Man with a Movie Camera
A man travels around a city with a camera slung over his shoulder, documenting urban life with dazzling invention.
- Stars:Mikhail Kaufman,
You may also like
Man with a Movie Camera torrent reviews
Stephanie B (jp) wrote: Amazing movie! We need to get this in every theatre around the nation! I was blessed enough to go when the director was there and to be able to speak to him! Wonderful film that everyone can identify with! A great view of Military vet meets real world problems with PTSD and puts his energy into helping others instead of wallowing in his pain.
Peter J (ca) wrote: This is an interesting film but fairly predictable. It looses its way in the second half of the movie but if you would like to spend a couple of hours on the couch on a rainy Sunday afternoon- it is worth a look!
Ed Fucking H (kr) wrote: If your somebody who thinks that Cannibal Holocaust would have been a better movie, if almost nothing had happened in it, then this one's for you! At only 82 minutes this film feels endless. All characters are worthy of your hate. Script is generic and pales in comparison to Cannibal Holocaust (or any of the other Cannibal greats for that matter). I could go on but I don't care to. There is little good to say about this one. Their hearts seemed to be in the right place but unfortunantly they brought nothing new to the table. Easily passable.
Wade H (mx) wrote: It's understandable the hate this film gets. And how it's hard to follow. But once again I don't find as bad as it's made out to be.
Jill R (br) wrote: American wedding is a fun entertaining movie that has good laughs and a lot of heart.I laughed hard here more than a voluble times and it was thoroughly entertaining.Also the movie is very heartfelt and touching at times.Overall American Wedding is the 2nd best in the franchise far from grey but for sure worth a watch. Grade B
John D (nl) wrote: Chungking Express is the first Kar Wai Wong film I've ever watched. I am very impressed with it. This really defines what Art House films feels like. The film is very natural, like it does happen to us every day. Yet this is not a one sided film and focusing both different parts of the story with different individuals. The characterization is very well constructed. It is all about love and crazy obsessions. Resembles a western tone, with like 3 different songs played from time to time. Acting is very natural and I love it, especially the clever and simple conversations. Well made, kudos to the actors and this really deserve any award as this is one heck of a memorable love story. 4 out of 5 stars.
Mark T (it) wrote: One I enjoyed from my childhood days. Keaton is a workaholic father who loses his job and lets wife (Garr), begin her dream career, resulting in him having to stay home, do all the motherly chores, and bring up the kids. Light-weight, but mildly amusing thanks to Mikey.
Karon S (gb) wrote: See this if only for the dance scene where Gene Kelly is a 'biker'. He is absolutely superb.
Jesse O (de) wrote: Tom Hanks is a fucking national treasure. That's just the way it is, as this is fact, it's not a matter of opinion or up to debate. If you disagree with me, you are DB Cooper, the Zodiac killer and a yellow terrorist communist who works for ISIS. You're, basically, the worst person on earth. Seriously though, I do love me some Tom Hanks. I don't think he really gets enough credit for being a truly tremendous comedic actor. This is probably a result of the fact that, outside of a few films, Hanks has pretty much stuck to more dramatic roles since he made the transition to serious actor in the 90s. He's obviously still done comedies here and there, Sleepless in Seattle, You've Got Mail and The Ladykillers come to mind, but, other than the latter, none of those films really compare to his 80s output, at least in terms of the manic comedic performances he gave in, say, The Money Pit (which was a great performance). But I digress, I don't really remember seeing Big in its entirety. Much like a lot of these classic 80s movies, or many movies for that matter, I remember catching glimpses of it here and there on TV, but I never actually sat down and watched it for good. Not a big fan of watching movies on cable TV, unless it's an HBO-type channel, simply cause of the fact that they're edited down and commercials. And when I watch a movie, I like to watch it as it was intended or, at the very least, since several directors have released their preferred cuts of their films on DVD, as it was when it first came out in theaters. Anyway, I finally got the chance to watch this in one sitting and I don't know what I think of this. It's certainly a good movie, but is it a very good movie? I don't know, I'll come to that determination as I write out this review. If I'm being honest, this is one of those movies that I probably would have enjoyed more closer to when it was released. But this movie was released the first day of 1988 and I was born in February, so there you go. You know what I mean. Part of me feels that this is just another one of those movies that time has played its wicked game on. It's certainly a good movie to watch, even to this day, but I think its impact has sort of lessened the more time has passed. And not to mention the fact that, to this day, the romance between Susan and Josh just feels so fucking odd and, honestly, kinda wrong. I get the whole idea, Susan has no idea that Josh was a 13-year-old boy stuck in a 31-year-old man's body (Hanks' age at the time of this film's release). But it's still so odd seeing it. It's a whole coming-of-age story, that's for damn sure. At the very least, the romance between Josh and Susan, for 80s rom-com standards, feels more believable than, say, the romance between the leads in Mannequin. Susan is fed up with the whole stuffy executive types and Josh, who behaves pretty much like a man-child, who plays around isn't afraid to get silly, is appealing to Susan. At least that part of the movie worked. What I felt didn't work was how Josh got to be big in the first place. He went to this carnival and he couldn't get on the ride because he was too small. Therefore he made a wish, at this Zoltar machine, that he wanted to be big. I realize that he's a kid, but I'd have liked there to have been more of a reason for him to wanna make this wish. I guess you could say that he could also date his crush if he was big, but they don't really make that obvious as one of the reasons why he made this wish. It doesn't really matter, in the long run, all that matters is turning Josh into an adult. This is, obviously, when the movie certainly picks up. Like I said earlier, this is a good movie, I had a really good time watching it. It's obviously not a complex movie, but it wasn't meant to be. Not every film can explore the more dramatic issues at the core of someone who truly goes through something like this. Not that anyone would, of course, but you know what I mean. I've always maintained the fact that films like this, more lighthearted and family friendly flicks, need to exist just as much as the arthouse films do. You gotta maintain a balance. The most memorable scene in the film would, obviously, have to be the piano floor mat scene. It's not the best scene in the movie, for sure, but it's certainly the most memorable one. It's a pretty cool scene regardless. Tom Hanks is great here, what a fucking surprise huh? He's perfect for the role because he's always had an everyman quality about him, but he's certainly not afraid to be goofy. The character in this movie seems more like Tom Hanks than, realistically speaking, any other character he's ever played. Not that he's a literal man-child, but just that he's a person who's not afraid to get outright goofy when he needs to. So, yes, he's great here. Elizabeth Perkins is good as well. The cast is strong all around, even if none of them have any real depth. This a well-written movie, for sure, the characters are likable, but they also do a good enough job at making you care about them. They don't do a great job, mind you, but they do it better than every Transformers film in existence. Having written this review, I honestly don't feel comfortable giving this film 3.5 stars. I can see how people would see this as a really good movie, but I felt it was missing more consistent laughs in order to get to that level. As it stands, this is still a good movie that I would certainly recommend if you've never seen it. It's good, Tom Hanks is great and the story is sweet.
Jussi M (jp) wrote: Vois kyll Cronenberg jd jo elkkeelle.
kameron s (mx) wrote: It is an Alfred Hitchcock film, but for Sean Connery i watched it. his looks (esp. eyes) are like Billy Zane's in it. and he was great at 34 years of age as well.The plot is not great, albeit no problems with engaging the audience. But the performances are good. Very good even. If the expectation is not high recommended.
James O (br) wrote: Its far from brilliant, there's dreadful acting throughout but for light-hearted capers it does a job.
keith r (br) wrote: If you did'nt want him killed , why you leave with me?