New Orleans

New Orleans

It's the Lowdown on Wicked Old Basin Street!

New Orleans - with Louis Armstrong, Billie Holiday, Woody Herman . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

New Orleans torrent reviews

Khaled M (kr) wrote: The LunchBox is a satisfying meal. Thoughtful beautiful movie, warm, melancholy drama that enchants us with its three dimensional characters.

Jeffrey M (mx) wrote: Clever, well-acted, and entertainingly executed, Stonehearst Asylum is a nice under-the-radar psychological thriller piece. In it, we find a recent medical school grad taking up a position at a mental institution, turn of the century, only to find things are not as they seem. There are twists, turns, and horror, albeit with some raised eyebrows.That Stonehearst is even remotely compelling is due mostly to its cast, a talented ensemble team. None more exciting to watch, however, than Ben Kingsley, whose embodiment of his character steals the attention in every scene. To be sure, the twists do start to get ahead of the film, and the third act almost falls apart. Yet, the originality in the beginning, and the slow unveil make it standout, along with the strong performances.Interesting.3.5/5 Stars

Jonathan J (it) wrote: Un espece de sous "Le premier jour du reste de ta vie" mais avec une succession de scenes encore decousues, et surtout l'alchimie ne prend pas.On n'a pas l'impression de "cellule familiale" et si dans "Le premier jour..." les scenes representent des etapes cles, des moments forts de la vie, ce n'est aucunement le cas ici. En outre, il n'y a pas de liant entre les scenes, qui de plus ne sont pas droles et ne font ni rire ni sourire dans la plupart des cas.La majorite des scenes un peu sympas sont dans les bandes annonces. Seul Michel Blanc, tres bon dans ce genre de role sauve le film.Manu Payet et Nakache sont a la limite de l'insupportable et Melanie Laurent pas du tout credible en ado attard (C)e. Bref, une "comedie" franchement evitable.

Rob P (gb) wrote: Shocking film, don't watch it.

Bruce B (kr) wrote: An outstanding film, a excellent ghost story, A women whose son is in a coma moves to the country to try and get away from it all only to find she has moved into a home of a young boy ghost who was abused. The people next door play a big part in thie chilling tale. I give it 5 stars

Benno V (us) wrote: Okay movie, little long winded. But the thought behind it is good, how to find happiness in life.

Randy T (de) wrote: It's the mice vs. the fuzzy beaked things in a dispute over a "beautiful" doll. There are wagons pulled by turtles, hallucinogenic berries, flesh eating plants, frogs dressed like monks, and a sundry assortment of other oddities. Christiane Cegavske spent years putting this fanciful but weird stop-motion universe together. Interesting, strange and very imaginative.

Daniel C (kr) wrote: A funny, serious, self-indulgent, ironic and self-pitying film that marks a major reference point in Kitano's career. A carefully constructed film that quizically deals with the idea of image, personality, celebrity, performance and audience participation (insofar as audience reaction stimulating audience reaction). The film continually bounces between the bizzare dichotomy of reality and fantasy, irony and statement, social commentary and plain nonsense ending up in a densely layered film that is sometimes difficult to enjoy but easy to admire. His portrayal of the portrayal of yakuza being portrayed is very funny, toying and questioning the image of the institution in film then playing it out like a stereotype again is very smart. *the tap dance sequence was sensational

David M (it) wrote: Porn's great, but not when it lazily masquerades itself as an arty love film. This is, and is only, a porno (and nothing else). Furthermore, it isn't even a decent porno!

Luke R (ag) wrote: A 2006 version of "21" (2008), even with the poker lessons thrown in for good measure. I like Bana and Barrymore, but for some reason I thought Barrymore was off her game here. Bana was reasonable, but not one of his best - however Robert Duvall was solid. Irrelevant cameos by Debra Messing and Robert Downey Jr. And at around 2 hours, I felt it was 10-15 minutes too long as my mind did start to drift at stages. An average movie. Go all-in if you like poker, but otherwise I'd fold on this one.

tara (br) wrote: completely underrated. being held hostage never looked so fun.

Shakira E (es) wrote: lame and boring 50 secounds really

Giuseppe P (gb) wrote: Una piece teatrale girata in una cupa ambientazione europea che fa da sfondo a una assurda e brillante riflessione sulla vita che per spesso degenera nell'intellettualoide. "Siamo tutti felici, se solo lo sapessimo".

Jackie J (de) wrote: A most underrated masterpiece!!!

JeanFrancois V (fr) wrote: Biblical adaptations always appeal to me as a kind of shortcut to actually reading the Bible. But after watching the film, I usually realise that (1) much of it is either inaccurate or the product of invention and (2) it would have taken me less time to read the relevant bible chapters instead. This is exactly what I discovered after enjoying this biblical romance: the whole story takes about two pages in my RSV Ignatius Holy Bible, which would have taken me about a quarter of an hour to read carefully; and the whole ending is completely made up. At the risk of spoiling the film, the main divergences with the biblical account are a major inversion in the narrative (in 2 Samuel, Nathan tells the story of the lamb before David's son falls ill and dies; here, we jump directly to the end of David's seven-day penance, the son dies, and Nathan tells his story); and the invention of a whole subplot in which the people rise against David, demanding that Bathsheba be lapidated, and David goes to the Tabernacle, does additional penance, and is vindicated by God. In 2 Samuel, David's son dies, and then it is written: "Then David comforted his wife, Bathsheba, and went in to her, and lay with her; and she bore a son, and he called his name Solomon. And the Lord loved him, and sent a message by Nathan the prophet; so he called his name Jedidiah, because of the Lord" (24-25.) This said, the added bits, if purely invented, did not seem to me to betray the Old Testament theology, contrary to many modern films which not only reinvent the facts, but make up completely bogus theologies, either as strawmen, or for shock value, or because the screenwriters want to show how clever and original they can be. So the truth of the story is preserved, if not the facts. What the screenwriter probably tried to do was to reconstruct the psychology of David from the Psalms that are attributed to him (a perilous exercise.) What seemed wrong, however, was David deliberately touching the Ark of the Covenant as a way of testing God. This was an act of desecration, which showed more defiance of God's commandments than trust in his mercy. The Tabernacle itself probably does not conform to the biblical descriptions, which are rather detailed. In particular, I seem to have spotted that the altar to burn incense had four rings, rather than two as described in Exodus 30, 4. But that's nitpicking. The flashback in the last sequence I also found to be a mistake from a dramatic point of view. It might be interesting to edit it out and see whether the film does not work better that way. For a comparison, I suggest the TV movie "David" starring Nathaniel Parker and Sheryl Lee. It covers the whole story of David (with Jonathan Pryce as Saul and Leonard Nimoy as Samuel), and is therefore longer (190') but I seem to remember that it was more faithful to the original. (The Old Testament titles in this series are rather good, while the New Testament ones are generally mediocre, quite unexplainably.)

oliver m (kr) wrote: saw it accidentally! omg - what a waste of time - what a pity! the good thing?I suppose the lead actor won't be seen in a lead again - after giving such a crappy performance!