Meant to Be
A delightful romantic comedy about a guardian angel who falls for the young woman he is protecting.
- Stars:Frederik Ludvig Mansa, Sophus Emil Løkkegaard, Emilie Løvenstein Vegeberg, Simon Maagaard Holm, Josefine Hage Thomsen, Julie Kofoed, Nadia Hartvig Ketner Fussing, Signe Vaupel, Helle Dolleris, Per Linderoth, Helene Egelund, Teis Bayer, Ida Dwinger, Kristian Ibler, Kelly Reilly, Santiago Cabrera, Mía Maestro, Kris Marshall, Julian Rhind-Tutt, Marisé Alvarez, Denise Quiñones, Veraalba Santa, Leonardo Castro, Jessenia Da Silva, Simon Giles, Norman Grant, Cristina M. Lynch, José Luis Oyola, Elmer Tollinchi Ruiz,
You may also like
Meant to Be torrent reviews
Jeremy K (gb) wrote: One of the greatest films of the past decade.
emily h (ca) wrote: It was ok I really want to go swimming where they were!
Caleb C (mx) wrote: Almost gave this one 5 stars mainly based on it's originality, and being something I had never seen before theme wise here. Overall the film as a whole does have some minor flaws in executing it's story, but it does work very well and Jeff Goldblum is oscar worthy here. This is one of those odd films that will mostly go unnoticed by the majority of people that watch movies. I highly recommend it to anyone looking for soemthing entirely different and with a very odd story. Also, the way it's filmed is quite brilliant mostly using black and white for some of the flash backs here, and just the cinematography in general is quite amazing here as well.
Jason S (fr) wrote: its was somewhat funny
Steph S (mx) wrote: Oh man this is such a funny movie. I think steve martin is hilarious and i always enjoy watching him. The storyline was so good, i always always laughing. I allso loved watchin Eugene Levy, he played a really good role as his steve martins partner.
Simon D (es) wrote: Pretty in Pink remade in a hotel. It's a rich/poor romance with very few attempts at comedy.
Jesse O (kr) wrote: Boy, did this movie have a cheap, low-budget TV movie feel to it. Maybe that was the intent, I'm not entirely sure, but the fact of the matter is that the shorts in this film are cheap, low-rent, and not particularly entertaining, and it doesn't really even provide unintentional laughs. I thought the concept was decent enough, I mean it's an anthology film so there's only so much you can do with the concept, but I thought the idea of John Ritter showing a couple three houses with fucked up past was pretty cool, given the limitations. And I thought the ending was pretty good all things considered. But this was a movie that, I think, had its eyes on actually being funny and there's only one scene that I recall where I actually laughed. It was the in the climax, when John Ritter's character is stabbing David Deluise's character while telling him the benefits of living in the neighborhood. Yes, that was the only scene I found funny. And none of the stories are really all that horrific to warrant much of a mention really. I guess the best short would be the fist one, as it's the least goofy one of them all and the one with actually a pretty clever story. The other two are absolutely lame, with far more laughably bad moments than genuinely funny, or terrifying, moments. And I hate to say this because the second short, the one with the evil monkey, features one of my favorite actors in Bryan Cranston. Even he can't make this goofy ass concept work. I don't really think anything in this movie works, at all. The comedy's no good, the horror is even worse, especially in the last segment with the Granny Killer, and the cast, IE: Cranston and Ritter, are wasted in this substandard anthology horror film.
Kevin S (ca) wrote: This is a movie about a basketball fan getting a chance to be the coach. Whoopi Goldberg is funny and some if the other actors were funny too. I found this to be a funny and entertaining movie.
Wes S (us) wrote: Rips off a bit from Aliens, but it still has fun enjoyable moments that any dinosaur movie fan can enjoy. It's cheap and cheesy, with some nice gore and jumpy moments. Dinosaurs weren't too bad but they moved weirdly. Decent ending, but yeah, much too similar to Aliens.
Tyree G (au) wrote: A mind bending and claustrophobic revenge style story that is sadistic yet beautiful.
David B (gb) wrote: A Kevin Costner sports movie never, ever fails. I think this is the closest Costner ever gets to comedy. A Great movie, brilliantly supported by Sarandon & Robbins. It's a must watch.
Josh G (au) wrote: One of my favorite films by Akira Kurosawa. The film starts off somewhat slow but the second half is a thrilling, atmospheric procedural that Kurosawa photographs wonderfully.
Lissa f (de) wrote: Hilarious!!!!! Jerry in one of his funniest roles!
Jake R (br) wrote: Despite the entering the stuffy hangover era of the transition to sound, 1929 was something of another golden year for silent movies. With Hollywood now 100% committed to talkies the world was quickly following suit, but for some film makers letting go so suddenly of this beautiful form of art was too brutal. Thus, so much focused energy and determination was poured into these final features, desperate to thrill the vulgar audiences one more time with the sublime experience of cinema. The late '20s were the peak of silent art, perhaps prophetically. Even in the days before the shift to sound began in 1927 masterpieces such as 'Sunrise' were defining the finesse of the motion picture. All the natural and unfathomable beauty of a passionate fire had been extinguished in favour of a cheap, flickering light bulb. Audiences were more easily seduced by the novelty of seeing and hearing people talk on screen than the more profound artistry of telling a story without words (minus the necessary intertitle or two.) Yet, after almost a century, these silent masterpieces show exactly why audiences could so easily abandon them. It's a unique trait for cinema in the 1920s: you can take on the most lurid, sensationalist, pulpy melodrama that any amateur screenwriter knocked up in five minutes and almost completely ignore it in favour of savouring the visual impact you've created. 'Sunrise', 'Seventh Heaven', 'The Docks of New York', 'The Wind', 'The Crowd', 'Pandora's Box', 'Diary of a Country Girl', all are founded on the kind of mushy sentimentality that would make even Chaplin or Sirk throw up. 'Asphalt' is no different, and because of it, something about it just doesn't feel right. It's like watching a college drama production, or reading Victorian novels, or even listening to the average pop song; it's so over-the-top and high-flown that you can't possible take it seriously. These are the customs of a bygone age, when extreme emotions were seen as daring and romantic because people didn't act like that in real life. Only, they do, and people these days don't want to be treated to something loud purporting to be real, when we all know real life is low-key and subtle, most of the time anyway. As such, 'Asphalt' doesn't nearly capture the heart in its scenes of flailing and floundering, but it does in other places, and this is the secret of why these brilliant silent films still hold their own as towering works of art. Joe May's luxuriant sets indeed impress, if only for the fact that he purposely built an entire city intersection only to show it onscreen for less than 15 minutes. But it's everything else that makes the film so delicious. Gunther Rittau's awe-inspiring cinematography is a masterwork of New Objectivity craftsmanship, glazing everything in a beautiful, soft, angelic light so shiny that even Frohlich's ordinary fingernails sparkle magnificently. German cinema of the late '20s was a bizarre fusion of the emo-angst of Expressionism and the purer, more aesthetic nature of New Objectivity. In 'Asphalt' it's evident in style, the way the sets are mostly geometric and how the actors remain stationary or very composed whenever possible; interestingly, the actor's never seem to bend or twist, remaining upright at all times. It perfectly mirrors the nature of fashion in the 1920s in general: artificial, stylish, made to show off naturally human beauty rather than use people to compliment the clothes. It's very easy to fall in love with, and so is the wonderful cast. Gustav Frohlich as the towering 'Holk' takes centre stage here, and he's a joy to watch after his insufferable histrionics in Lang's 'Metropolis'. Built like a bodybuilder, he looms over all and sundry, yet his floppy humanism exposes his tiger as a frail pussycat. It's a little humiliating, to see such emasculation, but then this wasn't a decade particularly good for championing the virtues and qualities of men. As such, it falls to Betty Amann to provide the film's class to Frohlich's emotion. She is intensely beautiful, almost unbearably so, and provides an interesting contrast to Louise Brooks' similar image the same year. Whereas Brooks was typically American with her playful attitude, world-weariness and dynamite curves, Amann is much more a product of the '20s rather than a trend -setter, far removed of Brooks' sexual vulgarity. Amann's body is sleek and cylindrical, emphasising her facial features, her hair puffy and tousled coyly, her dresses tight but loose in length. This is the epitome of mainstream '20s fashion, different from Brooks' visibly personalised style. Amann is also caked in heavy-lidded make up and an almost melancholy shade of lip-stick; Brooks saves all her beauty for that hungry twinkle in her eyes. Both women, however, are enormously talented actresses, and Amann gives her bored thief a warm sweetness, diluting any of the nastiness her character suggests. When she cries and shivers fearfully in the denouement at the thought of going to jail somehow all this weary melodrama feels very real indeed. It's a testament to May's sensitivity as a director, but also to Amann and Frohlich's capabilities as actors. This powerful ability is cruelly overlooked when re-examining the dreariness of these stories. There was a time when audiences really fell in love with those silent gods and godesses of the silver screen. Today, watch any of these movies with a pinch of salt, but watch them nonetheless, because they're every bit as culturally unique and important as any Next Big Thing that swaggers into the film world. It's a homely comfort knowing the Cinema of Shadows remains as good as any of the best movies throughout history.
Aaron G (ag) wrote: Pocahontas did it better.
Brett H (it) wrote: Quite possibly the best underdog/inspirational film I've ever seen with the determination and heart that Rudy exudes and for once, he's not doing it for a damn girl! Sean Astin is spectacular as the kid who will do ANYTHING and everything to make his dreams come true and his emotional performance really stuck with me. Of course it plays out predictably, but that's the formula, and it really works this time around. I checked the facts and it's like 90% true to the real story, so that's awesome!
Francisco L (us) wrote: With a well fundamented narrative, great script and thrilling scenes, however Taken falls down into action movies's cliches with a very predictable narrative and unoriginal story.
Tara M (nl) wrote: Love, love, love this film and the cast! Amazing!