Stunning macro 3D filmmaking takes viewers on an unforgettable journey from lake bottom battles for territory to lovelorn toads searching for a mate to lizards prowling the forest for a meal. We humans are but lumbering, clumsy giants striding through these miniature ecosystems that thrive without us... even in spite of us.
- Category:Comedy, Documentary
- Stars:Carsten Byhring, Zienia Merton, Tor Stokke, Lars Andreas Larssen, Bernhard Ramstad, Veslemøy Haslund, Frode Rasmussen, Ivar Nørve, Ola Solum, Bjørn Floberg, Kaare Kroppan, Lillian Lydersen, Svein Hovde, Bjarne Andersen, Bente Børsum, Siena Watchulonis,
- Director:Michael Watchulonis,
- Writer:Michael Watchulonis
Venture into tiny kingdoms ruled by thieves, assassins, and gentle souls alike. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
MicroPlanet 3D torrent reviews
(gb) wrote: A very good film, it's nice to see Selleck in action even if it isn't a Magnum P.I. film.
(kr) wrote: mmymy daughter loved it.
(de) wrote: This is not a comedy. Its a movie about a guy who has terminal cancer and rethinks his life because of it. Its actually fairly good. Its about friendships made and how you have to hold on to them.
(ru) wrote: Lame film that seems to think by having Vinny Jones, London and some gangsters will make it a good film - not in this case it doesn't.
(kr) wrote: Julianna Moore carries this film gorgeously, but with a lack of intent throughout the entire plot of the film, the viewer is lazily dragged through a mix between a solid drama and impending thriller. Shifting main characters makes the film uneven, as Eddie Redmayne eventually takes on the role, selling it as best he can, yet the film still comes off flaccid and unfocused.
(ag) wrote: FUNNY movie De Niro is great ok the whole cast did a great job
(fr) wrote: Very interesting drama, great performance by Shirley MacLaine. TCM has a very interesting "behind the scenes" special on this movie. Good story, well directed. Good cinematography. The high production values are a plus. Martha Hyer and Arthur Kennedy give fine support.
(ru) wrote: Ginger deserved the Oscar for this great drama!
(au) wrote: Being one of Charlie Chaplin's most definitive feature length films, The Gold Rush sounded like another slapstick comedy classic.Being one of Charlie Chaplin's earliest features, The Gold Rush lacks the political edge of his later works. You have to consider the fact that the film is 90 years old and standards for filmmaking have changed in the many decades since, but at the same time it doesn't mean that one is unjust to critique the film by contemporary standards. While Charlie Chaplin's innovative comic spirit was transcendent back in his heyday, The Gold Rush's story flaws are more obvious now.Clearly a film with budget constraints, The Gold Rush attempts to make the most of its limited set of locations so that it may find humour in them without spending too much money. Although Charlie Chaplin is able to find clever use for them from a slapstick perspective, in terms of genuine story development there is just a sense that each scene in the film is extended for a bit too long. Though the comedy comes at the viewer with Charlie Chaplin's fast physical efforts, there is a sense that The Gold Rush is slower than it should be so that the film is able to stretch them to feature length. That length ends up being a mere 69 minutes so it is not too long, but it is still a slow experience. After an extensive slapstick intro sequence which goes on for about 20 minutes within the confines of a single area, The Gold Rush changes into being a romantic comedy which decreases the slapstick edge of the film. About a third of the movie is complete by this pont and suddenly the formula has changed, interfering with the superior nature of the slapstick setup. From there, the actual concept of the titular gold rush itself largely begins to play second fiddle to a generic love story which exists primarily for the sake of dramatic value more than anything.The fact is that the narrtative is an overly simplistic tale which exists primarily to provide a front for Charlie Chaplin to deliver more vaudevillian gags, but when he doesn't deliver on them there is a tendency for the film to drag on. Only so much of a romantic comedy can be told in a silent film and even then narration had to be added as a means of helping to move the narrative along, but the quality in it is not yet at the accomplished point that Charlie Chaplin put into City Lights. It's clear that the man is still sorting out the best kind of narrative for him to work with and that for the time being he should stick to delivering slapstick because he keeps the experience lively with his engaging physical humour because it is those moments that light up the screen in The Gold Rush.If you look closely at the film, you can tell that it has enough merits to succeed as a silent movie because the storytelling all goes on through the physical acting of the characters and Charlie Chaplin's ability to tell a story through imagery more than anything. But as The Gold Rush exists as a re-released film with added narration and music, this doesn't necessarily matter anymore. The musical score in The Gold Rush is just marvellous because it perfectly encapsulates everything into the atmosphere so that the more touching sentiments in the film are emphasized through the added element of a dramatic music score while the slapstick gags benefit from a more fast-paced and energetic sense of spirit. In the comedy scenes particularly, the musical score helps to build atmosphere in such a manner that it makes things progress at faster rate and therefore comes off as being more entertaining. In essence, even though a lot of the film drags on, the use of scenery and production design in The Gold Rush does effectively ensure that the story comes off as being believable while the musical score is able to establish a sense of mood to help it all flow naturally. Charlie Chaplin's film is stylish, and it manages to get around its low budget with a natural sense of humour that brings out all kinds of humour in the limited collection of situations that unfold as the narrative progresses.But as expected, Charlie Chaplin's central performance is what anchors everything in The Gold Rush. Bringing his iconic tramp character to the film, Charlie Chaplin puts himself through a collection of hijinks where he has to battle to survive the harsh winter. Some of Charlie Chaplin's most iconic gags are in The Gold Rush, including the notable dinner roll dance number and an attempt to balance a house on the edge of a cliff. His dedication to being able to find the most ridiculous gags in such simple situations remains refreshing to this day. As always, his physical involvement in all the humour is something to be very much proud of because he keeps constant life flowing through every inch of the character which comes to life so consistently. The man's natural charm plays second fiddle to his hilarious ability for physical humour, engaging with the universe around him with the most over the top flailing physical movements possible. And while he is doing all this, he stays in character on an emotional level through the projection in his facial expressions which range between gleeful one moment and in shock the next. Either way, Charlie Chaplin manages to perfectly capture the essence of his character on many levels and puts the finest level of dedication into making audiences laugh, therefore directing himself to a tenaciously passionate performance which delivers on its generic contract.So The Gold Rush admittedly stretches its gags to feature length with a slow pace and the addition of generic romance, but with Charlie Chaplin's determined physical engagement as a legendary vaudevillian comedian there is plenty of slapstick humour to justify 69 minutes of it all.
(ru) wrote: A sci-fi classic made in the 1950s, a robot is monitored to see people and protects them from invisible creatures, based on Shakespeare's The Tempest and starring Leslie Nielsen, Anne Francis and Walter Pidgeon.
(it) wrote: It's a good movie, although a rather forgettable one. The movie is disjointed and episodic in nature and the whole thing comes through feeling like three sitcom episodes stitched together. The film is also fairly sexist when viewed by modern standards, which is troubling. Overall though the film just fails to feel like a whole. It's worth watching if if you find it on TV (once) but it's probably not worth paying money to see.
(gb) wrote: Scarlett Johansson badly portrays a geeky reporter. However Hugh Jackman gives a wonderfully charming performance as well as an interestingly funny performance by Woody Allen. A laughable mystery element and the lead not putting her all into it gives a bellow average Allen film. But for him that's just middle of the road. It's worth watching but don't be surprised if you don't enjoy it.