Tabe Tai Hok
A web of secrets, deceits, games and lies ... and three human beings caught up in a dangerous tangle of love, lust and passion.
|Download||Tabe Tai Hok (2012) 720p DVDrip ~SaNRiM~||DVDRip||33||41||2.21 GB|
You may also like
Tabe Tai Hok torrent reviews
Lyle G (ag) wrote: I enjoyed Woody Allen and Jesse Eisenberg, but I couldn`t sit through this horribly unfunny, predictable movie especially when there were no subtitles during the Roman segments.
Robert S (mx) wrote: Wonderful film! It's about child soldiers in the Congo so some of it is wrenching to watch, but there's a lovely, inspiring story beneath the tragedy. You can download it from iTunes. I watched it at the Boetcher Theater in Boulder.
Jonathan T (jp) wrote: The movie is very well done. With the exception of Chris Serrone, The movie is gripping. Lots of close up shots and lighting issues but I am not a film maker. The story will have you until the end. Should of killed off Serrone in the first 5 mins, prob would of won an Grammy...
Anthony L (nl) wrote: Azura Skye. Those are the only two words that make this film worth watching, but even Ms. Skye can't save this plotless drivel. Don't go by the description, or the picture, or anything really. Save yourself from this one. The dialogue is incredibly difficult to get through and the inane story puzzles as to why the movie has been kept on this long.
Cassie M (au) wrote: I was bored with it after about 30 minutes
Harts C (mx) wrote: This movie is one of the most beautiful Chinese movie I have ever seen. The picture and music ensemble are simple, but go with the pitch of the two elementary school students. It's really difficult to understand this movie if you haven't come out of the closet before. If you haven't, take a broader perspective. Watch this movie, it's a wonderful watch. And it isn't "about soccer."
Jackie E (au) wrote: Lady Death is like Disney trying to be evil & sexy. This is not a good film, you feel like you're watching Disney's animated version of Cinderella, except that Prince Charming is a male chauvinist who runs around half naked with the hugest muscles ever drawn on an animated character. I must admit I haven't seen the whole movie, as I turned it off 15mins into it - so dont take my word for it.
Josh G (ca) wrote: From wikipedia's entry on Film: "The work is studied by and has been the subject of criticism from both film and theatre scholars, with the former tending to study the film as shot, the latter tending to study the script as written. Critical opinion is mixed, but it is generally held in higher regard by film scholars than it is by theatre or Beckett scholars." I'm kind of falling in between the film and theater scholars on this one. On one hand, this short is beautifully well made. It opens with a shot which, upon first glance, looked to me like an endless ocean seen from above. Gradually, it becomes clear that it is in fact an extreme close-up of a person's eye. The eye becomes the camera, looking casually about its surroundings until it focuses on a man rushing down the street, huddling as close to the wall as possible and hiding his face. Of course, the audience is aware that the man is Buster Keaton. The man (named 'O' in the script) rushes to his house, trying to avoid the all-seeing eye that is following him, scaring the people he passes along the way. At his apartment -- furnished only with a bed, a few small animals, a rocking chair, and a picture of God -- O sets about deconstructing his apartment (and his life?) in a way that is at once rife with symbolism and the humor of the Buster Keaton that we know and love. Considering that Keaton was nicknamed "The Great Stone Face", it is important to note that his face is not shown on camera until the very end of the short. I don't think that this was completely intentional, given that Keaton was not the first choice for the role, but it certainly does add an extra layer of mystique to the whole proceeding. On the other hand, there are a few scenes that don't make a lot of sense to me -- an old woman carrying flowers on a staircase, for example -- and although I appreciate that the humor in Film was very indicative of Buster Keaton's style, it kind of felt out of place with the philosophical(?) musings of the later scenes. < SPOILERS > There is plenty of room for interpretation as to the meaning of this seventeen minute short, which is part of its charm. Keaton himself said that the theme of Film is the idea that "a man may keep away from everybody but he can't get away from himself." This explains why, although O prevents everything around him from being able to see him -- including both God and the curtains -- he still finds himself face to face with himself at the end. It's also worthwhile to look at O as the product of an unhealthy and undiagnosed paranoia, checking his pulse compulsively and refusing to walk in front of mirrors for fear of being seen by... well, the ending doesn't work as well with this interpretation. Why doesn't he blind the "eyes" of the rocking chair? Should we look at the bookend close-ups of an eye at the beginning and close of the movie as one set: are these eyes watching everything that happens in between? Are they the eyes of God? Does O need to be watched (a la Berkeley's "to be is to be perceived") and is therefore projecting a God/watcher? < /SPOILERS > In short (pun totally intended!!!!), it's a very thought-provoking and interesting movie, made even more meaningful by the mortality of its star. According to wikipedia, which is where I've gotten all of the information I've used in this review, Keaton died just 18 months after Film was released. It's a tad confusing, but ultimately a very interesting viewing experience. P.S. For those of you who are wondering where to see this short, it is available in its entirely on YouTube.
Fiona H (gb) wrote: I know its natural accent but after becoming a huge fan of 'House' it's very strange seeing and hearing Hugh like this. The same is true of Joely, really English but American in hit show Nip/Tuck... just weird!
Naveed E (nl) wrote: I like that movie, not that bad. I really like the movie atmosphere...!
Chris F (br) wrote: This film felt like a high school play rehearsal. The acting was wooden and the direction a bore. This could have been a decent coming of age film but instead is just a shell of one.
Pierluigi P (mx) wrote: It carries a whole universe of emotions.
Allen H (es) wrote: Sound: Nothing really great here beyond the standard production values for a film of this type. 75/100 Technical: Nothing great here, cheap sets and props; it is supposed to be a comedy not an epic though. 60/100 Narrative: An episodic history parody that does not flow well together. Great ideas but disjointed. 40/100 Character/Acting: Lots of corny Vaudevillian and naughty jokes that are silly and funny. I liked Sid Caesar as the cave man the most. A lot of the supporting cast does an excellent job being funny and keeping the film together. 70/100 Did I enjoy it: Yes, very funny and silly. 80/100 Artistic merit: Nothing truly groundbreaking here; the jokes are old, but funny. This film needs a lot more work to be taken seriously, which this film is not supposed to be. 40/100 Total score 60.8/100
Gordon I (ca) wrote: This films offers very little outside the controversial scenes depicting unsimulated sex acts (and there are many).