Tenor Paul Potts (James Corden), a shy, bullied shop assistant by day and an amateur opera singer by night, becomes a singing sensation after appearing on the TV show "Britain's Got Talent" in 2007. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
You may also like
One Chance torrent reviews
Val B (fr) wrote: This movie is ok.... the concept is funny, but Jonathan Penner... who ever taht is, is not the best Actor, lets just say. Sandra should have had a bigger part, but this was only her second film or so... so even though they advertise her a lot on the cover and what not, she doesn't have that big of a role.
Trilby T (ca) wrote: Cool doc... Watch it on Netflix
Jamison R (br) wrote: It was fine but unspectacular. The plot lines and characters were fairly stereotypical. It was done well enough but just felt blah
Robert F (mx) wrote: A Mediocre animated movie
Paul F (nl) wrote: The film [i]10 Attitudes[/i] is about a thirtysomething guy who's just broken up with his long-term boyfriend after discovering that he's been cheating on him. His best friend bets him to go on a series of ten dates, and if he doesn't like any of them, he's allowed to move back to Cleveland. During the course of the ten dates, he finds that gay guys in L.A. have about three different attitudes--they're either in a relationship and looking for outside sex anyway, they're obsessed with boy bands, or they're on drugs. Now, with these three attitudes comes the question--[i]why the hell is the movie called 10 Attitudes?[/i] I suppose they were going to call it 10 Dates, but it may have gotten confused with 20 Dates, a straight variation on the same plot that stunk up theaters a few years ago. (You'll be forgiven if you don't remember.) But then come up with something better and catchier, not something that doesn't really establish the plot. Y'know, something like [i]The Ghost of Dragstrip Hollow [/i]or[i] The Singing Forest.[/i] Wait... So I feel it necessary to find some way that the plot ties into the film, and indeed, I found that I had 10 different attitudes myself while watching it. 1. Irritation -- "Man, is this another shot-on-video gay film? It looks like crap. Ah well, maybe they'll be smart and go for that verite feel." 2. Confusion -- "Wait, I thought they were going to pull off the documentary-style thing, what with the interviews and moving cameras and all, but the editing doesn't make any sense and none of the characters on screen seem to be aware of the camera. Is this a faux-umentary or not?" 3. Dismay -- "Man, is the lead character really that guy? I know it's important that so-called 'real' gay men get representation on screen, but this guy's one Barbra Streisand reference away from Corky St. Clair. And he's whiny and unpleasant." 4. Brief happiness -- "The guy playing the husband's trick can't act, but he says his lines so awkwardly it's funny." 5. Snarkiness -- "What is up with these mincing gay stereotypes? First the lead, now one of his friends shows up, making tons of bitchy comments. You know, just because you say it in a snarky voice doesn't make it funny." 6. Familiarity -- "Hey, it's Jm J. Bullock." 7. Amusement -- "My, these bad date sequences are going on really long, but it's kind of fun watching the lead squirm and try to act like he cares about these guys. And, hey, it's David Faustino. And he's actually pretty funny. Go figure." 8. Disbelief -- "He's going to a support group run by a psychic? I know this is L.A., but still... I've pretty much lost any interest in caring about the lead character." 9. Boredom -- "Got it. All men are pigs. Yep, they all lie and cheat. Good. We've been over this. Can we move on now, o bitter queens that decided to make a movie?" 10. Satisfaction -- "Y'know, I kind of figured that the completely gratuitous flashback earlier in the film--the only one, so it stands out like a sore thumb--would come back into play somehow with the bully from the lead's childhood showing up. And I was right. And the movie's over, so I can stop watching now." So there's [i]10 Attitudes[/i] in a nutshell. It's got some funny moments, but it's perfectly obvious that it's the director's first film, as he's got no idea how to put a movie together. There's no consistant tone, the continuity is so awful it's distracting (watch the lead's beard come and go!) and by the mid-point, everything that happens is so obvious you wonder why they bothered. It's not as bad as some gay-themed romantic comedies, but it's just as terribly disjointed as [i]Relax, It's Just Sex[/i], and it doesn't even have that film's dark sense of humor or all-star cast to watch for. Worth a look for fans of bad date movies (like myself) or David Faustino (like, presumably, other people), but otherwise, kinda useless.
Nikolas G (us) wrote: so simple , so human ...this is the art of cinema , true stories of true people
Natalia R (it) wrote: A great depiction of life in a small town. Characters are depicted as innocent, as lacking resources to escape from their 'inevitable' lifestyles. Simple, funny, sensible. Liked it, reccomend it.
Samantha S (fr) wrote: Very, very strange movie - starts out like your typical Brat Pack oomedy and then all hell breaks loose. Nasty.
Geoff J (au) wrote: Almost Road House like in how everything is ridiculous and comes together to make no sense at all. A pretty notable amount of guys running around on fire.
Will D (de) wrote: Blistering and chilling French revolution drama about a charismatic revolutionary trying to save himself and his allies from execution.
Burton (de) wrote: Interesting giallo that makes good use of some of the less definitive technical devices that, in my mind, are mainstays of the genre (certain editing techniques, etc.) Morricone's score is wonderful.
Lars J (ru) wrote: Den milda, passiva och barnsliga tonrskillen Duffer slits mellan den godhjrtade gamla horan Your Gracie och den ldre, psykopatiske sadomachoisten Louis-Jack i en bde grotesk, mardrmslik och lite vimsig film utspelad i ett tomt och deprimerande 70-tals-London. Skit i att det lter som en usel undergroundfilm p min grovhuggna beskrivning fr det hr r verkligen en underbar film som hypnotsierar dig frn frsta minuten. Totalt egen! (en viss flyktig slktskap med filmer som Eraserhead kan man kanske se, men utan Lynchs missar). Sammantaget r Duffer en av de bsta totalt oknda filmerna jag sett, och DVD/BD:n (med Moon Over the Alley av samma gng) frn BFI rets kulturgrning!
Justin B (au) wrote: There are some truly intense scenes of disaster movie carnage and I think the right ingredients are here but Roland Emmerich's typical directorial faults hamper it a great deal; with far too much jarring comic relief and a reach far greater than its grasp.
Nate T (ag) wrote: Not as good as the first (as per usual with sequels) but certainly a notch above most sequels. Much better than the prequel(s) in the series. It stretches credibility at times, but over all still fun. There's a certain amount of camp to it this many years later.
Darren G (us) wrote: Hundreds of years ago when I was a kid, I saw this 1963 epic on TV as a midday movie and found it very exciting and exotic for two main reasons - (a) its premise of Mayans vs. Native Americans, and (b) the one and only Yul Brynner, a man who was born to be a movie star.Hundreds of years later, I've once again seen 'Kings Of The Sun' and it has dated in some regards. At its worst, the dialogue is clunky and stiff; some aspects of the story (especially the love triangle) are very clumsy; it's amusing and a little embarrassing seeing the lead roles played mostly by unconvincing-looking Anglos; and the action scenes are somewhat flat and surprisingly bloodless even for a 1963 epic (especially the big battle at the end).Despite those flaws of age, however, I still very much enjoyed 'Kings Of The Sun'. Visually, it's still very impressive as those old epics are - and even more so nowadays that when you see hundreds of strikingly-costumed people swarming over massive ancient structures, they actually were hundreds of strikingly-costumed people swarming over massive sets rather than CGI. As well, despite its faults and predictability, the story is still engaging and interesting (unlike more recent efforts like the great-looking but unexciting 'Apocalypto').One factor that hasn't aged, though - and in fact has improved with age - is the late great Yul. In 'Kings Of The Sun', he radiates star-power - and despite not being the main role, and also spending about half of his screen-time as a prisoner, he dominates the film. Movies and movie-stars were different back then, and Yul was a good example.'Kings Of The Sun' is not quite in the same league as all-time classics like 'Ben-Hur', but nonetheless it's still good fun.
Mark J (br) wrote: So incredible, can't explain. Great tone, great acting, great story. ughhh just the type of movie to go into my very limited list of favorite movies:):)
Al M (jp) wrote: A delightful little gem of a sci-fi film that follows in the tradition of the 1950s b-movie sci-fi, Robison Crusoe on Mars is precisely what its title purports to be: it is Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe reset on Mars with a chimp sidekick, an extraterrestrial (yet still Native-Americanesque) Friday, and an imperialistic alien race that enslaves other races and uses them for mining purposes. Like Defoe's novel, Robinson Crusoe on Mars is not a fast-paced adventure but instead a slow, methodical, and profoundly human exploration of isolation and the human will to survive no matter what the odds. Indeed, Haskin's film explores a variety of profound philosophical question. How does one preserve one's sense of identiy in the absence of others? How does one communicate without language? Can a true relationship exist between human and animal? Do ethics persist in the absence of civilization?