One: The Movie
ONE: The Movie was created to increase awareness of the connections we all share. To remind us of our similarities and celebrate our differences. To allow the positive energy of ONEness to emerge in a world that too often seems disconnected and broken. The film's concept is simple: Ask the ultimate questions of the life to the great masters and to everyday people. Then let the dialog flow. The result is a movie that has sparked dialog on six continents and in hundreds of venues - from barns to prisons to universities to theaters. ONE riminds us that we are all on a journey to better understand ourselves, our connections with others, and our utlimate meaning and detiny. Form movie site
- Stars:Scott Carter, Mantak Chia, Deepak Chopra, Ram Dass, Riane Eisler, Thich Nhat Hahn, Barbara Marx Hubbard, Sadhguru, Robert Thurman, Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee,
- Director:Ward Powers,
- Writer:Jenna Stone (teleplay and television story)
In a divided post 9-11 world, first-time filmmaker Ward Powers asks life's ultimate questions of world renowned spiritual leaders and ordinary people. ONE: The Movie weaves the diverse ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
One: The Movie torrent reviews
(br) wrote: Horrible acting, horrible story, horrible movie. You don't even see any killing or anything "scary" until the last 15 minutes.
(nl) wrote: You don't need to have much knowledge about the series but still can enjoy it. In fact, the story is a bit scattered but luckily, Yuji Oda still have some charm as a cop who believes in rightous - but he looks very tired in the movie. Uchida Yuki surprises me as she does a good job in a supporting role. Also the 3 seniors in the Police Station - they seasons the movie. But the best actor (no gender discrimination) is Kyoko Koizumi. She portraits the spirit of a cult leader to the deepest. Who else? Eri Fukatsu ... she looks beautiful in the movie, but the story line isn't on her, sorry, no place for her on the stage.
(kr) wrote: This movie is SO boring it's not even funny. There's literally ONE scare in the entire movie and that scare is very cheap. So there's really nothing going for this movie at all. It's not a terrible movie but I don't know, something was just lacking. There's only one remotely interesting thing about this movie is that it's, supposedly, inspired by true events. Other than that, there's nothing interesting about this movie so you won't be missing out on anything if you decide to skip this movie. At least I watched it on free tv, I'd have been mighty pissed off had I paid to see this.
(us) wrote: I think the movie O does a great job representing the play Othello, and keeps almost all of the same aspects of the play in the movie. It does a great job showing the struggle that Odin (Othello) is going through in a way that makes sense to teenagers. A lot of the people that read Othello are high schoolers, so putting the story in a high school setting for the movie really makes it more interesting. I think that the play really amplifies some of the pain that Othello goes through in the play. For example in the movie, Odin does cocaine and goes way to hard in the bedroom with Desi. In the play, the worst Othello does is slap Desdemona, not including killing her which happens in both. These are very different things, but the movie really shows the amount of pain that Odin goes through. I also think this makes the story a lot more realistic. They mention how Odin is from the hood, and had troubles with the law previously before the time of the movie. This makes the killing at the end a lot more plausible of a thing than in the play where Othello is just a nice guy who loves Desdemona so much in the beginning. By the end though, he kills her, which is a big swing just because of jealousy. Knowing that Odin had a rough background made his decision at the end seem a lot more likely. Another issue I had with the play was that Desdemona and Othello are never honest with each other, and it seems like if they were, everything would have been alright. In the movie, Desi begs Odin to ask her straight up if she is cheating, and he does. She repeatedly says she isn't, but he doesn't believe her. Odin believes that she is cheating so much, that it doesn't matter what she says or does. He is already 100% convinced and them talking about it shows that. One thing that I think the play does better than the movie, is develop Emily. In the play, she starts out just trying to help Iago in any way possible, but by the end you see her understand the monster that Iago is and try to stop him. This doesn't happen in the movie I think. She is kind of just an afterthought the entire time. She gives the handkerchief to Iago, but other than that you don't learn that much about her. At the end, she does find Odin after he strangled Desi, but she never becomes the good person that tells everyone Hugo's plans and gets him arrested. I think this is mostly because of the lack of dialogue at the end. She does tell Odin what Hugo has done, and confronts Hugo, but without the great dialogue like in the play, it is nearly impossible for Emily's character to show change. One other interesting change is Hugo dad. Iago's dad isn't in the play, but in the movie, Hugo's dad causes all of Hugo's jealousy. His dad just adds more emphasis and creates a clear reason for Hugo to be jealous, like Iago has in the play in when he is overlooked as lieutenant. This is most obvious at the beginning in the award ceremony, when Hugo's dad says Odin is like a son to him and doesn't mention Hugo, and also when they are eating dinner together in Hugo dad's office and he asks Hugo about Odin because he cares about Odin more than Hugo. I enjoyed both the movie and play, but I liked the movie a little more because I feel like it was more clear and I could relate to it more as a teenager. I would rate the play as a 6 and the movie as a 7 out of ten. The story and situations were very similar, so they get similar grades with the movie having a little bit better score.
(de) wrote: I am a massive fan of Woody Allen, because of Woody Allen's creativity and his hysterical characters however, i am not a fan of Woody Allen when he makes a melodramatic, not funny, romance movie about a love-hexagon starring a whole bunch of actors and giving himself a supporting-supporting role.I love his movies because of him, and ''Hannah and Her Sisters'' (1986) barely had Allen himself in it, and in fact, the only scenes i thorougly enjoyed were the scenes starring Allen. The rest really wasnt that interesting in my opinion, it's just a sappy romance movie about a love-hexagon between 6 people over 2 years, and it is not that funny, nor does it have any interesting characters, except Allen's and Max von Sydow's.All in all, ''Hannah and Her Sisters'' (1986) is a fine film, but i expected more from Allen. Some consider this one of his finest films, i consider it a big disappointment.Sorry
(au) wrote: good movie the description reads like it was written by someone who didnt watch the movie. top movie
(kr) wrote: Director Rene Clair peaked with "Le Million" and "A Nous la Liberte" in 1931, but the previous year's "Under the Roofs of Paris" was a solid step toward those twin glories.Unfortunately, the plot of "Paris" is trivial -- just a dull neighborhood tale of a street singer, his best friend and a crook competing for the same pretty girl. But the music is what's most hard to swallow. Anyone not sentimental for wheezing Parisian accordion will cringe through these moldy tunes. And the singer's money scheme -- leading curbside sing-alongs in the hopes of peddling sheet music -- is also horribly archaic.Really, "Under the Roofs of Paris" is only notable as filmmaking. It's obviously an early talkie and, in every scene, Clair aggressively wrestles with the new technology. The line between experimentation and mere frugality isn't so clear -- many scenes take convenient shortcuts, like when inaudible dialogue in a bar seems drowned out by nearby music. Except the music has been added to silent footage in post-production, only simulating a "live," diegetic soundtrack. Such quirks are common throughout the film. Clair was ambivalent about the arrival of sound, and he steadily tweaks the medium here. Other twists include a morning alarm that is turned off by touching a shoe, a scratched "William Tell Overture" record used as score and an important fight scene that is silent except for irrelevant train noises.The momentum tends to shut down when a rare conversation occurs. And the acoustics aren't right, due to primitive miking and shooting "outdoor" scenes inside a studio. "Under the Roofs of Paris" is one of those films that's revered more because it was ahead of the curve than because it was actually so great.