SOMETHING FROM NOTHING: THE ART OF RAP is a feature length performance documentary about the runaway juggernaut that is Rap music. At the wheel of this unstoppable beast is the film's director and interviewer Ice-T. Taking us on a deeply personal journey Ice-T uncovers how this music of the street has grown to dominate the world. Along the way Ice-T meets a whole spectrum of Hip-Hop talent, from founders, to new faces, to the global superstars like Eminem, Dr Dre, Snoop Dogg and Kanye West. He exposes the roots and history of Rap and then, through meeting many of its most famous protagonists, studies the living mechanism of the music to reveal 'The Art Of Rap'. This extraordinary film features unique performances from the entire cast, without resorting to archive material, to build a fresh and surprising take on the phenomenon that is Rap.
Something from Nothing: The Art of Rap torrent reviews
Wrik S (nl) wrote: A film was a huge waste of effort, within the 1st few minutes of it starting.. Makes no sense anywhere whatsoever!!
Dana K (nl) wrote: A quiet film, bittersweet. You have to be in the right frame of mind, and I happened to be in it.
bill f (br) wrote: Streamed this on NETFLIX and it has every cliche that you expect. - Strong, tuff, urban sophisticate - the woman - strong, tuff yet gentle country - the guy - drinking in a Texas roadside saloon and and hangover -woma -the head of the research project - DOCTOR- black of course -all knowing WISE sandpaper face- grandfather - first test of machine - failure of course gentle country guy vs. SLICKER - TV reporter guy - gentle country guy TAMES urban sophisticate -makes her country (in jeans) (quits her big city job) - but what will the new couple live on????? ----oh yeah he gets a fellowship at the university...... AND the CLICHE of cliches..... something big happening on computer screen AND AND AND.... young research associate is asleep ......................
Will D (br) wrote: Very slow but still a good watch.
Emod L (au) wrote: 71%I dunno man, it's just one of those movies.
Jordan K (kr) wrote: I'm back from a few months of reviewing hiatus, and this one will be a short review noting I didn't watch Lethal Weapon 4 entirely all the way - each one of the Lethal Weapon films have a similar vibe to them. Very 80s, although pioneering, gritty bluesy cop tale. I think when you've seen 3 Lethal Weapons, at least in a row, you get tremendously sick with the same scenario each time. It gets old and uninteresting where it's the same characters doing the same schtick over and over. Pesci being goody, Glover being old and tired (for lack fo a better character description) - it's the same formula every time just with a new but somewhat similar drug bust scenario. The chemistry between Gibson and Glover is still amazing but milking out a new film every 2 years it will get stale. I could only watch about 40% of Lethal Weapon 4 because I was honestly uninterested in the film franchise at this point.
Marty K (jp) wrote: Very slow and boring.
Christopher S (gb) wrote: A good story but it could have been much better. A young Nicolas Cages does OK as the down on his luck drifter Michael but it could have had more depth to the character. Dennis Hopper is crazy so he was great as the crazy hitman Lyle from Dallas. However, J.T. Walsh is underrated and this film was no exception as his role of the scheming husband Wayne stole every scene. Lara Flynn Boyle is lucky she is good looking because she was less than stellar as Suzanne. Still, a solid film with good pacing, a modern Western noir feel to it.
bill s (gb) wrote: Gets tired quickly but this family friendly light comedy is average fare.
Eric J (kr) wrote: I remember enjoying this as a kid. Now looking at it years later i can't imagine why. Pretty bad, pretty bad.
Harry W (ru) wrote: The problem I found with the blockbuster Airport was that it was too focused on the character drama and didn't divert enough attention into the theme of a plane at severe risk of crashing, and the first hour was boring as hell with the film only picking up mildly after a bomb went off on the plane. The love story also seemed tedious, but the intentions were good as were the cast, although I was unfamiliar with many of them.I was eager to see Airport 1975 because the cast were a lot more familiar, including a returning George Kennedy, and the plot sounded interesting and a lot more focused on the theme of the risk of a plane crash with more intensity and less cheap characters. With Airport 1975 I found at first that the characters seemed more interesting due to having a girl in dire need of a kidney transplant and others, and the film developed them at the same time of developing the plane disaster themes instead of having to do it before the plane took off which provided for greater intensity in the story.Also, the makers provided many more exterior shots of the planes and helicopters and such, and the entire setting was significantly more convincing thanks to that. Really, it provided just what I wanted when I watched the first Airport movie, but I find myself having enjoyed Airport 1975 significantly more due to the focus on the disastrous airplane drama as opposed to the events chronicling the characters within. I enjoyed Airport 1975 and I would consider it superior to Airport on many levels.The actual plot dynamics following the airplane in trouble are rather well crafted since the various cinematographic styles and formalities are executed well, and the entire film is well acted, and the fact is it was very finely made on a low budget of only $3 Million.Karen Black makes a fine lead as a stewardess forced to cope with an apocalyptic situation to save the lives of others, and the constant intensity in her stare and voice is very well executed, as well as the fact that her pretty face makes her a successful actress beyond just being a good looker. She was great.And I enjoyed Charlton Heston because I mainly associate him with the roles of groundbreaking films (Ben-Hur, Planet of the Apes) or a cocky but strong leader of an 80's venture (The Omega Man), and here he takes on a role of the latter as a piece of an ensemble cast and the way he blends in with the rest is good, as is his performance.George Kennedy was also great, although I don't know how Joseph "Joe" Patroni made a transition between head mechanic and airline Vice President between Airport films. But he was good, not as fun as a character but as a serious one he pulled it off very nicely, although not as good as in the first one because his Joe Pesci style comedic charm was what worked.Helen Reddy was also good, as was Gloria Swanson, and although her role was minuscule and her character had a greater role than her, Linda Blair was decent in her performance.Lastly, Airport 1975 is also great since the formulaic plot device it followed is straight out of the disaster genre, it ended up becoming an influence over the plot of the comedic Airplane! (Known as Flying High! in Australia) since it comedically parodied many of the characters to a good extent and was rather enjoyable, so Airport 1975 should have a greater legacy for that than for somehow ending up in the book The Fifty Worst Films of All Time. I mean, Airport 1975 isn't amazing, but it's significantly better than its predecessor which people seem to be unable to see.It does have problems, namely falling into a formulaic story determined by the 70's disaster movie genre and therefore being somewhat predictable even though occasionally surprising.Also, there's no real intensity in the story and that could have been enhanced if the filmmakers decided to use more of a musical score to put some shocks into perspective, but that was lacking.Lastly, along with the implausibility of the plot, the story fails to explain what happens to Scott Freeman or his plane after the collision and it is left to the viewers imagination, but the unconvincing shot of the collision leaves the audience inquisitive. I'm assuming he died since he crashed his plane and had a heart attack, but he disappeared suddenly and I wasn't sure what happened. So based on the standards set by the 1970's disaster genre and the low standards set after its poor but Oscar-Winning predecessor, Airport 1975 supplied sufficient entertainment and had a decent series of plot dynamics flooded by characters.
Soleil D (us) wrote: I did like the plot, but the acting was bad, and the movie was long.
Nancy W (es) wrote: Truth is louder than words. Within the scope of the content presented, space is left for viewers to decide and interpret on their own. All it comes down to is how do we live as the species holding the power to destroy and create? Can we take only what is needed and eat with respect? This is definitely one of the movies that will resonate at the bottom of my heart for a long long time.
Ricky J (fr) wrote: This movie is a complete waste of time.And tyhis is supposed to be a Sci-Fi movie? Really?
Anthony (us) wrote: those awful hoodlums. i can't imagine anyone as terrible as these kids. omg. that poor dad and his back problems.
Mary F (de) wrote: Vic Morrow as a 26 year-old playing a high schooler was a little absurd, but it's hard not to root for Glenn Ford.
Brenda W (ag) wrote: The last fifty years of the life of Mahatma Gandhi leading to his assassination in 1948 is portrayed. In the late 1800's South Africa the Indian-British attorney Mohandas K. Gandhi take up the cause of fighting what he sees as racially discriminatory law against colored people such as himself and other ethnic indains. Being that South Africa was is part of the British empire, he is hoping that news of such in the british press will support his cause. Although violence is used against him by the authorities , his protest are only peaceful means. Having made a name for himself as a motivator of peaceful action which he does not want confused with passivity, Gandhi return to India in 1915 , when he has now abandoned his western clothing for more basic self made garb of shawls and lions clothes. He is asked by prominent figures of the days such as Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhai Patel and Mohammad Ali Jinnah to join the fight for Indian independence from he the British; dspite some within that group believing Gandhi's method ineffective. Because of internal religious conflict between the Hindu and the minority Muslims among other, the British believe that an Indian self-government would lead to chaos, which to Gandhi is beside the point. Gandhi's ability to rally the troop is enough to strike fear in the British controlled authorities, who do whatever they feel they need to quash the quiet revolt while while tying not to make him appear the martyr. Even if Gandhi and his cohorts are able to achieve independence for their homeland. Gandhi must figure out how to control the dissent between the Hindus and Muslims. It relates to world religion because Gandhi live by the Karma - cause and effect and Gandhi did good Karma. Gandhi characterized his nonviolent resistance as satyagraha(sanskrit) "grasping the truth and he explain it derived from its non commitment to ahimsa is prevalent throughout all tradition of india. They chose its motto statement from the upanishads satyamev Jayate. Like his upanishadic forbear, Gandhi believe truth can only be sought only through perfect self-effacement, which in itself could be achieve by disciplining the body through fasting and celibrary.