Starting Over

Starting Over

A divorced man falls in love, but somehow he can't get over his ex-wife. This effects his love life in comic ways. Based on Dan Wakefield's novel. Burt Reynolds is an attractive middle-aged man who suffers a crisis of confidence when ditched by his ambitious singer wife (Candice Bergen), until he begins to forge a new new relationship with an equally insecure teacher (Jill Clayburgh). But when the wife attempts a reconciliation - seduction followed by a truly excruciating song she has composed for him - he realizes where his loyalty lies.

A divorced man falls in love, but somehow he can't get over his ex-wife. This affects his love life in comic ways. Based on Dan Wakefield's novel. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


You may also like

Starting Over torrent reviews

Mariha L (jp) wrote: Trite. And I don't think it passed the Bechdal test.

Cheo C (es) wrote: Things Never Said is a truly excellent film. I know some critic's first reaction is to compare it to Love Jones, but there's room for both films the same way my Blu Collection fits The Godfather and Goodfellas just fine. This is one of the FEW MUST SEE FILMS OF THE YEAR. The film is written and directed with a poise, wit, and sensitivity that is rare, yet never shies away from letting its main characters be human, flaws and all, for better and for worse. Shanola Hampton and Omari Hardwick are great, but Elimu Nelson has a true breakout performance as the abusive husband.

Harry W (us) wrote: As with any film released under the Monster Pictures label, John Doe: Vigilante sounded lke a fun experience of exploitation.John Doe: Vigilante has a trifecta of hooks for me; not only is it a Monster Pictures film, but it's also an Australian production and a story of a vigilante. Given that I'm an action junkie who has proven a sucker for films such as Death Wish (1974) and Hobo With a Shotgun (2011), there was a real generic contract being offered by this film which seemed to be targeted directly at me. Alas, it didn't take the path I was expecting. Instead, John Doe: Vigilante takes the route of the television series Dexter (2006-2013) and tracks the story of a serial killer who picks off his enemies based on a moral compass, opting to pursue more of a content-driven film than an action one. Given that Australia has a good track record for crime cinema there is a lot of potential with John Doe: Vigilante. Unfortunately, its ambitions are blunted by a script which is a little too amateur to capitalize on its concept.John Doe: Vigilante is a film which really has potential. Injustice in the crime system is a concept which will never stop being relevant because it's an issue which has an endless existence in the world, and there have been films that have attempted to confront it many times. With John Doe: Vigilante, the film attempts to do that while also functioning as a spectacle of violence. Clearly a low-budget film, John Doe: Vigilante manages to capture some stylish moments of violence which use a variety of camera techniques to give audiences an intense voyeuristic perspective on things where our perspective is taken from diegetic cameras much of the time. With a small collection of locations illuminated by the use of shadow and mediated lighting, there is an effective backdrop to the film which provides a dark locale while there is a slight touch of blood and gore to confront the violent concepts without getting excessive. For its budget, there is certainly an effective use of imagery during the more intense moments of the film while the subtle touch of the musical score helps to enrichen the atmosphere. However, this provides a modicum of value to the film when considering that it lacks much finesse in its actual narrative. John Doe: Vigilante does not idolize its titular character. While the story clearly sides more with the notion that criminals deserve harsher punishment, it isn't a one-sided tale. We are reminded that criminal is a type of behaviour perpetrated by human beings, and each human comes with their own story or family. This is only touched upon lightly in the film so it doesn't drag the film into territory of excess sentimentality, but there are still an abundance of ways that the story crumbles into mediocrity. Above all, its the annoying story structure that really burdens the film. The story cuts between the sight of John Doe committing crimes on people and others discussing the morals of it all, and this gimmick prevents the narrative from ever developing. We don't get an understanding of the titular character, just an idea of him. Everyone in the film is an idea without having any actual characterization to them, so what is being said proves to be more interesting than who is saying it. But even then, it just feels like we're getting the same basic message drilled into our heads again and again. With one-dimensional characters putting such a black and white perspective on the idea of crime, the entire experience feels like a series of disjointed lectures against the backdrop of sporadic violence. There is always room in the world for a discussion like that which John Doe: Vigilante approaches and the fact that it touches upon the idea of a movement being influenced by vigilantes has room for some really insightful social commentary. Unfortunately, nothing is done with this theme and it is played off as an arbitrary plot point. There really could have been a lot done with this because audiences should be encouraged to ask the question of when a movement turns into a terrorist organization given that contemporary society is consistently held under a threat of media reports of Islamic State activity. The fact that John Doe: Vigilante mentions this and then tosses it aside is a display of wasted potential; a lollipop given to a child and taken away after one lick just so that they may suffer the loss. Why Kelly Dolen and Stephen M. Coates would tease us with this is beyond me as a logical thinker but plain frustrating as a viewer. Ultimately, the film cannot decide what is the correct thing to do about changing crime and simply tells audiences to do the thinking for them without providing much of a thought pattern to follow. The entire message in the film is epitomized by John Doe's final speech; a cry for help to audiences to realize that there is a real problem in the justice system and that its up to the public to take a stand. But much like the dialogue in the final speech, the entire experience of John: Doe Vigilante is too uninspired to set off any major motion in viewers. The fact that the film falls back on its dialogue all too often means that John Doe: Vigilante is essentially Australia's answer to Robert Redford's negatively received drama thriller Lions for Lambs (2007). Both films oscillate between characters caught up in an intense life-threatening situation and others talking about the politics involved. Neither films hit their mark all that well and simply stretch on to feel far longer than they actually are, and this says a lot when considering that John Doe: Vigilante only runs for 93 minutes. In the end, John Doe: Vigilante has some decent ideas and displays that Kelly Dolen knows how to use style to a film's benefit. Unfortunately, the film spends too much time falling back on its boring dialogue to drive things, and it affects the potential of the performances. Nobody really makes any kind of an impact with their performances in John Doe: Vigilante. Jamie Bamber's effort as the titular character is largely blunted by the disjointed structure which keeps cutting between points in John Doe's life and never providing much insight into the actual person he is. The man displays a modicum of intensity at the right moments, but there are far too few of them in the film. And Daniel Lissing's most memorable moments are the news reports he delivers with such campy dialogue that it seems to be a self-parody. If it is, the humour doesn't work. And if it isn't, then the standard for dramatic content in John Doe: Vigilante doesn't sink much lower than this.John Doe: Vigilante has some stylish imagery in its more violent moments and touches upon a concept worthy of discussion, but its reliance on concept prevents it from sourcing any intelligent content in the screenplay which bogs the narrative down into a poorly structured series of lectures delivered by one-dimensional perpetrators of boredom.

Andreas W (gb) wrote: Walken should have been nominated for an Oscar for this performance.

i C (kr) wrote: 8/10Im an atheist. Watched a couple of Mahers Stand Ups before, not always agree with him but he got some good ones. Like the Borat approach here, where the interviewed people basically fuck themselves, where you can see they dont even believe their own shit theyre telling. The santa claus comparison with the fat fuck in the green shirt was hilarious. Also "you dont have to pass an IQ Test to be a senator". A saddle on a dinosaur and a baby T Rex next to playing children, lmao. Crazy mf. So easy to believe in God, all weak people

Ogur T (jp) wrote: very good comedy of sci-fi films

Dan S (fr) wrote: Another excellent character piece from director Mike Leigh. Lynda Steadman and Katrin Cartlidge are both superb in their roles.

Stuart K (es) wrote: Written and directed by Robert Towne, screenwriter of such films as Chinatown (1974), The Parallax View (1974) and Frantic (1988), this is a crime thriller that brought together many of the top players of it's day, who were at the top of their game at the time. Even though it reeks of the 1980's, it's got enough going for it to make it a good watch. Drug dealer Dale "Mac" McKussic (Mel Gibson) is trying to get out of the business and go straight, his close friend, Detective Lieutenant Nick Frescia (Kurt Russell) is bound out of respect to his friend, but Nick knows he is bound by duty to arrest Mac if her ever lapses back into the drugs business again. Meanwhile, Mac has become attracted to posh restaurant owner Jo Ann Vallenari (Michelle Pfeiffer), who is intrigued by Mac's past. However, Mac is lured back into the business one last time by Mexican drug lord Carlos (Ral Juli), but Mac knows what will happen to him if he goes back into the business, and he also has Drugs Enforcement Hal Maguire (J. T. Walsh) on his tail as well as Nick, plus he wants to get out of the business for Jo Ann. But either way, it's going to end in violence. It's a quite dated film, but it still has it's moments to keep you gripped throughout. Mad Mel knew how to make good choices back then, and you can never go wrong with Kurt Russell. It's just a pity Towne hasn't directed more.

Lee M (us) wrote: This excellent, honest, and often brutal expose of the play-for-pay game is well ahead of it's time.

Marc L (it) wrote: Sympa ce vieux film de sorcelerie britanique. Un peu kitch mais pas mauvais.

Lauren K (kr) wrote: Definitely one of Elvis's better movies. Lots of fun to watch, great music, and a simple story to follow.

Vincent W (es) wrote: so many laughs. Probably the best Marx Bros film in terms of comedy. The only problem is a few dopey songs.

Darden C (ru) wrote: Good movie. A bit predictable but worth the watch and certainly an entertaining take on dealing with the loss of a spouse.

Harry S (nl) wrote: I Mean You Can Kind Of Guess Who It Actually Is Half Way Through You Know Who It Is. And The Ending Was So Predicatble. I Was Bored.

Igor T (es) wrote: An Indian movie with multiple laughably overacted and overdramatic scenes. Unintentional overacting is definitely caused by poor acting and poor plot.