A lonely, down-on-her-luck waitress meets a handsome, quirky jewelry store clerk and thinks that maybe, finally, she's met Mr. Right. The more Molly (Alexis Bledel) gets to know Gus (Zachary Levi), the more she's intrigued by him. But she's also mystified. Gus is absent-minded, preoccupied. Is he hiding something? The short answer is: yes. He's reluctant to share with her that since suffering a brain aneurysm, he's totally lost his short-term memory. Every day is a brand new day, his life starts anew. Every day he sees Molly he struggles to remember who she is and what she represents. Every day, he has to fall in love with her all over again.
Writer:Michael Kase (story), Barry Morrow (teleplay)
A lonely and disadvantaged waitress met a handsome guy, who put on a weird jewelry. She thought that finally she met someone whom she loved. Whatever Molly knew about Gus made her love him more. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Amanda G (nl) wrote: Chauvinistic celebration of sexism. The only thing good about the movie was the art. I don't like Charlie sheen because he's a terrible actor. I did enjoy bill Murray but he's always entertaining.
Debbie B (it) wrote: A definite must watch..
intuciic (ru) wrote: nice low budget action movie! but could be moooore action :)
Jessi W (br) wrote: it looks really funny
Jerica O (es) wrote: I remember feeling this way...it made me want to cry, but i loved the ending..so courageous
Shemar S (au) wrote: I want to see this movie
Matthew C (it) wrote: Though very fondly regarded in its time, this "chick flick" isn't much more than a standard rom-com with a slightly more talented cast than usual. Besides a sprinkling of some decidedly more risque material (probably less common at the time), the story really doesn't offer anything new. It's the old mistaken identity trope wherein the girl next door (Melanie Griffith) assumes her upper class boss's (Sigourney Weaver) place in a series of business meetings with the hunky, male lead (Harrison Ford) without said boss's knowledge. Obviously the two fall for each other until ultimately the charade is busted and...yadda yadda. While notable for subverting the outdated stereotype that a young, wispy-voiced, blonde couldn't be business smart (actually, maybe the stereotype refers to Griffith specifically), any rom-com watcher worth his salt can guess the plot beats and reveals from a mile away. Still, the real draws of this 80s flick are its three leads. Ford, Griffith, and Weaver are all immense talents who can all juggle the comedy, drama, and romance of the picture without missing a beat. Yeah...there's some funny bits here and there too...
Jason M (de) wrote: Remains at or near the top of the list of great jazz movies. Dexter Gordon quietly evokes the soul of his character and of the music in every scene. Dripping with melancholy and nostalgia. One of my favorites of 80's.
Jesse F (ru) wrote: Like Halloween, Carpenter brings us another chilling horror vehicle into his directing career.
Alec B (jp) wrote: Perhaps one of the few films about the legacy of the Holocaust, that is entirely focused on despair and emptiness . . . that being said, I get the feeling that Lumet was a little too into the French New Wave when he made this. I don't mean to belittle that movement, but it doesn't completely works for this kind of narrative.
Yase M (mx) wrote: Great Great Great Great !! Just great.. If you have seen the Stromboli also.. just amazing !!!
Harry W (fr) wrote: With Halloween (1978) kicking off the trend of slasher films which would become popular in the succeeding decades, Halloween II's continuation of the story came with a big name to live up to as well as the potential to expand upon the mystery created by the John Carpenter original. A distinctive trait of the slasher film genre is that any entry with a commodity character as a villain has large potential to turn into a franchise, regardless of how heavily the following films prove to decline in quality. While Halloween largely originated the slasher genre, Halloween II contributes to the endless trend of unnecessary and repetitive sequels synonymous with the genre.John Carpenter rejected the chance to direct Halloween II because according to his own words "I had made that film once and I really didn't want to do it again". Though he assisted in the film's completion, he made the right decision to disregard the directorial offer as the resulting film is quite literally the exact same thing over again. This is made clear from the moment the film kicks off as the intro to Halloween II is an exact replica to that of its predecessor, only with a gothic alteration of John Carpenter's original theme composed by him and Alan Howarth completely on a synthesizer organ rather than a piano. Rather than having the classical feel of the original, the new rendition is awfully excessive and gets repetitive extremely fast. The music is ultimately used very rarely over the course of the film which is very stupid as it was the key source of atmosphere in the original Halloween, but the lack of music is one of the more minor flaws in Halloween II. After an overly familiar intro, Halloween II leads viewers through a journey of meaningless characters and pointless dialogue which feels like it has been all been done before. This is a path it proceeds along all the way until we see Dr. Sam Loomis repeatedly shooting at Michael Myers, one of the final images of the film which is all too obviously a replication of Halloween's climax. Halloween II is a large repeat of its predecessor with arbitrary differences which pay it no favours.The change of setting does not make Halloween II any more innovative. In fact, it actually deals a lot of damage to the film. For one thing, Halloween was a film interpreted by many to have social commentary due to the recurring traits found in the victims of the story. In Halloween II they are mostly just nameless locals and hospital workers. Few of them are particularly careless or unlikable; they're just a generic collection of stock characters who have no meaning whatsoever. Even the characterization of Michael Myers is a mistake; Michael Myers is supposed to be pure evil. Alas, in Halloween II we too often see the eyes beneath his mysterious mask and are reminded consistently that he is a human. Perhaps part of director Rick Rosenthal's intention was to intimidate audiences with the idea that this kind of evil come from a human, but its contrasted by the fact that he is still capable of surviving so many stab and bullet wounds. I don't know what characterization they were going for with Michael Myers, but either way they managed to mess it all up.Rather than relying on actual atmospheric tension to create thrills, Halloween II makes the mistake of relying on its increased budget. Halloween's $2.5 million budget is far greater than its predecessor's $320,000, and the first sign of this comes from when Ben Tramer is killed in a car explosion. The murders in Halloween II are executed with the same simplicity and visual style as Halloween, but with a slight increase in blood. It is slight enough to see but not to entertain, and though it is not explicit nor is it entertaining. Halloween essentially retains all the lesser elements of its predecessor and nothing new to justify the film's existence in the first place.Even the characters in Halloween II are given lame treatment, but the cast still manage to pull through.The main character in Halloween II is no longer Laurie Strode. The most running time in the film is given to antagonist Michael Myers, played by Dick Warlock. Decked out in his distinctive costume, Dick Warlock creeps his way through the story with the stilted movements of a statue. His performance is purely physical, and his slow movements give him an intimidating rate of progress towards the victims of the story. Dick Warlock's large stature makes him a consistently intimidating antagonist in Halloween II, and with the job of walking around and killing everyone being his main responsibility it is a job that he easily fulfils.Jamie Lee Curtis is OK. Laurie Strode is reduced to being a background character for the majority of the film since she spends most of it lying in a bed with nothing to do. As a result, it's difficult for Jamie Lee Curtis to remain all that interested in disinterested to the outside world. But during the later parts of the film she is pushed to get more actively physical with her performance where audiences see her bring out the utmost intensity in her performance. Her effort proves to be a very physical one as well, and the intense look of terror on her face reminds audiences what made her such a solid Halloween cast member in the first place. Jamie Lee Curtis doesn't get much to work with in Halloween II, but she brings in a fine effort either way.But it's Donald Pleasance who really takes a stand. Expanding upon what he started in Halloween, Halloween II depicts Dr. Sam Loomis having descended into complete psychological imbalance and despair over the acts of Michael Myers. With new character elements introduced to Dr. Sam Loomis, Donald Pleasance takes the chance and runs with it. As a result, his performance is the finest in Halloween II. The intense stare in his eyes widens to a far greater extent this time around, and the tone of his voice is so raw that it commands the dramatic nature of the film. Donald Pleasance's performance is the one great aspect that come from Halloween II.Halloween II gains an intense performance from Donald Pleasance, but with a premise that directly follows the structure of its predecessor without enough thrills or originality to justify its existence, it is a perfect example of a cliche slasher sequel.
Denise P (us) wrote: The wholehearted brotherly interplay between Liam Neeson and Ed Harris guides Run All Night, a tense, exciting and utterly heartfelt addition to its star's seemingly endless Action Hero filmography that amounts to an action-packed, dizzyingly kinetic and bloody fun-filled night at the movies.
Marta R (jp) wrote: Love this movie!! The Power of a Woman to do what she wants!!
Michaela B (ru) wrote: sooooo good!! very believable