Storia di fifa e di coltello - Er seguito d'er più
A funk is believed to be a tough guy because of a magic bowler hat which gives him courage and strength.
You may also like
Storia di fifa e di coltello - Er seguito d'er più torrent reviews
Nico J (ag) wrote: This movie should be called "Go and Bebored"!!! Ohhhh myyyy godddd. Conversations about apocalyptic events consisting of "Oh I can't even imagine. It would be so terrible. But I prefer not to think about it." and interviews with morons "Ohh the wireless makes me sick! I can feel the vibrations in my body. The internet is evil!". Overall this is the most mind numbingly boring and pretentious movie I've ever seen. It was so boring I couldn't laugh after the 20th minute about how bad it was. Wow. It was so bad it wasn't even funny.
Harry W (it) wrote: I fully expected Bangkok Dangerous to be bad because it is an American remake of a Thai film which unfortunately features Nicolas Cage in the lead at his point as a sellout in the late 2000's.Bangkok Dangerous follows a formulaic path for its script. I've seen many films which give a certain list of rules to anti-heroes and hitmen which are used to determine if the characters are strong or not, but Bangkok Dangerous' protagonist Joe is a generic version of any such character. Bangkok Dangerous makes an attempt to give a strong characterisation to Protagonist Joe, but the attempt is so half-hearted and lazy in its writing that it is unnecessary for the filmmakers to even bother at it. I can't say how good the original Bangkok Dangerous was, but it isn't hard for it to be better than this piece of crap.Bangkok Dangerous follows a consistently generic path and never transcends that. There isn't really a second in Bangkok Dangerous that I considered entertaining because it introduced nothing new to the crime thriller genre and in the process was simply consistent in failing to entertain. There is little in the way of plotting in Bangkok Dangerous and the pace is poor because audiences are likely to find themselves waiting around for something to happen and being disappointed when it doesn't because that was precisely the case with me when I watched it. Bangkok Dangerous is not a good film and is the furthest thing from general entertainment because as a crime thriller, it isn't gritty and is seriously lacking in thrills or even any action whatsoever.Bangkok Dangerous wastes so much time during its 100 minute running time by pacing things so awfully that nothing ever really goes down. I cannot begin to explain just how slow and dull the entire experience of Bangkok Dangerous was, and it failed to capture its scenery well at all so the question of why the film even bothered to take place in Bangkok whatsoever is so pointless. Bangkok Dangerous is bad enough as a standalone film, but I can't begin to wonder just how bad it is as a remake. If it is this bad and boring as a simple crime thriller which doesn't live up to the standards of Nicolas Cage's better works or even the slightly superior films that he sold out for. Bangkok Dangerous doesn't even pass of as an entertanining example of one of his films that is bad enough to be an unintensional comedy because there is simply nothing funny or bad enough to be unintentionally funny about Bangkok Dangerous. From a storytelling or scriptural perspective, there is actually nothing that I would give any praise whatsoever to, because Bangkok Dangerous is just that bad.And the visual experience was too grim. Bangkok Dangerous boasts poor form cinematography which doesn't real remain stable or zoom up on the appropriate things to focus on, just a lot of random other things. The angles of the cinematography in Bangkok Dangerous does nothing to benefit the film because it more often focuses on the backs and arms of the actors than it is one their faces as they say things. And all it captures is the grey visual aesthetic of the film which is poorly lit and gives no visual appeal to the film. There is really nothing good to look at in Bangkok Dangerous and no cameras that are really taking a good look at it, so you have to wonder exactly wqhat is going through the head of directors when they desperately attempted to capture some kind of visual experience in the film. I really do not understand what angle they were going for because the visual style of Bangkok Dangerous is too indifferent to be either effective or even the slightest bit artistic, so it fails to capture whatever the hell is happening on screen well enough. Then again I guess it doesn't really matter because the lack of originality in its plot dynamics end up ensuring that nothing good happens in Bangkok Dangerous, and in the end I walked away from the film having wasted too much time on too little entertainment.The casting decisions of Bangkok Dangerous are no better, though none of the actors hold a bad candle to Nicolas Cage.Nicolas Cage simply is not right for the lead role. Joe is not a strong character, but Nicolas Cage proves to be even weaker when facing the role. Following the generic and half-hearted acting path which he has taken with many characters in the past, Bangkok Dangerous ends up being a film featuring another one of his forgettable performances. He isn't believable as an action hero this time because everything that happens feels mostly improvised and doesn't show him kicking any major ass, so Bangkok Dangerous proves to be one of Nicolas Cage's significantly worse action vehicles. It just goes to show that he is not the right man to take on lead roles in Hollywood remakes of films because apparently that wasn't figured out after the abysmal result of the 2006 film The Wicker Man. Bangkok Dangerous simply reminds us of that once again, and hopefully it will remind many filmmakers in the future who think that Nicolas Cage and remakes can coincide well.Chakrit Yamnam was ok though, and by comparison to Nicolas Cage he was impressive. I mean his performance in Bangkok Dangerous isn't great and doesn't make him a memorable actor, but his decent performance is one of the significantly better elements of Bangkok Dangerous.So Bangkok Dangerous is just truly dreadful. Nicolas Cage is bad, nothing happens and what does fails to be captured due to poor lighting and crappy cinematography, so it is an unoriginal film and a poor remake, and I know this without even having to see the original. It serves as potentially Nicolas Cage's worst film, and one that isn't even bad enough to be so bad that it is good because Bangkok Dangerous is just way to damn boring for its own good.
Ri A (it) wrote: Hey Ram! was supposedly Gandhi's last words. Now, some researchers say that Gandhi never uttered those words, even though he may have intended to. Ironically, the man who shot Gandhi was a Ram, as in Nathu'Ram' Godse. In the movie, we have two other 'Rams' trying to do the same ?? Sri'Ram' Abhyankar and Saket 'Ram'. Gandhi is not shown uttering Hey Ram! before his death in this movie. So, the title's significance is open to interpretation and discussion, as is the rest of the movie. The technical stuff is excellent. The set designs and costumes are worthy of a period piece and the attention to detail is brilliant. Sarika, Kamal's 'research-assistant' has surely done her homework. Hey Ram! demands multiple viewing to appreciate the amount of hard work and preparation gone into the production.
Will N (jp) wrote: Dunno where the heck they came up with *this* darker approach to Babe for a sequel... but I guess it works. It's fun to watch, anyway--mostly. Definitely deserves a PG rating however.
Dresden P (nl) wrote: I remember watching this when I was 11 and being totally riveted.The ideas and interconnectivity they established in the movie challenged me to think in a way I didn't think possible for a movie to do.
Martha B (nl) wrote: Quote fest, niiiiice twist!!!
Adam K (mx) wrote: Undeniably the best concert film ever made. Through the direction of Jonathan Demme, David Byrne was able to give audiences his crazy show ideas on the big screen. The set list is wonderful and the concept is genius, build up the stage and bring out more musicians as the show goes forward. Its almost as the evolution of the rock concert is displayed through a 17 song show from one of the best modern rock bands of all time. Byrne's giant suit is definitely a great highlight.
Steve M (es) wrote: The Deadly NecklaceStarring: Christopher Lee and Thorley WaltersDirector: Terence Fisher This 1962 German film (with its two British stars and a British director) has very little to recommend it. The script is like a reject from the Universal series starring Basil Rathbone (with everything I don't like about the weaker efforts among those amplified ten-fold here, most notably Watson being portrayed as a bumbling, retarded simpleton), with an unbearably bad score. (Christopher Lee has supposedly said that he is pleased with the film. While I won't quibble with his opinion that he and Walters more closely resemble Holmes and Watson than any other on-screen pair, I don't think it's enough for anyone to be pleased with this weak effort.) The plot of "Sherlock Holmes and the Deadly Necklace" sees Holmes and his arch-nemisis Professor Moriarity matching wits over an Egyptian necklace owned by Cleopatra, witih it being stolen and re-stolen several times through the film. There are a couple of interesting moments between Holmes and Moriarity (who is played by an appropriately sinister actor), but the downside is that they feel like they belong more in a hard-boiled, pulp fiction detective novel than a Holmes adventure.
Sean D (fr) wrote: This film is super depressing. But it's got a pretty good plot.
DW S (ca) wrote: I grew up watching the Leprechaun films with Warwick Davis. I loved them. Cheesy but fun. I wasn't exactly thrilled hearing that WWE Films were re-imagining it. If that wasn't bad enough, they got one of their talents, Hornswoggle, to play the leprechaun. The plot seem very familiar but I can't place what film I've seen it in before. Villagers lure outsiders in only to feed them to a monster that they are cursed by because of something they did in the pass. It doesn't take a lot to tell who is going to die & what roll they'll play. It was interesting enough at first but that quickly fall apart after the leprechaun showed up.This film is rated R but it really doesn't feel like it. The color of everything is so bland & the blood is barely noticeable. The few horror scenes they did show on screen, were not special or cool. One scene got an reaction out of me & it was quick. The pacing was fast but not too fast. The characters weren't dumb...all the time. They had a plan of escape & it wasn't really bad. That is if they stuck to it.There isn't a lot of blood. No nudity. No sex. Most you see is a girl in her undies. A lot of the horror bits are not shown. These are not bad things mind you, however it is puzzling why this is R. The creature effects are not impressive. I don't even think the mouth moved. Not that it talked.This was suppose to be a reboot or re-imagining of the The Leprechaun films but it feels more a knock off of Leprechaun's Revenge. Which was a far better film & it aired on SyFy!This movie has zero to do with the old films. I don't know why they even needed the rights to make it. It's an in name only reboot in my opinion. If I've seen this on TV, I'd have no idea it was a reboot. I would have seen it as a low budget monster flick. I don't mind reboots or fresh takes on something old. This film left a bad taste in my mouth & wishing another studio would reboot it. The film has nothing to do with the past films other than there's a leprechaun. This one just growls while his mouth may or may not move. R rating is puzzling. Not worth your time. I suggest watching Leprechaun's Revenge. You'll have a better time.
rudy e (es) wrote: classic! love Cathy poedwell
Alexander C (jp) wrote: ''Our people once were warriors. But unlike you, Jake, they were people with mana, pride; people with spirit. If my spirit can survive living with you for eighteen years, then I can survive anything.''A family descended from Maori warriors is bedeviled by a violent father and the societal problems of being treated as outcasts.Rena Owen: Beth Heke''In case you wanna know it's Jake. Jake The Muss.''Combine Director Lee Tamahori, Writer Riwia Brow and the Novel by Alan Duff and you're in for an explosive treat of immense fortitude. Equaling the most realistic depictions of a life of a family that hits home...and then some.Once Were Warriors is, in it's rawest form, about a woman named Beth and her struggle to just do what's best for her family. She is of Maori heritage, New Zealand's sort of Native Americans. Culture is a proud and powerful aspect of the movie, as Beth's strengths lie in her devotion to her family and her heritage. But that is little comfort, as her daughter is struggling to accept adulthood, her youngest son is heading towards juvenile detention, and her oldest son is fast on his way to joining a brutal group. Worst of all, her husband Jake is violent, strong, demanding and an alcoholic.The film draws strength from painting everybody in full 3 dimensions. Each of her children are troubled, but they all have fierce love and respect for their mother. The gang initiates the oldest son, embracing him with violence, the way the Army would do. The juvenile detention center separates the youngest son from his only home, but instills in him a pride in his ancestry. And Jake himself is a beast, a colossus, a terrifying man, built like a demonic tank who will destroy you with anything at his disposal, should you even spill a drop of his beverage...but despite all that, he still somehow, comes across as loving Beth. Sometimes.Once Were Warriors is a film that you are instantly compelled to watch, simply because it presents a world that most people are not familiar with. I'm sure that most Americans and English people have heard of the Maori, the native peoples of New Zealand but how many can say that they have an idea of what kind of lives these people lead or what the modern day culture looks like. As far as I know, Lee Tamahori is one of the first directors to show us this culture, which many Americans will instantly compare with south central L.A. gang life and the decay of Native Americans lifestyles.The film's opening scene is very clever. We are shown a beautiful N.Z. countryside of what most of New Zealand must have looked like before British colonization. Then the camera pulls back to reveal that it is just a billboard in the middle of the urban insanity that we are all too familiar with: concrete highways. We are then shown an urban ghetto where hip-hop culture looks as though it has latched on to Maori youth and bar brawling and 40 ounzers are all that the rest seem to live for. Among the latter group is Jake Heke, a macho abusive drunk living with a wife to whom he shows no respect and five kids that he couldn't care less about.''I bought seafood today - bloody everything! Just wanted to put a smile on her face. Think she'd let me? Not a chance. All I said was that I got laid off. Anybody would've thought I'd told her my prick had dropped off!''There are many qualities to this film. One of which is the costume design which presents a wide variety of hip-hop and biker gang style clothing bringing the grittiness of the social environment to life.Another quality is the undeniably powerful, emotional and inspirational performance by Rena Owen as a flawed yet amazingly strong wife and mother. The scene that I was most compelled by was when Boogie's counselor, who seems to have been Westernized, in his slacks and collared shirt, proves with a Maori spear that he is in fact an honourable warrior.However I would have liked it if the story had drifted off in more directions and made me more familiar with the lesser shown subplots such as Boogie's new-found love of his culture and gang member Nig, whose appealing demeanor is given hardly any attention. The movie could have been longer to make this possible and it could have scrapped some of the drinking party scenes.I felt satisfied with the conclusion on all fronts, and thought that each character showed exactly where their strength lies.Be warned that this movie is very heartbreaking. Its overall tone is one of futility, of better lives not received, of wanting the best but never quite getting it. It is very raw and intense in its portrayal of physical and domestic violence, and the easily upset may have a hard time waiting to see if it ends happily enough for their tastes.There are disturbing scenes of violence against the female characters. However you should not avoid the film because of this. In the end, it can be seen as an inspirational story of how inner strength and love can overcome anything.''People show their true feelings when they're drunk.''