventions of this film include a fair deal of cheesily dated dramatic aspects, while an unevenness in a sense of scope, structural tightness and directorial pace shake momentum almost enough for the final product to collapse as underwhelming, but on the backs of lively scoring, immersive production value, some colorful direction, sharp scripting and charismatic performances by Glen Campbell, Kim Darby and, of course, John Wayne, Henry Hathaway's "True Grit" is secured as a rewardingly fun and often compelling classic western. 3/5 - Good
Dave J (au) wrote: Thursday, August 30, 2012 (1967) Samurai Rebellion (In Japanese with English subtitles) HISTORICAL ACTION PERIOD PIECE Very talky long but self explannable depicting a story that takes place during the middle of the 1700's whereas a top lord let's go one of his mistresses to marry one of the lower ranking samurai's as a result of an argument. Two years later and one son later, the lord then demands her to come back to him but refuses creating many hostility amongst the family as well as it's friends particularly both her husband and her father-in-law played by Toshiro Mifune whose also one of the top samurai of the clan. At the beginning they don't agree but eventually give in to the lady's wants since she very much loves her new life as well as her husband which sets up the only action sequence toward the end. In order for someone to get involved into the movie must be involved with the culture/ traditions of Japan which is very articulate in explaining the situation in verbal style which I became engrossed after half way in. Originally called "Rebellion" with the word "Samurai" being added in as a selling point to non-Japanese viewers giving the assumption that there's going to be alot of fighting will be gravely dissappointed because it's main focus is in history and culture- the action there's hardly any in comparison to other films Mifune films as "Yojimbo" and "The Hidden Fortress". 3 out of 4
David G (us) wrote: Typical 80's movie. Still good though. Doesn't have that feeling of cheap movie anywhere throughout it.
Hugo G (de) wrote: 1.5/5 The first installment of this now franchise, was original and although it didn't delivered as much as it could've, this movie just went downhill starting where the first one ended. The story was kind of laughable, and the "lead's" actions were very questionable and irresponsible. And although it was very grotesque and gruesome, those were the only things I liked about the film. However, the movie just tried to get as many people infected as they could, that was the point of it. This, this movie was very unnecessary and compared with the first one, that one is way superior in every way. That being said, it appears that there will be a next phase to this franchise, and although I'm not excited about, I'm curious to see how it all ends and just how bad or hopefully good it will be. ~September 11, 2015~