Scott Walker: 30 Century Man

Scott Walker: 30 Century Man

A documentary on the influential musician Scott Walker.

A documentary on the influential musician Scott Walker. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Scott Walker: 30 Century Man torrent reviews

Peter P (fr) wrote: Incredibly funny race driven comedy, Russel Peters has great timing, delivery and has really funny observation about the different races and is allowed to make comments about it and not get booed, in fact, he will make fun of your race, and you will laugh about it. He does get a little dirty and used a fair bit of bad language, and that is what makes this only 4 stars.

Sean F (mx) wrote: Desolation of Smaug, while it may be nearly 3 hours long, is 3 hours worth spending, Desolation is fun, while there are MASSIVE changes from the 300 page book, this would've been an excellent ending chapter for Peter Jackson's Middle-Earth trilogy (but you just had to make 5 pages a 3 hour movie didn't you, ya bloody sellout) but Desolation was brilliant, so there that is!

Blake B (ca) wrote: George Clooney tries his hand at directing in this fantastic political drama. The Ides of March is a sophisticated, smart, pulse-pounding film that leaves you breathless as the credits roll. The subtlety of the film is a great example of less is most definitely more. A marvelous cast, with a marvelous script makes for one marvelous film.

Alan20 R (fr) wrote: Where do I start with this film. Its more of drama than an action film for me personally. I think they should have had more of The Hulk but I get why they didnt g through this path It has more character development but it could have used more action. Edward Norton was great as Bruce Banner.

Kati R (br) wrote: Sai mut niin hyvalle tuulelle, etta!Hervoton!

Gina W (it) wrote: Watched this movie again. I had forgotten what a great movie this was and enjoyed Cameron Crowe's adventures as a teenage rock journalist. Sometimes its fun to look at the older movies again (2000).

Brandon T (es) wrote: I ABSOLUTELY hated this movie... It was painful to watch... Josiane Belasko said she wanted to tell a love story about two women but instead she belittled the homosexual population and continuously reinforced the 1 man woman stance of a family... Not to mention glorifying non monogamous relationships... It was offensive... And I did not like it at all...

Nathan A (ru) wrote: oh okay u guys give taken a lower score than this garbage. okay sure.

Robert H (de) wrote: I'm actually at a little bit of a loss what to say right now because I'm almost overwhelmed by what I just saw. I'd liken it to a drug experience if only I'd ever taken drugs before, but the degree to which watching this film simulates what its characters go through is astounding. The story is rather simple: a scientist, Eddie Jessup (William Hurt, in his feature film debut) has been doing sensory deprivation experiments, but after a trip to Mexico, he starts doing those experiments under the influence of a powerful psychedelic drug which might possibly be affecting his genetic makeup. Plot-wise, it's not too complicated as it just follows Eddie's personal journey and evolution over the course of these life-altering experiments. Every actor was very capable and William Hurt was especially good considering this was his first role. However, the real magic of the film is in its many hallucinatory images which range from the sacrilegious to the primal. Even if you haven't seen the film, you might already be familiar with the image of a six-eyed, goat-headed man on a cross. Early on, Eddie mentions that he had visions as a young man that were out of Revelation and this imagery is kind of a perversion of that. However, the imagery that occurs later on in the film is extremely hard to describe and honestly it's best if you just see it for yourself. There are some interesting observations/connections made between religious and psychedelic experiences, and also mental disorders, however the true power of this film is in its images, which were realized with some incredible visual effects. I don't think this film will be to everyone's taste, certainly not those who are religious and might be offended by some of the imagery, but for those brave enough to give it a try it's an experience you won't soon forget.

Zachary R (es) wrote: One of the greatest comedy I've seen! Mel Brook's best!

Jason M (au) wrote: This is the 1st Monty Python film, which was targeted towards American audiences. It was a recreation of their most popular skits from the first 2 seasons of their UK TV series, without laugh track. The recreations fall short of the originals. This is a very low budget production. Monty Python was a genuine, unique and silly British comedy series. There hadn't been anything like it before. For this reason, this film preserves some of their most famous early skits. However, this film will likely not be appreciated by non-fans, who will want to desperately turn it off or run out of the room after the first 10 minutes or so, if they can last that long. I appreciate the genre and their TV series, but enjoyed their feature films more.

Lee M (es) wrote: A thoughtful, intelligent film that nearly makes up in style and conviction what it lacks in dramatic substance.

Timm S (us) wrote: The Infomercial (Skit) Bang In The Middle, Didn't Explain Hash-Cookies As A Final Consumption Option..Not That I Cared, The Story Was One, Long, Ongoing Session Of This Guy Oliver Gettin' Stoned. How You Might Enjoy This, Would Vary Depending On Your Connection-Liking For This Pass-Time (Or Addiction)..There Was A Time Where I Woulda Laffed More, But These Days, It's A Bit Boring, Predictable & Drags Along. It Did Have Sine Pretty Accurate Observations, Like Park Rats, Podcasts From Ur Bedroom && Beef Jerky All Being Pretty Closely Associated With The Buds From The Three-Pronged Leaf.

CL 9 (mx) wrote: You would hope The Campaign would find a firmer finish, but overall it keeps the viewer interested.