Portrait Of Love
A prominent fashion photographer returns to her small town roots at the request of a friend. Surrounded by both memories and loved ones, she must consider a choice between a successful future and rekindling both the love of her life and of her home.
- Category:Drama, Family, Romance
- Stars:Jason Dohring, Bree Williamson, Caitlin Carmichael, Jesse D. Goins, Sam Boxleitner, Corbin Bernsen,
- Director:Kristoffer Tabori,
- Writer:Michael Votel Jr., Matt Marx, Jennifer Notas Shapiro
Returning to her hometown at the request of a friend, a renowned photographer encounters the man who broke her heart. Surrounded by both memories and loved ones, she must consider a choice between a successful future and rekindling both the love of her life and of her home. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Portrait Of Love torrent reviews
(kr) wrote: Since all I knew about Al Jazeera was what little I had heard from the American media, none of which was good, I found this documentary to be really interesting. Quite frankly, I don't know what to think now! I mean, I know you can only take what is said in the film at face value, but there's a huge difference between how they've been portrayed and how they appear in this documentary. UGH! Why can't everyone just tell it like it is?
(br) wrote: Well words could never say how great Jamie Fox was at acting this roll. Very interesting to learn more about the music legend Ray Charles' life. The dangers of drugs and addiction are shown well, it is just too bad Ray couldn't have used his fame while living to steer others away from the same pitfalls he fell into. Great movie though.
(de) wrote: This wasn't unlike any other serial killer, mystery movie I have seen, but the stellar cast made it stand out slightly. Ashley Judd was a joy to watch as usual and Morgan Freeman played his usual, Morgan Freeman type role. There was a good amount of suspense and plenty of guessing to do but at times some parts seemed a bit dragged out and it went on just a little to long. There were plenty of moments where the characters did dumb things that got them into worse situations and the ending, while satisfying, could of been done much better. The shocking reveal of the killer at the end was nice and overall this was a decent film, great cast but it could of used a little something extra to make it "really" good.
(au) wrote: This movie is a very touching. It's also a sad and good also. It feels like I'm going to cry at some parts.
(au) wrote: Giancarlo Esposito is unbefuckinliavable
(jp) wrote: it was much better over 2 decades ago when i was a little kid, but it's still a fun family adventure today with some great voices.
(es) wrote: I actually liked this movie, but my parents hated it....
(es) wrote: Paul McCartney writing a movie? NO WAY! And hes bringing Ringo with him!? Awesome! What do we get?! A Movie with a weak screenplay and music performences that feel to many to often. Paul McCartney has a busy day, he has interviews, rehearsles, meetings and much more music performences. Also a plot involving a bootleg copy of McCartney's new album being stolen as police try to get it back. If they dont then a bunch of people will stop the recording company for good. You know how the beatles were funny? Well McCartney and Starr are not at all in this movie funny. The movie has lots of musical performences that you might want to skip just to see the weak storyline. Which is pretty bad for a movie about one of the co members of the beatles. The movie has this one scene which is a period piece which goes on for at least 8 minutes. What is the point? To show that he has no chance against the evil overdoer? Well that doesn't help the movie at all. The movie has a high budget with all the sets and stars. The songs are great but the score is uneven with the theme of the movie. It sounds like film noir instead being orchestrated normally. Bottom Line: Paul McCartney Writes Songs, Not Scripts.68/100 C+
(ag) wrote: Cannibal Holocaust...what an interesting movie this is. I first heard about this movie about a couple of years ago. From some research I've done people say that this is the most disturbing film of all time. I heard about that animals are actually killed and the director was accused of killing his actors. I was pretty interested by it. The first time I saw it...I turned it off after seeing the muskrat got killed. Then I watched this movie with my uncle the whole thing and....wow. This may not be the most disturbing film off all time but it's one of them. This also has to be one of the most mean spirited movies I've ever seen. The filmmakers who get killed by the cannibals are some of the most unlikable people I've ever seen and seeing all what they did in the movie, made me happy to see all of them get killed. The entire time I just felt freaked out disturbed and almost felt sick. The animal killing, the constant rape scenes (which I have a hard time watching in a movie), and a lot of the movie just had me feel disturbed. At least I survived "the most controversial film of all time" and I never want to watch it again. I've seen a lot of disturbing movies but this is one of them. I only recommend it to people who either love disturbing movies or people who have a strong stomach and could take anything disturbing shown to them on screen or....to sick people like like to watch rape and animals being mutilated...but for me it's not a film I would ever want to watch again in my life.
(de) wrote: Great, fun movie, see it. Do it.
(us) wrote: As with the first 'Ilsa' movie, the reasonable level of technical competence heightens the nastiness on display. To be fair, this one's a bit more enjoyable because the violence is more cartoonishly ridiculous and the subject matter is slightly less objectionable. The presence and maltreatment of a few Russ Meyer girls (Haji, Uschi Digard, Sharon Kelly, Su Ling) is a striking reminder that, whatever the charges of misogyny levelled at him, Meyer's women usually got the upper hand eventually; they don't here. Unless you've an overwhelming desire to see Haji with her tits in a vice and her foot being eaten by ants, avoid this.
(es) wrote: Stunning choreography, excellent music, and commentary on race and social class in America are what makes this film so fantastic.
(de) wrote: There's a joke to be made that one of the production companies for this film was 'Lost Fifties Films', although I do find it odd that on my copy 'Millennium Films' was off the opening but it is in the trailer, but I don't feel the need as I didn't really think it was that bad. When the film started it had a nice upbeat tone, a nice feel and I chuckled a few times but very quickly the film had a very mean atmosphere, nobody acted like a real person and it honestly made me feel bad for Biel's character. I had a confused look on my face and had my hands raised just puzzled to what was going on; I just wanted to bring Biel's character home and give her a hug. However, when Howard Birdwell was introduced everything started to perk up a bit, even though it seemed odd why they left Alice by herself at that point, but she certainly is good at talking and public speaking. From that point on the film went in an unexpected direction and actually had some sort of political edge and I think it managed to accomplish quite a bit and despite the lack of hope for our lead, the film regained the positive tone, despite none of the characters seeming to care when she gets injured in the eye. The cast for this film is very big and filled with so many big names in roles that are only minutes long, it was just weird to see. I think the cast did do a good job with Alice and Howard's interactions being the highlight, I liked seeing those two together and Scott can just go away, I really hated his character, I like how complains to Alice that she used him but he did the exact same thing just but a few scenes before. You even have Paul Reubens in this, when I first saw him I just couldn't believe he was in this, it was so strange to see, and he plays it relatively straight for the most part but does have a 'Pee-Wee' moment near the end when he runs behind someone being filmed for TV. The film had an overall nice look and everything was filmed well but there were a couple of scenes that had some weird editing. There was a flashback scene at the start showing what the nail does to Alice, not only is it the only one, making it seem like a weird addition, it is also edited really badly, we see her do the thing she does, it looks at a little girl's reaction for longer than it probably should have then just cuts. There is also a weird cut before Alice and Howard have sex and when the slanderous ad finished playing; and there was an odd shot of our characters walking up some steps and the camera was to the left and cut long after they had walked off. The theme seemed to be all over the place; it looks like the '50s and yet has constant references to artists that weren't even born when takes place. It also seemed kind of odd that that character unplugged that thing they did and nothing really became of it, not only was it done in a pretty obvious way but they didn't even check if anyone was looking. Admittedly, I didn't laugh all that much, I found the overall film more charming than downright funny but it had its moments, I did think there would a joke in there about how the pastor gave up on God at one point with him apologising, those jokes always seem to crop up somewhere. The end credits were a lot of fun though, and, no, that wasn't meant as a joke. For a film that was in development hell for a very long time with so many cast changes and just so much more, it's good that something managed to come out of it in the end, especially with the amount of writers, I wonder what the author of the book thinks. Even if I don't understand why they tried so hard to get it finished, you'd have just expected the producers to give up and move on, they failed to find money quite a lot of the time. I think the film was finished without David O. Russell being there for the entirety of production and he doesn't even want his name on this any more. A lot has happened in those years, some names have gotten bigger, O. Russell is certainly a much higher name than it was at that point but you can tell how old this is, you see a picture of Tony Blair at one point. It might not necessarily mean anything by itself, but given what the characters are talking about at that time, coupled with all the development issues, it makes sense. I remember seeing a trailer where it looked like they were going to make fun of Alice and Howard throughout the film because they had lower IQs or something, but it is good to see that this isn't as mean spirited as that. It was originally called 'Nailed' and while it is obvious what that refers to, it can also be seen as a double entendre, but do not be mistaken, this film isn't like that at all. A poster with the original name does still exist, although it is low quality, which makes sense. 'Accidental Love' is just a fun little film with a nice cast and a charming story.