New Best Friend
Alicia (Mia Kirshner) is a poor girl starting college. Hadley (Meredith Monroe), Julianne (Rachel True) and Sydney (Dominique Swain) are three well-off girls in a row house. Classes begin and Alicia is paired with Hadley to work on a sociology class project. At first rejected, Alicia is finally accepted into Hadley's clique where she is introduced to a world of privilege and dangerous thrills. But her attempts to become one of them ultimately land her in the hospital.
- Stars:Mia Kirshner, Meredith Monroe, Dominique Swain, Scott Bairstow, Rachel True, Taye Diggs, Glynnis O'Connor, Joanna Canton, Eric Michael Cole, Oliver Hudson, Dean James, J. Michael Hunter, Edmund Kearney, Don Henderson Baker, Shawn Michelle Cosby,
- Director:Zoe Clarke-Williams,
- Writer:Victoria Strouse
A North Carolina sheriff investigates the near-fatal drug overdose of an underachieving college girl, and uncovers many sordid details of her life before and during her descent into drugs and debauchery. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
New Best Friend torrent reviews
(ru) wrote: This film is all about a man named Allan who has lived an extremely full life without being the smartest guy around. We follow him both in the present day, as he escapes his nursing home and goes on an unexpected adventure, and in the past, as he talks about all the things he's done in life. It's very reminiscent of Forrest Gump, except instead of just being present at momentous occasions, Allan is involved in them behind the scenes. The movie is surprisingly hilarious, and I loved watching the adventure unfold. The different events that Allan goes through, almost by accident, are great. I loved the cast of characters that get swept up in Allan's adventures as well (everyone from drug dealers to an elephant get involved.) The humor does get a little dark at times, and expects you to laugh when certain people die, but I thought they did a magnificent job of creating a world where that worked for me. Perhaps the only real failure that I can pinpoint in The 100-Year-Old Man is that the movie feels a bit too long in certain parts. Also the portrayals of some famous historical figures is not very good. I hate to talk negatively about this movie, though. There was so much that I enjoyed, and I had so many genuine laugh-out-loud moments, that I have to recommend it to others. It's not a deep film, it doesn't have a whole lot to say, but it is just plain fun.
(jp) wrote: There were MANY places where it could have been improved, but overall, it's a blast. Stallone's Director's Cut is much better.
(mx) wrote: Quite an entertaining romantic comedy... I can't help but notice that the actress of Caline (Frederique Bel) bears some resemblance to Taylor Swift and the one who played Emilie (Julie Gayet) looks like Kristin-Scott Thomas.
(gb) wrote: so freaking funny, even my 12 yr olds loved it!
(ru) wrote: Very imaginative and fun.
(mx) wrote: Good movie overall as a romantic comedy, but, not hilarious
(mx) wrote: Beautifully filmed but bleak essay on the inevitable and almost irreconcilable clash of cultures in the New World. Set in the colonial Quebec of the 17th century, we follow young Jesuit Bluteau as he treks 1,500 miles inland to bring Christianity to the Huron nation, with disastrous results. The film deals evenly between the practicality and earthiness of the natives versus the passionate and heavenly ideals of the missionary, refusing to paint either as villains or saints, but confused by each other and forever at cross purposes. However, director Beresford is not afraid to depict the true failings of each culture - the paternalistic and condescending attitudes of cultural superiority and religious obstinacy of the invading French and the savagery and superstitions of the Iroquois and Huron. Would have been a better film if we had a better understanding of the origins of Father LaForgue's devotion and how it compels him. Amazing landscapes of the wilderness of the Great Lakes are captured quite well.
(gb) wrote: This is a mildly funny country-house romp, that is perhaps sustained by the fun it pokes at politics and naive dreams. Family death, city-heirs descend with arrogance and disdain for the country life, but are then won over by its charms. Straight forward enough, but 'Milou en Mai' goes further. After being won over by nature, the party are then bitten by nature in the wild, following a forced evacuation. After the May 1968 riots are presented with dreamy naivety, the harsh consequences and inevitable chaos come to the fore. Just as they all seem to fall in to a trance, so too they all seem to 'wake up' and life goes on as it began. But it's all pretty frivolous, in a charming enough way.
(ru) wrote: Deliverance Review and Analysis"Deliverance" is a 1972 film that was directed by John Boorman and written by James Dickey based on his novel. The movie tells the story of four city slickers from Atlanta taking a canoe trip on a river in the backwoods of Georgia before the lush landscape is ruined by a dam project. During the trip they are forced to confront the treacherous nature of the backwoods as well as battle against two violent mountain men in order to escape their increasingly perilous situation. In looking on this film it is hard to believe that it actually came out 44 years ago. The reason is that the cinematography and directing of this movie is gorgeous. The main reason for this is that the movie is directed a lot like a documentary with it containing little music for most of the movie and the way in which John Boorman frames many of his shots and edits. This style of directing makes the movie feel visceral and helped me feel like I was watching something that actually happened. This feeling is further helped with it being shot on location and the four leads rapid river scenes being actually performed. On top of that, every actor in this movie is completely believable in their role. Burt Reynold's macho attitude fits perfectly within the role but the real performance comes from Jon Voight who slowly evolves from a timid city slicker, into someone who slowly embraces the primitive nature in the way that Reynold's character had already done. This is also one of the few movies where I would say that the violence is actually realistic. When Roger Ebert reviewed this film years ago he claimed that the film "was a fantasy of violence rather than a realistic consideration of it" this likely came about by his interpretation that Dickey was trying to "[tell] us something about the nature of man, and particularly civilized man's ability to survive primitive challenges." While that argument could certainly be made, I have a hard time believing that that was the film's primary objective. In the context of the movie I believe it is about the line between the violence of civilization and the violence of nature and how it may be more blurry than it first appears. This is reflective in the violent actions of the film since many of them are committed with the use of primitive tools. The only type of homicidal violence that may have not been committed by the bow and arrow is during the death of Drew who may or may not have been shot. Drew's death is a symbol of the blurred lines between a violence of civilization and the violence of nature since in that case how he died was completely unclear. If it was by the gun the fault would be civilization, if not then it was nature that killed him. Bobby's rape scene furthers the point since he is told by his captors to "squeal like a pig" in order to blur the lines of Bobby being a man and Bobby being a helpless animal. The point is furthered by the rape itself which on the one hand is violence committed by men that can be seen as an hideously intimate action but at the same time is the use of something that is only natural as a weapon. There are further examples of this throughout the movie which I believe continues to help elevate this movie beyond the simple machismo-style fantasy violence that Roger Ebert perceives. Instead, the violence is used to paint a portrait of how civilized violence and natural violence is more blurred than most people think therefore disproving his point that it is not a realistic consideration of it. Overall I would say that "Deliverance" is a movie that I would highly recommend to film buffs like myself. It is a movie that truly came out ahead of its time and it reminds me heavily of what modern movies are like today. The story is fantastic and contains several layers and themes beyond the primary one that I explained. The directing and acting is phenomenal and the scenery is just plain gorgeous. I give this film a 5 out of 5 rating but I wouldn't recommend it to people who get easily queasy.
(nl) wrote: Visually stunning piece.
(de) wrote: This movie had a good idea, and for the most part it kept my interest. The second act is very dull, but underneath the surface, there is a bittersweet sentiment explored here.
(jp) wrote: Just a good funny film will Ferrell always makes you laugh
(au) wrote: I saw this uptown for family movie night. It was pretty funny.
(ag) wrote: I saw this on the late show when I was in high school. I thought, "What a stupid title." But, I sat for it anyway. I was pleasantly surprised. Later, I met a friend who saw it as well. He said the same thing. And RT gave it a 93%? Vindication!