N Is a Number: A Portrait of Paul Erdös

N Is a Number: A Portrait of Paul Erdös

N Is a Number: A Portrait of Paul Erdos is a 1993 biographical documentary about the life of mathematician Paul Erdos, directed by George Paul Csicsery.

In an age when genius is a mere commodity, it is useful to look at a person who led a rich life without the traditional trappings of success. A man with no home and no job... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


N Is a Number: A Portrait of Paul Erdös torrent reviews

Jackson C (us) wrote: Ilike this movie so far I am at the beginning

Edward C (fr) wrote: Angry Video Game Nerd: The MovieStarring: James D. Rolf, Jeremy Suarez, Sarah Glendening, Stephen Mendel, Helena Barrett, Time Winters, Nathan Barnatt, Jeremy Shada, and Bear McCrearyDirected By: James D. RolfReviewHe's the angriest gamer you've ever heard, the game sucks so bad he makes up his own words, he's the angriest most pissed off gaming nerd, he's the angry Atari, Amiga CD colliga sixteen odyssey, Sega neo-graphic Nintendo Nerd he's the angry video game nerd!I first watched the nerd on his cinnemassacre monster madness Godzillathon reviews and some of his other monster madness reviews and takes on films. I eventually watched his Godzilla game reviews and that was funny as hell and I watched of this angry video game nerd character and man did I love it especially the Shit pickle and his rage on Top gun it was fun and well I honestly think I should have been there with him when hi was playing Sonic 06.IF you're a fan of the nerd you could have imagined my excitement when James Rolf himself sent me one of his fans a message saying that he had a trailer for a movie of his angry video game nerd. He may not know that I love films like his friend Doug Walker(the Nostalgia Critic) but I immediately watched the trailer and thought it looked awesome and I'm pretty sure you did too. He eventually released a video saying where you could get screenings to this movie but unfortunately none of them were around my area so you could imagine my disappointment. But when I saw the second trailer I saw when it was being released online and I finally rented it.The film revolves around the Nerd and his manger working with a girl named Mandi who works for a video game company making a sequel to one of the worst video games of all time E Tee. He has been requested to review that game for quite some time but there is a rumor that the game is buried under the desert of Area 51 but the Nerd doesn't believe so he travels with his friends to find out the truth and review two of the worst games of all time all in the while being chased by a crazy military general and his lieutenant.This is a film intended for fans if you have never heard of the Nerd or seen any I employ you to there amazing and informative. There are even lots of fun cameos that you'll have to watch a few episodes to understand and you'll have to spot one specific one that I won't give away. The film is low budget but some might say, oh well there are better low budget films that are also made outside of Hollywood that are better then this, this is stupid. But take it for what it is a fun low budget film made for fans and I hope you watch the Nerd and this movie cause it's one of the best films of the year I give the Angry Video Game Nerd Movie a four out of five.

Liam M (fr) wrote: Gulager was on to something with the first Feast, these Feast sequels however, are just making me wish that this all you can eat buffet would just close its door already and call it a day already.

Brandon C (nl) wrote: This was okay. Wasn't great, wasn't horrible. Basically, it was like My Bloody Valentine, but with a bunch of miner zombie kids or something and the girl who played Laurie Strode in Rob Zombie's Halloween remakes. It's worth a watch, I guess, but save your money.

DEE WASH THE KING (de) wrote: A gang of fine black women make this a must see.

Russell G (mx) wrote: The true story of Vince Papale alone is moderately inspiring but not remarkable. In real life, Papale made the Philadelphia Eagles roster for three seasons, which is an amazing accomplishment for man who did not even play college football. Still, he only recorded one reception and recovered one fumble in those three seasons, playing mostly special teams. The story may be impressive, but it is not an underdog hero story that makes for a great big-screen movie. It drags on a little too long, partially because the unremarkable characters, but also because there is not enough career content to work with. This causes the movie to cut off at a very strange point, where Papale plays his first game. It feels like all build up with no payoff. Mark Wahlberg has limited acting abilities, but he is a good fit for this role. Greg Kinnear does a fine job of playing Dick Vermeil, as well.

Adam R (fr) wrote: Harmless and amusing. George Burns and John Denver are cast well together. (First and only viewing - 6/21/2015)

Edith N (jp) wrote: Missing Some Basics of How Things Work It is true that, since it is fictional, Flubber gas can have whatever properties the screenwriters want to give it. This means that the experiments performed on [i]MythBusters[/i] about inflating a football with helium are basically irrelevant, because . . . well, among other things, because it may well be some of the best science in this movie. Indeed, what may well be the greatest flaw in the idea is pointed out by several of the characters several times. While the idea of a football you can kick almost the entire length of a football field is great, your opponents will be using the same ball, and therefore they will have all the same advantages as you. This is the opposite of a game-clincher, and by bringing it in only at the very last second, it actually makes sense. Which is really more than you can say for anything else. As we learned last night, Professor Ned Brainard (still Fred MacMurray) invented a miracle substance called Flubber. At the end of the movie, he takes his miracle invention to Washington to give it over to his government. In this movie, it turns out that this means he doesn't get a dime from it, and he's gotten his wife, Betsy (still Nancy Olson), to quit her job in a No Wife of Mine moment. So they're kind of hurting for cash. Anyway, he discovers that Flubber gas can cause rain, apparently, and in attempting to do that, he breaks half the glass in town. And this angers Alonzo Hawk (still Keenan Wynn), who seems to own both a loan company and an insurance company. And he goes to get Ned arrested, because . . . that seems to be driving the plot somehow. And there is football. The film seems a little uncertain on the workings of the legal system, too, just to throw that in with its vagueness on science. Whether Ned is liable for the broken glass or not is really a pretty basic question. I can't fathom its taking multiple days. Further, his status as a professor or not isn't a matter for a court of law, especially given that he's almost certainly got tenure. In short, I'm not entirely clear on exactly what they're all doing in court, and I really don't know what their show-stopping evidence means in terms of being actually relevant to anything. Really, it just feels as though they needed to pad out the film (it clocks in at one hundred minutes even), and this was the best someone could manage. I can understand the frustration the Brainards must be feeling about not having any money, but I'm really not clear on how they got in trouble with the IRS, either. I've no doubt Ned had higher dreams of income than were fulfilled by the start of the story, though how they became so poor they had to borrow a dime off the IRS agent (Bob Sweeney) to pay the paperboy is a little beyond me. However, was Ned filling out their tax forms in advance? He talks about the high hopes he had about the money Flubber would bring them, but the government doesn't actually tax you on hopes. Nor does it tax you on money people said they'd given you in a year; I know quite a lot of people who would have had a good chunk more money if the world worked like that. So how did they end up owing a fortune in income tax? Oh, it's a cute enough movie. It's not terribly good, and it didn't really have enough ideas to sustain an entire film. Naturally, of course, this meant that they crammed a whole bunch of ideas in together which didn't really fit. I understand the temptation to bring back Alonzo Hawk, and he does make a good villain. And I can certainly see Professor Shelby Ashton (still Elliott Reed) as the type who would hang around and wait for the marriage to fall apart. Betsy says she's right to be the wife of an academic, provided that academic is Ned, but I don't think that's true, meaning Shelby might not have so long of a wait as all that. Biff Hawk (still Tommy Kirk) is a proto-Merlin Jones in this, and I'm fond of those movies. However, I don't think all three of those plots work into a coherent whole.

Millo T (au) wrote: More than about love, this movie is about generational abyss. However, the only good thing is Natalie Wood, with a full of emotion interpretation: the rest of the characters (families, Beatty) are just dominated by the morality of the time. So, everything seems stupid and avoidable.

Austin B (es) wrote: This may be the most underrated movie of all time. It is very suspenseful & we get to see Al Pacino at his finest.

James C (gb) wrote: 78% fresh doesn't do this movie justice. This a great movie filled with all the good stuff... humor, action, blood & guts. The blood pumping soundtrack drives the movie into your head. Would have been even better in 3-D.