Tassels in the Air

Tassels in the Air

The stooges are janitors in an office building. They stencil the wrong names on all the offices, causing a rich lady to mistakes Moe for "Omay", a famous decorator (the real Omay gets "Janitor, keep out" painted on his door.) She hires the boys to redecorate her house, which they proceed to ruin. More trouble ensues when the real Omay shows up. Adding to the chaos is the fact that Curly goes crazy whenever he sees tassels.

The stooges are janitors in an office building. They stencil the wrong names on all the offices, causing a rich lady to mistakes Moe for "Omay", a famous decorator (the real Omay gets "... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Tassels in the Air torrent reviews

Jieranai M (us) wrote: Very, Very sad but inspiring movie. I am glad I saw it. <3

Charle B (kr) wrote: I absolutely adore this movie, it's beautiful. Karen Gillan's acting was superb and I enjoyed the chemistry between the actors. I absolutely love the story line, I really hope this movie gets around more - it's fantastic.

Chris H (au) wrote: A must for any Bruce Campbell fan! I'm a fan of Burn Notice, and was expecting basically a three part extended episode. But the Sam Axe fronted story really worked for me. The special effects are pretty solid too.

Akash S (mx) wrote: The cinematography and acting were splendid, but I don't know for some reason, it failed to evoke any feeling at all.

Gimly M (ca) wrote: I genuinely cannot think of a sober person who could enjoy this movie. Gorehounds will be dissatisfied with the paltry effects, action-lovers will watch this hoping to watch Steven Seagal kick ass, which he only spends about ten minutes doing, and not to any impressive standard, and for those of you who only care if a movie is "good", you'll be just as upset, because it's... Well... Not.If you read the DVD blurb, it sounds like a good premise, well, it LIES! Not only because it's actually rubbish, but also because they have part of the plot, and all the characters' names wrong. Now, I know that's probably not Steven Seagal's fault, and honestly, the guy did come up with a sweet idea, but literally not a single thing showed through in the execution. Not to mention the fact that he's basically nothing more than a support-role.There are about as many holes in the plot as a junkie's arm on payday, so even if the acting wasn't the most appalling that I've reviewed so far (which it is), it'd still be woeful. Also, the vampires are more, Zombies with pointy dentures than vampires, not in a cool 30 Days of Night kind of way, just a "Oh-lets-go-the-cheap-shit-route-and-hope-nobody-notices" kind of way. It's a bland feature with little to no good moments. Poorly filmed, and I can't understand why, what everybody paid to see was 90 minutes worth of the above picture happening real-time. Instead you get five or ten of that, fifteen of Seagal's eyecandy offsiders, and an hour of a random group of terrible "actors" annoying the FUCK out of me in every scene.Taking it all back to the beginning, I did say no sober person could enjoy this, although I think it has a bit of potential as that quater-attention-giving movie you put on in the background while you play a game of Kings that everybody talks over until the most annoying bitch dies and you all drunkenly laugh at the screen, despite not really remembering why. Who knows though, next time round we could have Steven Seagal play a vampire (an actual one this time) that'd be cool... maybe.20%-Gimly

Lanky Man P (kr) wrote: A very good, but very boring flick.

Simon M (es) wrote: Moving to the last frame

Ei S (au) wrote: this is definately a classic in my mind

Kevin B (ca) wrote: Tells a good story by bringing most of the key players together, but suffers from the lack of Joan Jett's involvement, the failure to secure sync rights to The Runaways music (!?!), a distracting "vrit" style, and too many interviewees wearing sunglasses.

Matthew Samuel M (de) wrote: It's not perfect, but the film features an interesting plot and generally strong performances, especially from the lead character.

Dax S (it) wrote: Just a bad movie, weird and made no sense and pretty stupid.

Andrew M (jp) wrote: Corey Feldman ahahahahaha Haimster and Feldog :|to quote another review here: "This one was the worst. It just turned out to be a movie about naked women and corey feldman, haha. They should of ended it at 3."Well first off, you can't say it "should've ended at 3". If you'd seen Meatballs 3, you'd almost certainly have said "they should've ended it at 2". And if you'd seen 2, you'd say...And second of all...Corey Feldman and naked women....Well! I'd prefer naked women and naked women, but if they really have to put something in the mix with needless nudity and smut, it might as well be Corey Feldman, I've watched enough of his fucking awful films to feel like I almost know the dreadful bastard.

Shane J (it) wrote: Comic genius, strictly in the cat of so bad its good movies section. Rob lowes brother!! yes brother loses his girlfriend (played by a young kirsty swanson) on a highway thats linked to hell. She gets obducted by hellcop ! who picks up women for satan or something along those lines?? yep sounds great doesnt it!!!! A film so great u can download it legally for free because i can only think no bugger wants to own up to making it!!! lol Also has some weird cameos from ben stiller and his dad??All seriousness the film has alot of great ideas and for something thats on a very limited budget the special effects are pretty good. A cult movie for sure but worth a watch for a laugh.

Tony E (jp) wrote: What a film, the moment the net went down and the blue danube waltz was playing spine tingling

Steve G (es) wrote: Attenborough is a chilling villain. Brilliant performance. One of the most evil antagonists of all. Nearly everyone is superb. Loved Carol Marsh, as well. 1947, not 1951. The ending is unsatisfactory. Half-star demerit.

Russell S (de) wrote: For a movie that is essentially a play largely set in one room for 95% of its running time, Ray Milland's charismatic performance and a fine (if occasionally slightly stilted) script make this a great Hitchcock movie. Grace Kelly is always easy on the eye and though not her best performance she's still perfectly cast here. It's hard to believe this movie was made in 3D and having seen the 3D version it does have it's merits though mainly as a curio to see how Hitchcock uses the technique under such constraints.

Luciano G (ag) wrote: It really wasn't a movie that I enjoyed watching, or had a good enough time with.....the messy and uninteresting story was the main reason for this, though there clearly are plenty of other things wrong with this movie as well....

Mariana S (fr) wrote: Uma preciosidade. Clap clap clap clap clap<3 Darn <3