You may also like
Parade torrent reviews
Ashley H (it) wrote: This made-for-TV film about Crazy Horse has good acting and beautiful visual images. However, key details have been left out of the story in its hurry to wrap up a complex issue and time in history. Additionally, though the story fortunately does stay focused on Crazy Horse and his people, the script makes a half-hearted attempt to tell the tale with a native american voice. For example, very little of the music sounds Native American.
Ibraheem M (it) wrote: The movie is about beer pong, OK, then? So? And? Like it's a very lame plot with lame gags and not a single laugh was given that day.
matti j (es) wrote: i've never seen a movie with hunter s. thompson in it but i feel that johnny depp portrayed him perfectly in fear and loathing
Stephen N (au) wrote: A great story about a great runner.
Michelle D (jp) wrote: It's so bad it's good. Or it's so bad that it's not really good, but in fact truly soul-suckingly horrific (dracula pun intended). In any case, I just know with classic lines like "Ahhhgh, I haate traaaveling" and scenes that involve grenades, violins and fireballs, it is at the very least a film worthy of the $5 that someone else spent on it at Walmart.
TonyPolito (fr) wrote: A highly-faithful and fairly interesting retelling of the 1924 Leopold and Loeb murder case, where two well-do-to, highly intelligent, elitist law students decide they are among Nietzsche's Supermen (Ubermenschen). As such, they believe themselves superior enough to be entitled to kill an 'ordinary' young boy -- and genius enough to get away with 'the perfect crime.' B&W.The screenplay derives from a well-researched novel; only the names were changed, a lame (and unsuccessful) attempt to avoid legal entanglements. Mid-Century censorship standards required the film to skirt the duo's homosexual entanglement.The big delivery here is Orson Welles as the duo's defense lawyer (who was in fact Clarence Darrow) in what was dubbed - 70 years before OJ - "The Trial of the Century." However the rest of the major cast members also do their jobs very well. The film's reminiscent of "In Cold Blood" (1967) in that this is not a highly dramatic or gory telling, but rather a subtle yet engaging one, made so mostly by the true-enough oddities of its protagonists. Hitch delivered (well) a more fictionalized presentation of this duo in "Rope" (1948). But here in this film are the real details, where a pair of monied-up, spoiled-rotten bookworms who called their mothers "Mumsy" killed just for the thrill of an intellectual exercise. RECOMMENDATION: Well spent viewing.
Marissa S (ru) wrote: Ida Lupino's first movie and an early feminist film. I enjoyed it a lot, although it's a little schmaltzy and predictable. To make a sympathetic portrayal of unwed mothers with a happy ending for the heroine must have required real bravery during the era.
Kyle V (ca) wrote: A refreshing romantic comedy that's thoughtful and distinct from the generic feel good sensation of the genre, and that's because of it's honest dramatization and narrative, which is ultimately satisfying. It is subtly thoughtful and moving because of how Tom portrays qualities of all people who undergo breakups; stubborn, lazy, and mopey. And how his non-linear narrative arranges his memories of his relationship from worst to best. The choice of using a non-linear style of jumping back and forth between scenes and memories is creative and realistic in this film because it is timely for it's character Tom, though confusing at first. The screenplay is creative and artistic in it's approach in portraying how Tom views his relationship. On a certain scene, he's got a musical sequence to the groove of "You Make My Dreams Come True." And then another scene, a black-and-white-silent-film-type of scene that' emulates a confessional.Whether you're about to watch this for the first time, just finished watching, or hitting the replay button, know that this movie is anchored on Tom, and how he champions his convictions about love and destiny. The screenplay and the non-linear fashion, that everyone talks about, is solely and mutely told from Tom's frame of reference-His expectations that stem from pop culture, how his expectations have been inscribed to his character, and how his expectations fail him. It's ending scene is memorable because the movie presents it's message in an inspired, thoughtful, and abrupt fashion.
Stephen S (fr) wrote: Dreadful. This was a really cool idea, but this film basically has ADHD. It cuts back and forth between characters like someone flipping channels. And after awhile, you just don't give a fuck about Leguizamo and Sorvino, and want to find out if the cops are closing in on the fucking serial killer that the characters are always talking about. The bad guy is an anecdote for people to talk about in the film, a sidenote until he's shown in like two scenes. And by far the worst part of this film is Spike Lee's indescribably bad acting...it might just be the worst acting I've ever seen in a film, which I don't get, because he's been in other films I believe, and he was okay there. But here, he's just so amazingly bad. Do not watch this movie. It sucks.
Bethany R (jp) wrote: I remember seeing this a looong time ago and thinking is was really really weird. I've always wanted to see it again now that i'm older.
Aaron M (it) wrote: Powerful film--sometimes free-spirited, other times brutal.