A San Francisco spoken word artist returns to New Mexico to be with his dying father, only to find he loses his "voice" as he is sucked back in to the dysfunctional life of drugs and violence he left behind. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
A San Francisco spoken word artist returns to New Mexico to be with his dying father, only to find he loses his "voice" as he is sucked back in to the dysfunctional life of drugs and violence he left behind.
You may also like
Spoken Word torrent reviews
bill b (jp) wrote: nothing new but enjoyable and well directed. Brilliant ending.
Elena S (ru) wrote: good at the beginning , but it turns 180 degrees at the ending
Tom H (es) wrote: Sensitive treatment of an unfortunately all too American problem. In his directorial debut, William H. Macy manages to keep the plot from slipping into the sensational or melodramatic. A talented cast supports the effort of trying to bring some sense into a tragedy that cannot be explained. Crudup is brilliant. Haunting music. Bottom line: Unapologetic
James A M (it) wrote: A well-paced look at the struggling business of running a newspaper, the Gray Lady to be specific. The perspective is also well-placed; the movie is mainly focused on the media desk helped by the snark and witticism of columnist and reporter David Carr.
Jacob A (br) wrote: All I can say for this is this: This is about college student stereotypes, some of the roll call contains the straight arrow kid, the virgin kid who wants to get laid, the guy who can't tell a women and man and a pothead, send them to Translyvania of all places to allow hijinks to ensue. Let them encounter some supernatural things in the same time and here you go.This movie is clumsy with it's story, scratch that, it doesn't even have one. It seems to try to base itself off it's gags more, like seeing a vampire get high off pot and such, watching a couple try to get laid while all this noise occurs. This is not even close to being engaging. Not even worth the dollar you put in the Redbox...I remember saying this isn't even as funny as beerfest, which did in fact had some much more well-constructed jokes.
Arseniy V (ru) wrote: Quite a sophisticated, illuminating and creative look at a subject that invites ridicule more than any other I can think of. Essentially, what documentary filmmaking is all about.
Dan H (it) wrote: Not great but ok, Phillip Seymour Hoffman in the elevator!! Enough said. I sharted!!
David L (ag) wrote: This is certainly quite an epic film, at just under 3 hours long, but it's good enough to keep one awake throughout. Once you get past the first 60 minutes, which is a fairly long and drawn out introduction to the ring and characters backgrounds, the action levels pick up and the quest to destroy the ring that would allow evil to rule, begins. We've essentially got an A-list cast setting out on a trek across the world, encountering various different enemies along the way. In this episode we have orcs, bad wizards, and trolls looking to take out our legion of heroes, and the special effects thrown at us are nothing short of impressive. I remember this film was a direct rival to when the first instalment of Harry Potter came out, and this would probably have been my preference in that little duel. I'd say it's aimed at a slightly more mature audience, possibly more males than females, due to its inclusion of sword fights and a little blood and gore. In terms of the actual story, how a useless little band of hobbits would ever survive such a journey is beyond me, as the skilled fighters spend half their time saving the little blighters, rather than destroying the enemy. The cynical side of me knows that if the ring was in the hands of anyone else, the journey would have been a lot quicker, although one could argue they don't have the strong will of Frodo, which makes him resist being seduced by its power. Still, we are where we are, and it's a great example of fantasy coming to life on the big screen. A lot of people will be put off by this because of the running time, and will no doubt have opted to watch Harry Potter instead. However, those who have braved it will have enjoyed it, and will no doubt be glued to the sequels to see how it all pans out. I certainly will be - Forget the geeky wizard and his ginger mate, this is the real sorcery right here ;)
Blake P (gb) wrote: I don't know shit about Madonna. I know that the media has a fixation on her aging (how dare she have a wrinkle at 57-years-old?), that she almost died at this year's Brit Awards while performing "Living for Love", that she sliced censors in half during her controversial 1994 interview with David Letterman, that Robert Christgau thinks she's a pop genius, that the gays love her, that she's, all right, clinging to her youth. But still, I hardly know anything about Madonna. Maybe I could barely sing the chorus to "Holiday", but that's all. I'd recognize her if she were to walk down my street. I saw her in "Dick Tracy" once. She was pretty good in that. I suppose I was expecting a sort of "Vogue" tinged romanticism, painting Madonna as a pop figure still untouchable, like how "Ready to Wear" made the fashion world funny, nowhere near realistic, but was all the better for it. For all the cultural bullshit that misunderstands her, "Truth or Dare" dares you to hate and love the pop superstar at the same time, wanting you to scoff at her need to be the STAR of every moment, wanting you to appreciate her relentless work ethic, her need to be an entertainer at the top of their game. And like all good documentaries (and why this one is so damn good), the film is riveting for everyone, outsiders and insiders alike. I wasn't a Madonna fan before the documentary nor will I be afterward, but as a rock documentary, "Truth or Dare" stands as one of the finest. Recording the entirety of her 1990 Blond Ambition tour, the film is essentially an inside-look into what a day, a night, a week, a month, a year, looks like for Madonna. (Or maybe it just seems that way: a master of camera manipulation, she may just as well be putting on a show.) Photographed in grainy black-and-white, save for the colored (and obligatory) stage performances, "Truth or Dare" is more warty than glamorized, emphasizing her vulnerabilities, need to be the center of attention, and her wicked sense of humor (she seems to laugh more when people are having a hard time than when everyone is having a ball). I couldn't care less about the complicated choreographic sets that circle around renditions of "Like a Virgin", "Express Yourself", "Holiday", among others; what makes "Truth or Dare" engaging is its frank candidness. Behind the scenes, Madonna notices that the majority of her young dancers are insecure and need mothering; strange, she remarks, how she likes to be a matriarch, to give her stage family someone to confide in. We catch glimpses of her short relationship with "Dick Tracy" co-star Warren Beatty, who scoffs at the fact that real-life doesn't seem to matter to her unless it is captured on camera. Cameos abound, featuring pop-ups from Pedro Almodvar, Kevin Costner, Antonio Banderas, and Al Pacino. But there are three truly great scenes in the film, where Madonna doesn't seem to be putting on a show, where she doesn't seem to be trying to make herself look a certain way for the cameras. Best is her reaction to Kevin Costner, who comes backstage for one show and describes the production as neat; disgusted, she gags, remarking "Anybody who says my show is 'neat' has to go." Later, an old friend (pre-fame old) meets Madonna in the hallway of her hotel, asking her to be the godmother to her soon-to-be born child. Though it is clear that the women were close back in the day, Madonna blows her off; she doesn't want to be a mother any time soon, and she doesn't have time to waste time with non-celebrities from the past. And in one of the closing scenes, she infamously models what a blow job from Madonna would look like on a glass bottle. Minutes later, she describes her true love as Sean Penn, heartbroken, regretful. Fakery of course comes around - the scene where she visits her mother's grave doesn't feel all too sincere, rather the documentarian's hope to make appear feel bare-bones hopeless - but "Truth or Dare", ultimately, is a winning documentary that makes the once chart-dominating pop-star more fascinating, and timeless, than ever.
Scott A (br) wrote: Okay, so this movie was basically like Forrest Gump, but only it's Dustin Hoffman in the old West. He basically goes through all these things in his life, involving the likes of Wild Bill Hickok and General Custard.It goes on far too long for starters. We get that white people killed a lot of innocent Native Americans, but it really does seem like every twenty minutes the white guys show up and massacre all the Native Americans. Like how did they tribe keep bouncing back I wonder?It's weird cause at first it almost seems like it wants to be a comedy, like say Hoffman's older sister being angry the Native Americans won't rape her. Then it tends to get more and more serious. The last huge attack on the Native Americans is really violent. You see women and children gunned down and even a naked woman on fire!!! Kind of goes overboard on the violence.Speaking of violence, it's rated PG-13 so I was kind of shocked by the few nude scenes and the crazy gory violence. Tons of blood shown.Hoffman is okay, but I just have a hard time believing he could be part of the tribe! He never seemed to be one of them.And wow...William Hickey is the guy interviewing old Hoffman, make-up is great by the way, and it was fun to see him young: I've only ever seen that actor in his elder years.
Jos M (us) wrote: Texas Killing Fields provides some chills, and features amazing performances from its cast, but it's some times tasteless and let down by an non-coherent and messy storytelling.