Mary and Max
A tale of friendship between two unlikely pen pals: Mary, a lonely, eight-year-old girl living in the suburbs of Melbourne, and Max, a forty-four-year old, severely obese man living in New York. In the mid-1970's, a homely, friendless Australian girl of 8 picks a name out of a Manhattan phone book and writes to him; she includes a chocolate bar. He writes back, with chocolate. Thus begins a 20-year correspondence. Will the two ever meet face to face?
In the mid-1970's, a homely, friendless Australian girl of 8 picks a name out of a Manhattan phone book and writes to him; she includes a chocolate bar. She's Mary Dinkle, the only child of an alcoholic mother and a distracted father. He's Max Horowitz, an overweight man with Asperger's, living alone in New York. He writes back, with chocolate. Thus begins a 20-year correspondence, interrupted by a stay in an asylum and a few misunderstandings. Mary falls in love with a neighbor, saves money to have a birthmark removed and deals with loss. Max has a friendship with a neighbor, tries to control his weight, and finally gets the dream job. Will the two ever meet face to face? . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Mary and Max torrent reviews
(kr) wrote: Directed by Belle & Sebastain's, Stuart Murdoch comes an unlikely musical drama. Going into this one, I didn't expect it to be what it was or a musical for that matter, and perhaps this increased my love for the film itself. It not only is the best musical of the year, but possibly the best one this genre has seen since the oscar winning "Once". This is certainly not one to be missed if it ever gets here.
(br) wrote: so so kinda lame made 4 TV (lifetime) movie
(gb) wrote: Really weird, but really well choreographed.
(ag) wrote: More like.....PolterGEIST......because this movie looks scary.
(gb) wrote: There's something about that Pierce Brosnan... Oh! I know... he's a good actor!
(au) wrote: Utterly fascinating and moving. One of the most essential Documentaries in the film industry.
(ca) wrote: I WAS FROZEN TODAY!!!
(de) wrote: It's a wonderful film though it has dated a tad.
(us) wrote: This film is a really messed up blend of realism and black comedy. Of course that's a glowing recommendation right there. Oskar, the central character, a boy who refuses to grow up and seems at odds with himself and refuses to accept the world around him as symbolised by his tin drum reminded me of Alex from A Clockwork Orange. Often grotesque and bizarre but in such a deeply disturbing and powerful way, The Tin Drum is never anything short of visually and artistically captivating. Technically and stylistically, it's an astounding piece of work but thematically it strives for an importance that it only sometimes achieves. At times I felt it had a similar surreal feel to the work of Alejandro Jodorowsky whilst remaining distinctly German and showcasing the rise and fall of the Third Reich.
(br) wrote: Perfect cast! Each one excels..hoffman is just frightening...
(nl) wrote: What a captivating noir this is with very impressive performances especially John Payne as Ernie Driscoll and Evelyn Keyes as Linda James. Recommended viewing for sure.
(nl) wrote: Without a doubt, the WORST DRACULA MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN!!! (Although Gerard Butler in DRACULA 2000 remains the worst Dracula performance ever) I'm tempted to say "Worst Dracula movie EVER!", because although I haven't yet seen every Dracula movie, I can't imagine one worse than this. Poor David Suchet...
(it) wrote: It's a perfect fit for Williams -- a hunk of slapstick, a dose of schmaltz -- and yet he can't save the film, which is overproduced, mechanical and resoundingly unfunny.
(nl) wrote: Joe is a slow story. As it is, the titular character doesn't make an appearance until 27 minutes in which up until then had been slow drama relating to characters abusing drugs and suffering the consequences, with the only mild benefit being Susan Sarandon's nudity in her debut feature film.Also, Joe doesn't pack the same punch it did back in 1968 due to the fact that it came from the time period of the emerging counter-culture movement and acted as a story about a very right-wing and conservative man driven over the edge by his insane obsession with hippies and murderous disdain for them. This is a kind of character rarely chronicled on a film as it is a very anti-equality character with aggression with realistic lower-class language, but he isn't exactly dealt with in the best way as John G. Avildsen fails to dive into the mind of Joe Compton and relies on Peter Boyle's performance to achieve that. He uses a blank film style with simplistic cinematography and atmosphere which leaves Joe lacking any iconic features aside from the presence of its actors, Academy Award nominated screenplay and the fact that its the debut feature of Academy Award winning director John G. Avildsen. Critic Judith Crist referred to Joe as "A movie truly of our times", but times have changed and so the generation has too. Although I was luckily able to embrace Easy Rider, Joe is another case and not one I find constitutes enough to pass as a film rather than an extended monologue from a theatrical drama piece. There's nothing really notable enough to define Joe as a film, and rather risers just a long and angry story without sufficient visual stimulation.Frankly, the battle of age has worn down Joe, and although the film features strong characters, particularly the titular Joe Compton, it itself no longer seems to maintain the same strength and is merely too boring to hold its own for 106 minutes, since about 100 of those are focused on studying characters from the counter-culture time period, particularly people embracing it and people fighting it. Although it has a strong screenplay to tell this story, its weak in being a good visual experience, as it doesn't get entertaining until the final few minutes when the famous climax occurs. But the final scene is merely a brief violent scene which isn't emphasised or explained, and merely shows one of the characters transitioning into a character more like Joe Compton than he was before, to the point where he ends up killing someone close to him. If the last scene had have been extended, took place earlier in the film or have been dramatically emphasised more, then Joe could have been a good film to this day. Alas, that is not the case.The one thing continuing to hold Joe aloft is the acting.Although he doesn't enter until 27 minutes in, Peter Boyle immediately steals the screen by embodying the aggressive, angry, hard working but low class American stereotypical white male flawlessly, and works strongly towards conveying aggression and anger at the changes in society as they damage him, and he keeps a certain level of intensity up in the film with his swift line delivery and domination through physicality. He makes Joe a memorable character.Dennis Patrick also gives a charismatic performance as a human being coping with the shock of his actionsSusan Sarandon also makes a fine debut, portraying a character alternative to much of her later characters due to the sense of innocence staying strong through all the twisted situations and only shattering at the film's climax. Her sweetness and ability at emotional manipulation are put on display in Joe and used well, as well as elements of her sex appeal.So Joe boasts a good cast, decent story and consistent screenplay, but it's excessively slow pacing and lack of story direction make it less effective today than back in 1970.
(nl) wrote: Probably the best since the first one, if not better.
(us) wrote: SUMMARY:a priest who was sent to Brazil to investigate the apearance of the face of the Virgin Mary on the side of a building was sidetracked by a statue of the Virgin Mary crying tears of blood. Meanwhile in the U.S.A. a girl is starting to have the effects of stigmata which is the wounds of Jesus during his crucifixion. The priest gets sent to help her and learns a little more about his faith. REVIEW: This is a very underated movie that makes you think about faith and if you don't maybe you should. It's weird but also very creepy and the performance from Patricia Arquette and Gabriel Byrne was simply fantastic. The concept of it is very interesting as well as the biblical side of it. It was bloody but didn't go too far. The scenes were she is whipped in the back and is being staked through the hands and feet were done and acted out very well. I just thought this was a pretty good supernatural thriller. A very underated movie at best. If you have the opportunity to watch it then take it.
(mx) wrote: So funny.. i love Kevin Hart..
(ru) wrote: Bogged down by over-plotting in its second half, but nonetheless well acted and shockingly relevant in today's political climate.