Mutts to You
The stooges, professional dog washers, find a baby on a doorstep and, thinking it to be abandoned, take it home. When they read in the paper the baby is believed to have been kidnapped, they disguise Curly as a the baby's mother and try to sneak past the local cop. They are caught, but when the baby's parents show up and realize what happened, the result is a happy ending.
The stooges, professional dog washers, find a baby on a doorstep and, thinking it to be abandoned, take it home. When they read in the paper the baby is believed to have been kidnapped, ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Mutts to You torrent reviews
(ru) wrote: I saw this documentary at the Port Townsend film festival this year and was totally blown away! See it. See it! SEE IT!Imagine 1000 blank journals going out into the world and the people who receive them and write and draw in them and pass them on to someone else. Imagine the person who originally sent them out getting them back, all filled with peoples' words and dreams and thoughts and drawings. Awesome.
(gb) wrote: Absolutely dreadful, cheap grade Z horror film, laughably bad. The score is particularly horrendous, the acting is awful by the entire cast, many speak totally monotone with no voice inflection. I think the scene where the rednecks are talking about "married apes" was the real low point. No, maybe the toe counting sequence was the low point, so many bad scenes to choose from!!! Ed Wood, you have competition with director Carlos Scott!
(kr) wrote: Globalization and free trade is a tragic joke that ruins local economies. See: Haiti and Jamaica for examples.
(jp) wrote: Stallone plays great in this one and many other great actors makes this movie to the top.
(au) wrote: A fun watch but not as good as its sequel. Writing was good but some parts were a little over the top, a little forced. Linklater evolved as a director in the 9 years to Sunset, and I missed that maturity in the original classic. I missed the long takes, the simplicity, the subtlety. There was a great moment in the listening booth at the music store, and of course, great dialogues and chemistry, but it felt like everything had been written in and nothing left for the audience to explore. Aren't films supposed to do that though? To give you something to think about? Self-reflect? Or I don't know, maybe I'm just not that cheesy.
(br) wrote: a good agatha christie adaptation let down by the jazzy music.
(nl) wrote: It's hard to come to any conclusive feelings about this early directiorial effort from Jack Nicholson, but the whole movie feels like an intentional mess. Examining the perceived identities of an indifferent all-star college basketball player and his politically radical roommate, Nicholson's efforts to look at opposite sides of the counter-culture fall flat.
(kr) wrote: A young, facial-hairless Sam Elliott stars as ecology guy who meets spoiled rich kids Adam Roarke and Joan Van Ark when their power boat overturns his canoe. They insist he accompany them to their private island where family patriarch Ray Milland is putting on a birthday celebration. Due to completely unspecified ecological reasons, lizards, spiders and, yes, frogs are getting ready to hit back against the humans. This film has a ridiculously deceptive ad campaign. First of all, there are no giant, man-eating frogs. Second, nobody is actually attacked by frogs at all. Most of the deaths are due to lizards, or in one case, spiders. At least I assume so, because all of the "attacks" are footage of lizards sitting and doing nothing interspersed with shots of people pretending to be attacked. (One group of enterprising lizards manage to kill Roarke with poison gas ... no, I'm not kidding) This is a truly idiotic film, but you know what ... I kind of loved it.
(nl) wrote: Funny People: the movie that still hasn't ended
(fr) wrote: reese witherspoon...beautiful
(br) wrote: I thought it was free you guys lied to me
(ru) wrote: Somber, but not tiring. A sometimes despairing and other times forward-pressing film with enough just enough tenderness to pull you through.
(kr) wrote: Just a day ago Pope Francis condemned torture as being the lowest savagery committed by men upon other men. He went on stating that for any Christian accepting this practice, there will be consequences. Well, I am not religious, nor am I a moralist at large, nor do I believe in all "faith"-related mumbo-jumbo, but I still wonder, after having watched this particular movie, how many of such men (torturers) still go to church being convinced to be acting in the name of whatever justice and god they invent for themselves. This is a very good movie. A thought-provoking movie. The eternal conflict. Good vs. Evil. But who is Good and who is Evil? And who can really say what Evil really is? Granted, the subject matter is about a Man gone totally mad in planting three nuclear devices. But the movie also provokes us into thinking of why this individual is driven to such an extreme act? Why indeed... So many people think they are upholding the law and that they are righteous, but what really makes them so? The problem in our society is that no one stops for a moment to think, why there is so much Evil in our world. Is it just because it exists? Or does one have to go a bit deeper and think about all the injustices we have committed unto others, as to drive them to such utter and indeed, crazy desperation. Returning for a short moment to a pure religious thought (a theme I seldom use and despise), but wasn't it written, at least in the gospels, that Jesus asked: "Those of you who are without sin shall cast the first stone"? And what happened next? Nothing, people dropped the stones meant for Mary Magdala and went their own peaceful ways. In a civilized, and dare I say, modern society, torture is simply unacceptable. Do we really want to slip back into the Middle Ages? Why not reintroduce the Holy Inquisition, while we are at it? Let's go burn whomever we want then, and hang and drown and maim everyone we really don't like... Yes, but have you ever thought, just for one moment, that this someone could be YOU? This is why I gave this rating. The half-star detracted, is for the actual dialogue that is a bit to cliche for my understanding, but then again, people who practice such savagery are not truly intellectuals, are they?
(es) wrote: The famed Gus Van Sant has an unfortunate strike-out on his hands with THE SEA OF TREES. In concept, the movie seems incredibly timely and rife with productive potential: THE SEA OF TREES is about a man coping with the grief of losing his partner and his journey to the notorious "suicide forest" (or "sea of trees") at the base of Mount Fuji. Stars Matthew McConaughey, Naomi Watts, and Ken Watanabe do their due diligence in studying their characters and attempting to bring authenticity to the personaes. Sadly, the actors often have little to do besides emote through a generally sad, but uninspired script. By uninspired, I mean that the script's author offers little insight regarding grief or melancholy - the movie feeds the audience a jumble of scenes highlighting the pain felt by its primary characters, but does not exactly resolve the major dialectics in any useful way. If there appeared to be some greater message in Van Sant and team's silence (e.g., some pain doesn't go away, some people find comfort in unconventional things) the that would be one thing, but the falling action and denoument is squandered on more mere emoting without heuristic value. Meanwhile, Kasper Tuxen's cinematography delivers beautiful shots of nature to lull the audience - a lulling which can be very enjoyable and is clearly the outstanding achievement of the picture. Van Sant's direction is also adequate, but, ultimately unfulfilling: a movie can have lots of beautiful pictures, great acting talent, and adequate pacing, but still be for naught without care to bring meaning to the pictures, insightful lines to the actors, and excitement to the pace. The emptiness of THE SEA OF TREES is the most haunting aspect of the picture.