You may also like
Orissa torrent reviews
Don S (de) wrote: Big Sandra Bullock fan. Hugely disappointed Sandra Bullock fan after watching this drivel. What a piece of dung this movie is! All of the dialogue is pretentious, and it is delivered by all of the actors, Bullock included, in a piecemeal, splintered fashion, like they were having trouble getting their tongues around it. They seemed to lose their breath part-way through their lines; it was very distracting and helped produce an effect making you care even less how the idiotic storyline turned out. Not worth anyone's time, not even Sandra Bullock fans.
Ryan L (us) wrote: Bahaha. This was a blast.
Suette L (ca) wrote: A rip off of finding Nemo. It was hard to follow the story, it was very boring. The animation was what seemed very amateur. I wouldn't waste my money on it.
Anthony R (es) wrote: This film had a Dick Tracy type vibe to it.
Jasmine J (au) wrote: This movie is so cool
Jude P (ca) wrote: Spooky, Surreal, strange, melancholic very few to describe the theme but, never loose it's edge.
Chris C (gb) wrote: It is what it is, Mel Gibson perfectly emulated with Japanese twists as well as cultural adaptations for it to fit its audience. It's just a good movie.
Scott C (es) wrote: Val Kilmer was pretty cool in this and the female love interest was memorably cute, but the whole thing felt a bit trashy overall.
jean m (ru) wrote: Add a review (optional)...
Peter A (mx) wrote: I appreciate what looks like painstaking work to produce an historically accurate portrayal of the events leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor. But I think the filmmakers forgot to give audiences some flavor to hold their attention. That's not to say this shouldn't have been more like Pearl Harbor (talk about going too far the other way), I just felt like I was watching one of those old Disney educational reels about driving or meat packing or something. Most of the characters come and go like cardboard cutouts to the extent where two or three actually stood out. I couldn't keep track of the rest. I feel really bad about all that too. A catastrophe such as the Dec. 7 attack shouldn't be regarded as "boring."
Jeffrey P (gb) wrote: In the context of the late '60s, when many cinematic taboos came tumbling down, this was fresh and daring. These days, however, the questioning of romance, love and sex between four twenty/thirtysomethings in '20s London hasn't aged particularly well. Russell shows unusual restraint, though, and the cast - especially Reed and Jackson - are very strong, as always.
Lisa G (kr) wrote: I think this movie is better than Alfred Hitchicock's "The Rope"
Alec B (ag) wrote: It can be hard to remember that at one time Walt Disney's aims for animation were equal parts commercial and artistic success . . . if "Fantasia" (for awhile at least) failed at the first it mostly succeeds at the second. The expository scenes between each animation piece are utterly pointless but they're easy to ignore.
Andy T (nl) wrote: Its interesting promise turned out to be a story that is nothing new or special, but it benefits greatly from the performances of Denzel Washington and Clive Owen, even when the story ultimately wastes the talents of Christopher Plummer and Jodie Foster.
Dan A (fr) wrote: An inspirational tear-jerker, be sure to stay and watch the interviews during the credits at the end.
Deb K (ru) wrote: Not a GREAT movie, but not a bad movie either. Worth a watch at least once. Didn't like the ending.
Christina E (jp) wrote: Not bad! This is what happens when you don't read the instructions. "It's just a game"...until someone gets hurt!