(Cantonese/Mandarin with English Subtitles) After a popular actor is jilted at the altar by an actress he travels to the mountainous area of Yunnan province. There, he finds true love with ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Romancing in Thin Air
After his new bride dumps him at their wedding reception, a heartbroken actor (Louis Koo) winds up in the Himalayas, where he meets and falls in love with a widowed fan (Sammi Cheng).
You may also like
Romancing in Thin Air torrent reviews
Ray L (ca) wrote: Can't believe I saw this shit!
Heather M (jp) wrote: Motherhood probably doesn't look like this for anyone except Uma Thurman. This movie is good for a few laughs and a sweet, sappy ending, but isn't great overall.
Tristan G (jp) wrote: An unsung masterpiece. This film radiates feelings of love, beauty, and subtle closeness.
Adrian S (au) wrote: This was the most boring and most disappointing movie I have ever watched. It meandered between irrelevant interludes and mind-numbing dialogue before attempting a crescendo and ending on an anticlimax. The story was implausible. All the family scenes seemed to be written by someone who idealises family life but has not experienced it for themselves. This shifted between syrupy sweet moments and excessively emotional arguments. Many of the scenes and dramas in the movie seemed to come from nowhere and added nothing to the movie. The moral integrity which the main character is seemingly sacked for disappears as he steals chickens with a homeless man the next day. The regular 9 1/2 year reunion with a school sweetheart does nothing to hold the narrative together. It was all unbelievable, unbearable, seemingly written by film students overdosing on syrup, juvenile emotional episodes and boring pseudo-intellectual dialogue familiar to Dawson's Creek fans. I persevered with this movie, hoping it would go somewhere, was bitterly disappointed by its conclusion and now regret having seen it at all.
Paul R (kr) wrote: I liked this movie, it had good actors in it & some pretty funny parts, not to mention that Jamie FOxx has by far the Crazyiest hairdo i have ever seen him with, its out there !! haha
Rhady N (br) wrote: Let's face it, it's no masterpiece. But the little girl just rocks!
Jared L (us) wrote: It is kind of unfortunate how realistic some of these characters are.
Jarryd R (au) wrote: wanna see it i cant wAIT LOL !!!
Morten S (mx) wrote: Just as amazing as I remember it! Now having not seen for years I was kind of afriad that it wouldn't hold up as I tought, but how wrong I were. The version I saw was the full uncut version, which runs for nearly 5 hours and there was never a single minute that I found boring! I don't throw this word around often, since I think it's kind of overused when it comes to film and all of art in general, but 'Das Boot' is truly an absolute masterpiece!
Ole J (fr) wrote: I really like John Cusack and some of the crazy parts he involves himself in, thats why I wanted to see this one, but it doesn't really come close to being the crazy parts he sometimes have and the rest of the actors are really not doing anything to support the film.There are some fun moments, but all in all it has very much emphasis on seeing the driver and the car handling even though we start out in a small getz, it's almost seem like a small commercial film like the ones Clive Owen did for BMW a long time ago, just not as cool :)
Martin T (ru) wrote: The first 25-30 minutes are dumb, but after that it settles into a very good satire of labor relations. I was a bit appalled by the film's attitude toward unions, but I managed to keep my liberal outrage in check, and besides, it's not especially kind to management either. It's not screamingly funny or anything, but it's amusing enough. Just skip the beginning.
Movie V (kr) wrote: Oh, my. No wonder Sony Pictures Classics isn't doing well financially. If Land Go is typical of the movie projects they are financing and promoting, all I can say is "Is this the best you can do?" Land Ho is a low-key film that's well-scripted and deftly acted, but as a slice-of-life drama it leaves much to be desired. (It makes Trip to Italy seem like a laugh-a-minute funfest.)There's no narrative story arc to speak of. The characters aren't especially interesting -- and Mitch, the horny old man is a boor. Apart from the scenery, there's nothing here to recommend this film as a good way to spend a couple of hours. As Marshall Matt Dillion used to say, "Go one home, folks, there's nothing to see here."
Harry W (jp) 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.