Scusi, lei è favorevole o contrario?

Scusi, lei è favorevole o contrario?


  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:127 minutes
  • Release:1966
  • Language:Italian
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:divorce,  

. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Scusi, lei è favorevole o contrario? torrent reviews

Vivien T (mx) wrote: Excellent film de Nol

Nerine D (it) wrote: I'm ambivalent about this one. I don't know enough about Lennon's life to pass a judgment call as to how accurate this film is, but I found it fascinating nonetheless. I liked the way they mixed old footage with the actual film, and the styling was great.

Shawn L (br) wrote: Couldn't even get through 10 minutes. Such a horrid movie, but that's to be expected from Uwe Boll

Paul D (au) wrote: Flawed but fun zombie movie.

S B (es) wrote: Herible film, but had a few hilarious parts on Tim Allen's part

Melody M (au) wrote: If you're a fan of Callas or opera, or possibly even just want to be famous, this film is worth seeing, and gives you a peek at the hardships and joys of being famous, and how one deals with losing their talent or ability through age.

Stevie S (it) wrote: holy mother of BOOBS!

Ben S (mx) wrote: Before going on to shape the landscape of cinema with sophomore feature The Matrix (1999), the Wachowski brothers, Andy and Larry (now Lana), served up this impressive subversive noir debut - an ultra stylish affair that plays out like a classic 50's thriller, but with a fun tweak in genders.Corky (Gina Gershon) is a hardened female ex-con with a pout, tattoos and a wry smile that immediately piques the interest of the glamorous Betty Boop-looking Violet (Jennifer Tilly). While Corky is working in an adjacent apartment, the film takes on an early erotic thriller/soft porn vibe as Violet gets her round to help with the plumbing - cue close-ups of hands engaged in manual labour and flexing biceps. The two women fall into bed and into an illicit affair that sees them hatch a plan to rip off $2 million from Violet's mobster husband Caesar (Joe Pantoliano) - but, as the opening flash-forward of Corky gagged and bound on the apartment floor tells us, not everything goes to plan.As the name suggests Bound is a tight, claustrophobic experience that is predominantly set inside the corridors and bedrooms of the apartment block. While this restraint is probably more on account of the budget, it keeps the narrative sharply focused and forces the climax into the film's woozy, intense highlight. Largely owed to a glorious script of pithy exchanges, callbacks and clichs all of its parts click seamlessly into place as the Wachowskis are able to find a thriller of violence and invention at the first time of asking.Aside from the two strong - if stagey - lead performances, it arguably offers Pantoliano the best film role of his career. An actor who is many people's favourite screen villain as Ralph Cifaretto in The Sopranos, Bound gives him the opportunity to demolish every scene he's in with vitriol and weasly squirming. Playing a key role in the pulse-racing denouement it's the two women who take the headlines, but playing against the hateful Caesar is what gives their journey the required bite.Stripped of much colour, nearly everything is reduced to a palette of black, white and grey - aside from the ubiquitous woman in red and other flashes of red and green that sporadically lift the frame. To compensate for the minimal use of location and colour the Wachowskis turn to cinematographer Bill Pope to spark the picture to life with a catalogue of inventive angles, camera moves and transitions. The frame is treated with such playfulness and refinement that Bound is able to assume the demeanour of a higher budget affair. Extreme shadows are cast and husky dialogue is spoken, and it is able simultaneously to pay homage to the tone of a pulpy noir, yet retain its own fresh identity. Even now, 18 years later, it still has a daring edge to it and only the suits and haircuts have aged poorly.If you look hard enough, there's some neat foreshadowing of the brothers' future exploits (bullet time, colour palette, wallpaper) but Bound is a rollicking little debut that deserves attention in its own right. We don't get many films from them, but as last year's Cloud Atlas showed they are nothing if not wildly adventurous and unafraid of playing with genre conformity. Here's where it all began.

Brendan W (nl) wrote: You can't help but be disappointed when you watch a film based on a mysterious unsolved and very tragic and sad murder, only to find it's the sad and parfetic story of a movie director who lives a rather sad life snorting cocaine on his lonesome, and falling for every girl he meets only to discover he's incapable of any basic interactions with them -apart from sex of course as they all jump in bed with him immediately without any prior enquiries into why he appears to be a complete douche and flawed personality.Throw in some bizarre suspenseful sequences that are designed to deceive the viewer into believing the case has some mystery unknown suspect only to turn out to be dreams of this same character. And a bizarre attempt from him to suddenly solve the case with the most basic evidence were supposed to believe has been overlooked by all, and a random and equally bizarre character who happily tells anyone listening he witnessed the murder yet is never considered a suspect by anyone but our bird brain film maker. All which turns out to be inconsequential and likely just further signs this film maker is indulging in far too much cocaine. All in all a recipe for completely disillusioning your audience.All in all you have a film that is trying to gain some viewership from pretending to be something it is not. Sure they get the excuses in early in the script itself by stating it has to be non fiction. An advantage of making a film about making a film, generally just a bore and possibly an insult to all those involved in the actual case.

Jesse O (gb) wrote: I enjoyed this movie in spite of its rating. The film mixes in various different horror subgenres of zombies, vampires, aliens (and humans) all doing battle against each other. The problem comes in the fact that the first half of the film really did absolutely nothing for me. I don't know, but it was just lacking from a comedic standpoint. I suppose it does set everything up with Petra being turned into a vampire and establishing that Ned and Dag had a friendship that is not there anymore at this stage in their lives. So these parts are definitely a little rough. The turning point is, clearly, when Dag, Petra and Ned escape the basement of Dag's former piano teacher. For some reason, this is when the film really turns it on and it actually is a whole lot of fun in parts. Not like I'd say the film's second half was consistently fun, it's just so much more enjoyable than what came before it. When you think about it, this film has a really damn good comedic cast. Bob Odenkirk, Joan Cusack, Keegan Michael Key, Rachel Harris, Denis Leary, Patton Oswalt, Pat Healy, Mae Whitman, in a regrettably small role, and even Werner Herzog voicing the Perfect Being. So you'd think that with that comedic pedigree that the movie would somehow be funnier than it ended up being. The problem is the fact that, out of all of these great comedic actors I just mentioned, maybe Bob and Joan, who play Dag's parents, get the most screen time out of anybody else. And they're not even on that much, so it's not like they can improve upon the film's material. Don't get me started on everyone else that the film, sadly, neglected to showcase more of. That really bothered me, that you have such a talented cast of people that you literally do nothing with. I think the movie more than makes up for it with an energetic and fun second half. Again, wouldn't call it consistent or anything of the sort, but at least it's got some sort of life in it. There's the obligatory romantic subplot between Petra and Dag, it's not great but it's something. Mackenzie Davis is a good actress, so she makes it work. The film embraces its sillier side, which is part of why I think the second half of the film works considerably better than the first. Don't really have much else to say about this movie, really. It's not good, and it barely makes it to an average rating. In spite of that, however, I found that a large part of the second half of the film was enjoyable and that's why the movie gets the rating it did. It just lacked consistent focus and consistent comedy. This isn't a bad film in the slightest, just one that, I felt, should've been better than it ended up being.

Harvest H (br) wrote: This Musical was the best i think your kids would love it it has some strong language but other than that it was great