Queen: Days of Our Lives
In 1971, four college students got together to form a rock band. Since then, that certain band called Queen have released 26 albums and sold over 300 million records worldwide. The popularity of Freddie Mercury, Brian May, Roger Taylor and John Deacon is stronger than ever 40 years on. But it was no bed of roses. No pleasure cruise. Queen had their share of kicks in the face, but they came through and this is how they did it, set against the backdrop of brilliant music and stunning live performances from every corner of the globe. In this film, for the first time, it is the band that tells their story. Featuring brand new interviews with the band and unseen archive footage (including their recently unearthed, first ever TV performance), it is a compelling story told with intelligence, wit, plenty of humor and painful honesty.
The life and times of the rock band Queen - told in two parts covering in part one the 1970's and in part two the 1980's and beyond. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Queen: Days of Our Lives torrent reviews
(es) wrote: If you're a classic Our Gang fan, you'll love this rendition too! I was most impressed with the amount of screen-time every member of the gang received. Everybody had a part that helped the story.Such a delight, my favorite part is when Alfalfa knocks himself out and asks, "Did I win?". :-D
(ca) wrote: refreshingly Sweet!Some movies are " emotional state dependent". This happens to be one of them...If you are craving an outside marriage fling that will reawaken your senses and remind you of the purpose of your existence then this movie will have a fighting chance of leaving you with a sweet note!
(gb) wrote: Even my girlfriend thought this was the shittest movie in history! This is worse than an australian b grade movie! Sorry to all actors and actresses involved! But seriously ................... Sooooooooooooo shit!
(kr) wrote: Basically just another Blair Witch, right down to the long obnoxious arguing. Fortunately, the ending is a little more satisfying then Blair Witch, which was just dull.
(ag) wrote: Monumental let-down. The trailer was 10X better than the film.Ultra-slow epic Finnish/Chinese story, partly in the past and partly in the present. The idea is brilliant.It's like Highlander. The present-day stuff is nothing special but the parts in the past are nothing short of unforgettable.Although the acting is ok, so little emotion is displayed by the actors that I felt pretty much none. And normally I love movies that throw you into a story and bide their time in letting you figure it out, but when you don't know what the story even is until the very end...AND it's this slow....that's a mistake. The second viewing will be better but...So all-in-all: a clever story but all you get is a few gorgeous scenes in ancient China, and a whole lot of boring confusing poorly-shot stuff in the present.
(fr) wrote: Fun "this got out of hand (but I can pull it off)" romantic comedy with Charlie Sheen pulling off the super sensitive stand-in advice columnist for his dumb, uncaring self-centered blond girlfriend (Denise Richards) who's on vacation. Angie Harmon plays a sexy smart magazine editor with an irrepressible secretary played by the irrepressible Estelle Harris, and Barry Newman takes the fall as the villanous competition.
(ag) wrote: i fell asleep, not my kind of movie
(nl) wrote: Great story, interesting script, with Leonardo Dicaprio and Tom Hanks top notch performance, this movie is full of entertainment value.
(es) wrote: Not my kind of movie.
(kr) wrote: Perfunctory third sequel, jettisoning the humour of Escape, and laying on the social and metaphorical significance as if its audience were terminally thick. A series now on life support and still as boring as the original. Roddy MacDowall does what he can from behind the latex.
(nl) wrote: I am not very fond of the story at the beginning for the professor and Polanski himself look too stupid throughout. But my fondness for it began to grow upon finishing it. Perhaps the ridiculous ending rationalizes all the absurdities presented before? Or at least one should have never expected the failure, which is presented in a light manner and suddenly turn the story boundless and even amazing to a certain extent. That's the magic of Roman Polanski. However, regrettably, the gorgeous Sharon Tate can be on screen no more. A big loss to mankind.
(mx) wrote: During the late seventies and eighties there was a clear trend of slasher genre horror films based around holidays ("April Fool's Day," "Halloween," "Friday the 13th" etc.) While following in this vein, there's something original and dark about this film in contrast. Most of the film is set in the mines of central Canada, where a set of old murders haunts a quiet little town. A lot of the action revolves around a love triangle, the legends of the past, and being young and witless, with nothing to do. The last section of the film is entirely set in the bowels of a blackened mine, where the tunnels and overhead shafts provide plenty of hiding spots for a maddened serial killer. While this film takes great strides to not be the same as others of its caliber, it's still not very memorable. The killer is lame, the twist comes out of nowhere, the characters are idiotic and cowardly, the main female character is irritatingly frightened, and constantly needs saving, and the ending is ridiculous. Though I haven't seen the remake, I recommend it over this film, which is working with basically nothing but visuals, which I can only hope got better by 2009.