Take This Waltz

Take This Waltz

Twenty-eight-year-old Margot is happily married to Lou, a good-natured cookbook author. But when Margot meets Daniel, a handsome artist who lives across the street, their mutual attraction is undeniable.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:116 minutes
  • Release:2011
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:murder,   hotel,   revenge,  

A happily married woman (Michelle Williams) is torn between the husband of five years (Seth Rogen) that she loves and a new man (Luke Kirby) in her life, whom she's unable to ignore. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Take This Waltz torrent reviews

John F (es) wrote: excellent movie dealing with the demons that goes on with trying to " keep it real " and the struggle with trying not to be a statistic.... it's hard to adapt being a felon, but in the end it's about WILLPOWER....

Faisal M (gb) wrote: great movie! must watch if you like thriller and suspense..

Edith N (de) wrote: Set Apart From Itself I wonder what it says about me that, as I was watching the credits ([i]of course[/i] I was watching the credits!), I was disappointed to see a scroll go past informing me that "Mr. Leary's guitar solo" was performed by someone else. I'm perfectly aware that not everyone knows how to play an instrument. Honestly, I'm even aware that some people can't be taught to. However, it still kind of saddens me. I mean, Samuel L. Jackson played his own solo in [i]Black Snake Moan[/i]. Richard Gere did his own dancing in [i]Chicago[/i]. (Catherine Zeta-Jones did, too, but she'd had previous training.) Yes, Johnny Depp lip-synched in [i]Cry Baby[/i], but I think John Waters probably thought it was funnier, and Tim Burton didn't let him do it in [i]Sweeney Todd[/i]. I think my feeling here was, "He only had to play for like a minute or two!" Leary is Bill. Bill is shut up in a mental ward. His doctor is Ann (Hope Davis). What Bill knows, and what Ann denies, is that he was part of a cryogenic experiment. He has been frozen for a long time--I think he thinks it's been four hundred years. He doesn't remember much, but he remembers that. Whereas Ann says it's been a week or so that he's been in there, and they just found him after a car accident. He'll be released when he is no longer a danger to himself or others. However, he knows that they're planning to give him a lethal injection. He'll never get out of there alive, and he knows it. Slowly, Ann helps him remember details about his life before he got there, however he got there. Will it turn out it was a suicide attempt? Is he right about where and when and why he is? Or is there something else going on? Denis Leary has never broken out of his twenty-year-old persona as that shouty smoking guy. This, I think, is in part because he didn't take roles like this. But I think part of the problem there might be that he was seldom offered them. I heard him complain on the subject in an interview once. Now, I do think he gave a fine performance in [i]The Ref[/i], but I think [i]The Ref[/i] is a seriously underrated film. The issue there is that there's more to the character than just shouting, though of course he does shout a lot. Here, he hardly ever shouts at all, even in flashback. He rambles a lot, and he says things he shouldn't say, but it's all in a very quiet way. He interacts with Ann in a determined way, but there isn't much shouting involved. Arguably, what's really going on is despair, which is very different. By limiting the characters shown, the film doesn't have to get more involved about the mental health issues involved. Bill interacts with a few of the other patients once, briefly, but his world is mostly limited to Ann, orderly Dayton (Jim Gaffigan), and Ann's supervisor (Maureen Anderman). No matter who's right, there are good and sensible reasons for it. However, from a storytelling perspective, it also means they don't have to show anyone else's problems. Bill's, after all, are supposed to be ambiguous. If they were straightforward, there wouldn't be much story. As it stands, the movie doesn't ask us to take sides. It doesn't matter to the movie if Bill is right or wrong until relatively late in the proceedings. It's also true that the movie mostly does not distract itself with subplot. On the other hand, I do think we're kind of being cheated from the fact that the movie doesn't have the courage to limit itself even more. The story could arguably have worked better limited to just one room. For starters, there are a few scenes which, while showing us in a pretty jarring way what the true of the situation is, kind of distract from everything else. Okay, yes, the flashbacks couldn't take place in there, though the combination of hallucination, memory, and reality works very well indeed. Still, I'm not sure there's any reason for Ann to be seen anywhere but in the confines of that really quite spacious room, as hospital rooms go. Indeed, that could have made the contrast all the more striking. Though I'll admit the Connecticut November is lovely.

cj o (de) wrote: Bad adaptation with suttle yet unrealistic humor. How many comedic film remakes of TV shows that weren't even comedies will there be?

Michael W (ca) wrote: It cant have been that good if I cant remember any of it plot, except the fact thing's blow up

Ryan C (de) wrote: A romantic comedy that was more pleasing than expected mostly because of the performances by Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan.

MEC r (es) wrote: This movie was just on channel FMC. Dog trainer turned thief. Nothing worth while.

Chad H (us) wrote: I heard about this movie from a review online that was just really ripping on everything within it. I was pretty curious about it since the movie did not at all seem as bad as they were making it out to be. So one day it popped up on Netflix and I watched it one night and was surprised of how well it turned out to be. It starts off with a very catchy song by a rooster named Chanticleer, and how the whole balance of the world is dependent on this rooster crowing every morning in order for the sun to come up. The premise is a tad odd but just roll with it. The whole idea of the rooster Chanticleer definitely is rooted with elements of Elvis, and Glenn Campbell does a fantastic job as Chanticleer. But returning to the plot, there is an owl who wishes to plunge the farm into darkness so he can live carefree because as we all know Owls hate the sun. The villain sends one of his minions to keep Chanticleer from singing one day and actually succeeds and the sun actually comes up but then fades back away. The other animals see this and believe that Chanticleer doesn't need to sing at all for the sun to come up and then laugh at him and he leaves. The movie itself follows that classic Don Bluth story arc where something bad happens to the main character but everything is restored by the end. The movie also takes a weird turn with live action material that just feels out of place. Overall this movie is not a masterpiece but it certainly isn't bad by any means. In fact I found myself enjoying it. The voice actors do a pretty good job matching up with their characters and the animation is done very well. Its more of a movie about overcoming obstacles and it really is for the kids. So I do recommend this movie for the kids. Its funny at times but it hasn't exactly aged well, but still has enjoyable moments. So get it for the kids and they should have a good time.

Robert A (fr) wrote: It's not that bad no, but I'm not crazy about it either. At or near the bottom of my John Cusack 80s films.

Will the Thrill V (gb) wrote: Brother Ray Steckler's psychotronic masterpiece.

Bob S (ru) wrote: Who would have thought the cast of A Fish Called Wanda would come together and make a crappy movie!

James R (it) wrote: A perfect example of why you shouldn't let Roland Emmerich remake a movie.

Carlos G (br) wrote: Didn't really think much of it, brillant story and ideas for a great film. The cast has it stars but not right felt fraudulent and at times just ridilicilous.

Birut A (au) wrote: Not very original idea