The film focuses on the trials and tribulations of Alexander Portnoy, a Jewish man employed as the assistant commissioner of human opportunity for New York City. During a session with his psychoanalyst, he explores his childhood, his relationship with his overbearing mother, his sexual fantasies and desires, his problems with women, and his obsession with his own religion. Via flashbacks, we learn about his affairs with Bubbles Girardi, the daughter of a local hoodlum; Israeli Naomi; and shiksa Mary Jane Reid, whose nickname "Monkey" reflects her remarkable agility at achieving a variety of sexual positions. Mary Jane seemingly is the girl of Portnoy's dreams, but as their relationship deepens and she begins to pressure him into giving her a ring, he shrinks from making a permanent commitment to her. Wikipedia
The film focuses on the trials and tribulations of Alexander Portnoy, a Jewish man employed as the assistant commissioner of human opportunity for New York City. During a session with his psychoanalyst, he explores his childhood, his relationship with his overbearing mother, his sexual fantasies and desires, his problems with women, and his obsession with his own religion. Via flashbacks, we learn about his affairs with Bubbles Girardi, the daughter of a local hoodlum; Israeli Naomi; and shiksa Mary Jane Reid, whose nickname "Monkey" reflects her remarkable agility at achieving a variety of sexual positions. Mary Jane seemingly is the girl of Portnoy's dreams, but as their relationship deepens and she begins to pressure him into giving her a ring, he shrinks from making a permanent commitment to her. Wikipedia . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Priti P (ca) wrote: As evident by its name, the movie is a sequel to 'Once Upon A Time In Mumbaai' that was released in 2010.The prequel established the onset of the great upcoming underworld don Shoaib Khan's (Emraan Hashmi) reign by making him the undisputed leader once he assassinated his mentor and senior Sultan Mirza (Ajay Devgn). It was made pretty clear then and there that unlike his mentor, the new don was in no mood to follow any code of principle or sharing. The sequel starts with Shoaib (Akshay Kumar) being shown as the ruthless, mirthless, powerful don, who is well settled in the middle east and controls his Indian and other overseas operations with his loyal aid Javed (Sarfaraz Khan). Also, he unabashedly indulges in womanizing activities.Honestly speaking, while watching such Dawood influenced movies (Company, D-Day, Shootout At Wadala, OUATIM, OUATIMD), you don't find any exclusive difference amongst them. In one or the other manner, they end up showing you the making and toughening of the anti social, his power and action, his softer side with a particular love interest, some hard core cop action and last but not the least, the culture, lingo and lifestyle of the 80's and early 90's.What has actually stood out in this movie is the presence of Akshay Kumar. Actually, there are two heroes in the film - Akshay and his Dialogues. He mouths them unabashedly throughout the movie and almost all of them throw the required punch. He has also very well adopted the lean, mean and suave physicality and attitude of a great don. In fact you can say, it's very Italian. Also, he has very well played the role of an emotionless womanizer and a love torn angry young man. It is a fresh change to see him do method acting. Otherwise, normally you associate him with punjabi fashion wear and loud movies with long legged lasses. Sonakhshi's character demanded someone who is beautiful, innocent, conscious and also forthcoming and robust. Needless to say, that she has suited the role very well. Also, she has looked beautiful and acted well. Imraan has this natural look and body language of someone who is very simple and honest. So, in spite of his cool presence, you do think that an Emraan Hashmi or a Ranveer Singh would have fitted the bill better. Mahesh Manjrekar has derived his own style of acting and his performance can be well speculated in advance. Sonali Bendre is a revelation in her very small but intense role. Sophie Choudry has managed to look glamorous without looking voluptuous or over the top. Sarfaraz Khan and Pitobash Tripathy have also acted well.
Mahamuda R (ag) wrote: Worst possible movie ever. the protagonist is awbful.
craig d (gb) wrote: It had all the elements of a great timeless foreign film. Long beautiful shots, character developing suspense and a unique location. But, the film crumbles as the characters actions don't make sense and are unbelievable. Sadly, the characters unbelievable actions are what the film stands on, therefore it kind of flops. Meh.
Spencer S (it) wrote: If you have previously read the book "Live From New York: An Uncensored History of Saturday Night Live" you are not going to get anything new out of watching this film. A lot of what is in that book is much more fascinating and insightful than what student filmmaker James Franco has to show us. More than that, this is a very amateur film that shows us the process, but not what makes it fun for the writers and performers on the show. Actually, there's this bittersweet quality to the entire film that stresses how difficult the show is to put together, and what it takes to work at SNL, rather than the zaniness of comedic creativity. More often than not we watch the mechanics of a joke, rather than its execution, and the behind the scenes quality of the film makes it seem very voyeuristic, in a bad way. That and James Franco pandering to the camera, letting himself be interviewed alongside show creator and executive producer Lorne Michaels was a little too self-aggrandizing for my taste. While this may be a treat for those unaware of the mechanics of the show, it probably isn't the roller coaster of fun many are expecting.
Adam F (ru) wrote: "Horton Hears a Who" is a fun short feature for children, who will be entertained by the whimsical rhymes and the story. It has a nice message, making it easy to recommend to a younger crowd, but adults will be thankful that it is just under a half hour. Unlike "'The Grinch who Stole Christmas" the narration is not very memorable and the songs are not as good. The animation's low budget often shows so you'll have to forgive it's clunky appearance throughout. It's a fun watch, but it's not a classic. (Dvd, May 2012)
Harry W (es) wrote: Although I didn't trust Paycheck to be a well acted film since it had Ben Affleck in the lead, with John Woo directing it I hoped for some good action.Paycheck has an interesting concept behind it which I expected as it was based on a Phillip K. Dick tale which touched upon memory erasing, much like the awesome science fiction classic Total Recall which he also wrote, as well as the concept of predicting the future which he wrote about in Minority Report. So that, combined with John Woo's style of direction sounded like an innovative mix of science fiction and action handling.Unfortunately, John Woo overwhelms the film with his direction because although making the film usually stylish, he eliminates most of what makes Paycheck an interesting story. It is very confusing since it lacks much of a sufficient explanation of the background that it's plot dynamics source from, and John Woo's attempt to turn that into a series of action sequences rushes past intelligent storytelling. I really did not understand half of what was happening in Paycheck, why it was happening or what had caused it to be happening. Paycheck didn't have the depth or intelligence of a Phillip K. Dick story, it just had the potential. Paycheck had a lot of potential, but it only used enough to ask a lot of questions without harnessing enough to answer them. Instead, it attempts to use its visual style and action to hide that. But isn't enough to really hide it or justify an attempt to do. Paycheck is entertaining in parts, but as a whole it doesn't capitalise on Phillip K. Dick's intelligent concept and substitutes it for many negative aspects.The script in Paycheck is very weak. The dialogue is extremely repetitive and follows the basic formula of language from every generic science fiction movie ever made. There is too much talking and the dialogue simply isn't good with its attempts at humourous one liners being serious misfires and it's general dialogue to be so sub par that at certain points it may even hit a cringe worthy level for viewers. For me, it bordered on that because it wasn't especially horrible but when it attempted to be funny or smart it just tried to break free of its limitations by bashing against them repetitively. I was not impressed by how Paycheck tried to be a lot more than it ever had a chance of being, and instead of staying consistent, it tried to hard to be a lot of things without ever succeeding as any of them. The script could have been dull, but it instead decided to be stupid which is worse. So Paycheck pays nothing to Dean Georgaris by revealing his inability to pitch firm dialogue but his ability to dominate a film with too many characters for its own good. Viewers are likely to walk away from Paycheck with a a lot of questions but not enough answers.And the acting isn't up to form.Ben Affleck's performance in Paycheck isn't laughably terrible most of the time, but it does have some serious weak moments. If like me you base all of Ben Affleck's lead performances by the standard of his lead performance in Pearl Harbour, then you are likely to see his lead in Paycheck as one of his better leading performances. But it is still nothing more than a front for his inability to convey realistic emotions in a character. Ben Affleck's repetitive and artificial line delivery merely emphasises the weakness in the script, and his facial expression never changes either. Ben Afgleck doesn't surprise me with his lack of leading talent in Paycheck because it's what I've come to expect from nearly every lead role I've ever seen from him with the exception of Chasing Any. But he isn't a good lead or a great action hero so Paycheck is definitely not his kind of film.Uma Thurman isn't great either. The Academy Award nominated actress makes her return to the cinematic screen in Paycheck, but riding the weakest lines in the script as a character who desperately attempts to be the main source of the comic ones liners, Una Thurman gives a weak effort in Paycheck. Her character is the weakest in the script and her performance is repetitive and emotionally uninvolved with the material which makes it seem a lot more cheap and artificial. Paycheck is built on being a bad film and Uma Thurman reinforces that because she does nothing for it. I bought Paycheck in hopes that she might do a decent job and found myself disappointed because it featured none of her natural charm or strong acting skills and simply emphasised that she was stuck with weak material and could not salvage it. Uma Thurman does nothing to save Paycheck, and her chemistry with Ben Affleck is so pathetic that I forgot that their characters were supposed to be in love.Michael C. Hall is ok I guess. I mean he is also stuck with weak lines and a character with a very repetitive nature, but he doesn't try to hard and his routine effort is entertaining as he is an actor who is at his best when he is restrained and containing inner turmoil. It is clear that he doesn't have much in Paycheck because his character is a random supporting player, but it is still good to see him active in a high profile film like this, especially since I'm a fan of his work on Dexter and Six Feet Under.One of the two actors that are actually good is Aaron Eckhart. Although his character is thinly scripted, he isn't as weakly sketched as the others and so he doesn't have to work with the most pathetic dialogue of the film. Aaron Eckhart's supporting performance is strong because of the way that he breathes his natural charisma into the role even in a basic effort. And Paul Giamatti is the other actor who stands out because he seems like the only person who is actually having any fun in Paycheck. He doesn't get much screen time and his script lines aren't strong, but he puts a lot of energy into his role and makes a friendly presence which lightens the mood and makes Paycheck a more enjoyable film.The positive aspects of Paycheck can all be attributed to its visual style. Although John Woo doesn't handle the material in the movie well enough, he does manage to at least ensure that it is entertaining in scenes. His direction is stylish, and thanks to him the film has a convincing science fiction production design and a strong setting which is all captured by great cinematography and editing as well as some well timed use of slow motion which doesn't go excessive like John Woo's previous film Broken Arrow. And the visual effects are strong too and are all used against the backdrop of a fairly strong musical score, so Payback does have a convincing science fiction feel and look to it as well as some moments of entertaining action moments.But despite a good visual style and some convincing science fiction elements, there isn't enough entertaining scenes to make up for Paycheck's lacklustre storytelling, weak script and insufficient acting.
Joshua C (ag) wrote: Funny, thought out, and something new. It's not everyday you see a cast like this one. A star for diversity.
Pairadeese T (us) wrote: This movie was good as hell. If you never seen it, you need to!
Dan G (ca) wrote: This movie sounds like it has a LOT of potential
Dave J (mx) wrote: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 (1994) Intersection DRAMA (Spoiler warning) Dull and pointless which may have worked better as a 25 minute stint for a syndicated TV show. The movie starts off with the Richard Gere character as Vincent Eastman driving along a highway and then he gets into a car accident and we don't even get to see whether or not he even make it or not until the end which is very unfortunate but before all of that the film then jumps back weeks or months before for the movie doesn't say- it wants us to figure it out for them. What follows is a bunch of 'nothings' such as him and the Sharon Stone character as his ex called Sally who used to be a couple since they're both architecture designers of buildings and museums and they happen to have a 13 year old daughter together. Vincent is also attached to journalist Olivia Marshak (Lolita Davidovich) for we get to see how they had met but not when. There's no plot nor any love triangle since they're just doing their own thing what regular people do for the only dilemma is him such as babblings about what the Gere character wants to do and how he wants it, that it would require a couple of random strangers near the end of the film to make him realize that what he really want is to get married. You know I think I've seen this done before on many soap operas my sisters used to watch and so forth... and all kinds of comedy and drama shows made in the 60's 70's and 80's - even a cartoon called "The Simpsons", why would this be interesting to be made into a theatrical film because it's not interesting at all since it's clich and that it can done on several different ways. I was drinking and driving until.... just when I jumped off the cliff.... I was hit by a ball very hard ... I fell off my bike to skateboarding off a ramp. All I can say is that if you want to see a movie which came from an old adage stretched into a movie involving a fictitious character's 'life flashes before your eyes' stretched into two hours of nothing then this film might be for you. I bet you anything if anyone were to "just" watch the beginning and then use the fast forward button while playing until near the end still be able to understand the whole point of the movie without even having to watch it. I was hoping it was going to be another "Shattered" or 'love triangle gone wrong' but what I get instead is something people in general can pick up while growing up. And you know while I was watching this, it almost seemed that everybody who has worked on "Intersection" wanted something in it from the director, writer and star since it's close to pure babbling. Bomb
Grant S (gb) wrote: Very very bad. Think of every horror cliche or lame plotline, it's here. Throw in some atrocious acting, and you have an incredibly crappy movie.The movie is notable for only two things:1. It was directed by Robert Englund, of Freddie Krueger fame.2. It was written by Brian Helgeland, who later won an Oscar for writing LA Confidential, was Oscar-nominated for writing Mystic River and also wrote a host of high-profile Hollywood movies. Clearly, when he wrote 976-Evil, he still had a long way to go before reaching those levels!Other than those, nothing remarkable about this movie.
Chelsea T (fr) wrote: this was so awesome loved to see over and over again
David S (es) wrote: Strangely adapted from a play caled The Lovers. Could two titles be more oposite? It is a really neat premise. Impossible love between Lord and peasant girl. Unfortunately the love story seems to be missing.