Henry Higgins is an upper class phonetics professor who encounters low-class guttersnipe Eliza Doolittle and bets his friend Colonel Pickering that he can pass her off as a duchess within three months.
You may also like
Pygmalion torrent reviews
Jay L (fr) wrote: It was ok at best. If your a fan of SG you will enjoy it. But other than that it's a lame Blair witch knock off.
Ben L (ca) wrote: Went into thinking it would be one of those unwatchable national lampoon Frat movies. But this actually had some laughs in it. Predictable? Yes. Funny? Some times yes. Would I recommend it to a friend? No.
Erick F (au) wrote: Pretty weird horror movie. But it does a good job. The concept is a little weird, but the director, Bruce McDonald, understands horror pacing enough where you kind of find yourself into this weird-zombie-but-not-really movie. Also, kudos for saving the production money by making it all take place in one location, and not really making it that obvious. Solid concept, Solid execution.
Steve Y (it) wrote: "Note by Note" is a necessary viewing for piano addicts. It made me giddy. Ben Niles records the birth and "rearing" of L1037 (the ID number of a specific Steinway Grand) from lumber to wood to frame to soundboard to storage to mechanism-sanding to pounding, tuning and delivery... one piano takes a year to build, and all tuning is done by hand. It's a captivating process. The doc also features performances by Helene Grimaud and Pierre-Laurent Aimard, as well as Marcus Roberts (one of my favorite jazz pianists and an encyclopedia of jazz history) and a whole stable of technicians and artists (the line is blurred here). I love the portions where the artists choose their instruments, noting the particular differences in each grand piano they play ("blech!" "this is more like it..."). This is more than a record of the building an instrument. It's a statement of the value of artisan musicianship in a world that increasingly labels it excessive and frivolous.
Carlos M (es) wrote: A true masterpiece that exceeds the level of quality of the previous films and reflects Pixar's own growth in storytelling, being not just an amazing entertainment as the other two but above all a mature and emotionally devastating movie that moved me to tears with its unforgettable final act.
Phil H (ru) wrote: A change of pace for the third film as we move outta urban settings and weapons/laboratory facility type settings for the open desert. Yep Resi Evil goes for the 'Mad Max' look complete with heavily armoured vehicles including the good old petrol tanker, you just can't go wrong with a tanker in your desert based fantasy flick.The image of Alice being more of a elemental/supernatural type superhero is enforced more in this new film after we learned how badass she was in number two. A motley band of survivors once again are in deep doo doo being attacked by hundreds of ravenous crows (crows in the Mojave desert?), until Alice pops up and saves the day by scorching all the crows to a fiery death with the mind powers she learnt from Professor X.The plot is just like all the other films, a small group of survivors in a different setting, getting taken down one by one, until only Alice and maybe two others remain for the next sequel (where those two normally get killed off early on). I quite liked the idea of Alice roaming the Southwestern US outback looking for supplies and survivors but stumbling across crazy killers that like to watch people get eaten by zombie dogs. You could totally see that happening in the US with all those religious nut jobs over there, real 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' type folk in the sticks over there.On the subject of zombie dogs, why are they always rottweilers? what has happened to every other type of dog? is there some kind of special sale on zombie rottweilers?? cos they are everywhere!Actually this film felt somewhat muted and not as action packed if you can believe that. Looking back over all of the films this one definitely has a slightly slower pace, less interesting characters and less action...apart from the usual mass of gunshots to zombie heads. On the other hand the visuals seem more realistic (deserts always seem to look good on film) and the zombies look good, grittier. The sequence where the main bad scientist guy tries to domesticate a captured zombie harks back to the classic 'Return of the Living Dead' zombie franchise (third film), nice touch.Despite a more straight tone as it were, this film does suffer from not being quite the ballistic overdrive of action the rest are. It almost doesn't quite fit within the franchise really but I liked the fresh location. The whole film does feel a little bit of an anti climax though, the finale with the mutated creature sums that up pretty well, but as usual the setup for the next sequel intrigues.
Don S (de) wrote: Let's see: Jet Li vs. Jet Li in multiple universes (though we only see two); not as thrilling as you'd expect. The characters, Gabe Law vs. Gabriel Yulaw, know each others moves (because you know, they are the same person from different universes) and it is not that exciting. Silly sci-fi concept that works for the fight scenes when Yulaw is taking on others. Nothing special, though Carla Gugino is drop dead gorgeous in all universes.
Robert H (us) wrote: Not the best entry in the genre but far from the worst. Often considered the worst of the Darkman franchise, I actually kinda liked it. It has a pretty standard comic book storyline and while the action isn't great, there is a decent amount of explosions. I like it when things blow up.The film clearly misses the flare of a Sam Raimi picture but it was nice to see Larry Drake return to play the role of Durant. Vosloo was a pretty good Darkman too. The film almost has a Batman meets Dick Tracey vibe to it. It's not quite as good as either but can still be entertaining if you give it the chance and don't go in with high hopes.
RiP M (ru) wrote: Seminal chronicle of a fool's paradise, untouched but ultimately ruptured by politics and the ghost of recrimination. One of the all-time Russian greats.
Aaron G (ag) wrote: Most reviews point out the painfully obvious traits that it's a ripoff and over the top product placement, but movie has many more flaws. How does a widow who just got her 1st job in 10 years at Sears no less pay for a house in the foothill of California? Maybe insurance money, no one knows. Why does the mother think her paraplegic son turned the house into a forest in one night? Maybe because she unpacked and setup the whole house on the same day she drove across the state line [that must have been some weapons grade speed she was on]. I know parents of disabled children want to teach them independence, but why in the world buy a house who's backyard opens to a steep hill with a drop-off to a ravine below? In all my years growing up in California I never knew anybody who had a dance party at McDonald's, or that broke out into a choreographed dance number.Police and Government men flip flop between totally unreasonable and friendly depending on what the scene called for.Yeah it's a ripoff, but it's a ripoff with monstrous holes in logic and storytelling.
Scott S (au) wrote: Nice big saloon set, nice number by Alexis Smith, but this flick sure takes a looooong time to pull the lead out.
michael b (ag) wrote: chuck and Gossett jr. is s dream combo
Rafael V (us) wrote: A hilariously clever script with funny characters brought to life through brilliant performances
Joanne S (br) wrote: Don't not listen to the critics this was great film from beginning to end
Alan P (us) wrote: This is a funny movie Joe Pesci as Louie Kritski just got his first apartment building from his father, a real slum lord. When the tenants take him to court the judge sentences him to live in his own building. What could be wrong with that? He finds out the hard way. Check out what happens to his car, it's just hilaious.
pete 1 (gb) wrote: still an ok thriller/action film,story has been done so many times before,family has family taken hostage he has to save them & beat up bad guy,not one of harrison's best