After two years hiding out in his Grandfather's retirement residence, Stock Burton is forced back into his small town where he must come to terms with the troubled past that led to his early retirement. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
After two years hiding out in his grandfather's retirement residence, Stock Burton is forced back into his small town where he must come to terms with the troubled past that led to his early retirement.
You may also like
Old Stock torrent reviews
Jackie (kr) wrote: A silent film about ill-fated lovers. Reri and Matahi are in love, but she is chosen by a priest to become the newest addition of the sacred virgins on another island, thereby making her tabu to all men. Great cinematography as well as the impressive lighting which gets progressively darker as the two desperately try to remain close. From what I understand, the islanders were not professionally trained; their acting comes off unnatural, simplistic, but at the same time this is the type of environment they're familiar with, and so it comes as no surprise that their interactions involving the environment are realistically portrayed.
Edith N (us) wrote: Freedom of Information Doesn't Mean All Information Is Given Away Someone in this documentary (I couldn't remember much of anyone's name) observes that one of the real problems with the rising generation is that they've grown up believing that everything is free and always has been. Just because you can go online to any website and read all the news you want without paying anything doesn't mean that the news didn't cost anything to produce. [i]The New York Times[/i] has begun to charge for certain access, and people had a screaming fit, as if the [i]Times[/i] had never before been a business that needed to worry about its income. It's as though all those people thought they were entitled to free access to the [i]Times[/i], because they were readers, and that was all that really mattered, right? But no; what mattered was being able to pay for producing the stories that those people were reading, and if no one pays, they can't do that. However, the newspaper industry is in crisis, even though [i]The New York Times[/i] is still held up as a prime example of good journalism. Newspapers are going bankrupt all the time; I read the other day that the New Orleans [i]Times-Picayune[/i] is now publishing three days a week and known as "the [i]Sometimes-Picayune[/i]." There is also the ongoing problem that journalism, as a human endeavour, is imperfect. Sometimes, reporters manage to fool the editors into publishing stories they shouldn't; sometimes, the paper falls for an official story that is wrong. These are things that happen, and there's not much to be done about it. Or anyway, you can never completely prevent it. While the [i]Times[/i] is still the Old Grey Lady, the Paper of Record, other papers are going bankrupt, and some of the methods attempted to prevent those bankruptcies just make things worse. As this documentary was made, the Tribune company went out of business, and the [i]Times[/i] discovered the wrongdoing in their offices. To be honest, I don't read a regular newspaper. [i]The Olympian[/i] isn't a very good paper, and anyway they flatly told someone I knew in college that they wouldn't hire him because he'd worked on the Evergreen school paper. Another person I knew was officially given an interview, but on the day she went in for it, they basically pretended not to know what she was talking about. The [i]Tacoma News-Tribune[/i] isn't great, and a lot of the stories appear to be exact copies of [i]Olympian[/i] stories, and the Seattle paper doesn't discuss Olympia much, even when important things are happening in state government. So that's a thing, I think; one of the problems is that everyone wants something different out of their newspaper, and it's impossible to please all of them. At least the [i]Times[/i] has the advantage of, well, being in New York--one of the biggest cities in the world, where you can assume that a sustaining population all wants the same thing. The problem this documentary had was that it didn't know what it wanted to present. Is this a story about inside the [i]Times[/i], really? Or is it about what's shaping news today? Is it about the decline of print journalism? Is it about the conflict between print and internet? I'm not sure. There's some valuable information here (including the great quote, "The last time a President made news in Buffalo, he was shot"), and certainly all of those subjects are worth discussing, but there isn't room here for all of them. The film would have to be considerably longer, and its lack of focus makes it drag as it is. There's even a bit of an attempt to do a "grand old man" with one of the reporters (David Carr, I believe), though he's surly and foul-mouthed, so it only works so well. Some of the segments are much more interesting and valuable than others, especially those that ask an audience to reflect on itself, but overall, there were better ways to handle the material. I do not believe that books will go away. I do not even believe that cable television will go away. I am less certain about the more ephemeral print media of newspapers and magazines. [i]Newsweek[/i] no longer prints a magazine, depriving me of my favourite waiting room reading. The [i]Times[/i] has instituted a partial paywall, which infuriated a lot of people who assumed that they would always be getting [i]Times[/i]-level reportage for free. (I guess the way I'd always assumed there would be [i]Newsweek[/i] in those waiting rooms?) The one thing to take away from this is that high-quality journalism isn't free. You may be getting the product for free, but someone has to pay for it somewhere. No one wants ads, and no one wants paywalls, and in a world like that, what place is there for [i]The New York Times[/i]? (Personally, I only installed ad-blocking software on my computer since three sites I regularly visited had unblockable pop-ups!) What place is there for any of this? Or will we find a new one?
Jeff S (it) wrote: I don't understand all the flack this film gets. A lot funnier than most of the comedies that come out nowadays
Jeff W (ag) wrote: Borderline unwatchable.
MicBeth M (us) wrote: Could have been better
Ratan R (kr) wrote: It's about a society on its way down. And as it falls,it keeps telling itself: "So far so good... So far so good... So far so good." It's not how you fall that matters. It's how you land.
Riley H (au) wrote: Interesting, but I was driven crazy by the accents
Josh C (es) wrote: Fucking great movie. I think many people don't like it simply for the fact that they bought into Troma's very false packaging. But the movie itself is awesome, especially for a movie with practically no budget. Creepy, gory, and just generally fun as hell.
HeyZeus D (jp) wrote: Good movie for a lazy day. Steve Carrel and company great in it.
Chris C (br) wrote: was never interested...was never gonna be interested