Abe Saperstein, owner/manager of the world-famous "Harlem Globetrotters", an all-Negro professional basketball team, signs Billy Townsend, an All-American, to play with the "Globetrotters." Saperstein want Billy to finish school first and get his degree but, despite the good advice, Billy quits college and joins the team. He becomes the team star, gets married although it is against the team regulations, and is injured. As a result, the team loses an important game and Billy is fired. He signs a big-money contract to play with another team in the following season. but when he hears that his old team needs him. he forgoes the big money and rejoins the "Globetrotters."
Abe Saperstein, owner/manager of the world-famous "Harlem Globetrotters", an all-Negro professional basketball team, signs Billy Townsend, an All-American, to play with the "Globetrotters."... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Jacky L (nl) wrote: trying to make sense of the gibberish english subs was almost as excruciating as sitting for a supp paper . whatever that wasn't quite lost in translation, it was bizarre, funny, very french. all the more impressive 'cos it was all of 2 thespians enthralling the viewer throughout the film's duration.
Jesse B (ca) wrote: As far as documentaries go, this is a different beast than most, shot in cinematic style (there's a French term for this but damned if I remember it) and focussing on a nearly broken marriage and what keeps driving it. It's deep and well shot, completely subverting what we usually expect to be a documentary, but for whatever reason it never hooked me.
Thomas T (de) wrote: Batman: The Dark Knight Returns - Part 2 delivers much more than Batman: The Dark Knight Returns - Part 1, and it works perfectly.
gary t (br) wrote: wow ummmmn just seen this movie 4 the 1st time n think that this is an enjoyable movie 2 watch.......its got a good cast of actors/actressess throughout this movie......i think that felicity jones, ed westwick, tamsin egerton, bill nighy, bill bailey, play good roles/parts throughout this movie......i think that the director of this art house/international/comedy/romance movie had done a good job of directing this movie because you never know what 2 expect throughout this movie.....YOU HAVE GOT TO WATCH THE END OF THE CREDITS THROUGHOUT THIS MOVIE AS SOMETHING HAPPENS AT THE END OF THE CREDITS THROUGHOUT THIS MOVIE.......i think that bill bailey was brilliant thorughout this movie.......i think that this is an enjoyable romantic comedy movie 2 watch........i think that brooke shields was good throughout this movie......i think that Tara Dakides, as herself) was good in her cameo throughout this movie......i think that ed westwick was good thorughout this movie as the love interest of felicity jones thorughout this movie........i think that this is an enjoyable romantic comedy movie 2 watch........its got a good soundtrack throughout this movie.....i think that this is an enjoyable movie 2 watch its an enjoyable romantic comedy movie 2 watch its got a good cast throughout this movie......i think that this is such an enjoyable movie 2 watch with a good cast thorughout this movie its an enjoyable romantic comedy movie 2 watch.........its got a good soundtrack throughout this movie.....its an enjoyable movie 2 watch..........
Peter P (ca) wrote: I bought this when Blockbuster was going out of business, cause I love terrible movies, but surprisingly, it is not a completely awful movie. Now don't get me wrong, it is not a good movie, but it actually has a few good moments, and Nick Chinlund has a really good speech about the death of his brother, which is a nice change to most of the characters he plays.
prkprk p (us) wrote: It's the worst of all the Pink Panther movies, and it's nowhere near to being funny. Pink Panther fans probably won't even like it. Skip this one entirely.
Tomass P (us) wrote: What is there to say about a film like this. It has had it's influence on pop culture over the years and bears it's own brand of comedy and charm, but in the end of the day it comes down to whether it is a good film or not. I don't know what it is, it is actually embarrassing to watch. Is this good or bad? I can't say, but it is nevertheless an interesting film, which I will admit had me laughing at times, but also didn't fail to offend me.
Anne F (ca) wrote: Rod Steiger plays a survivor of WW2's concentration camps who runs a pawnbroking business in New York. He is scarred by his wartime experiences and the brutal fates of his family, and the film follows him as he tries to minimise contact with those around him, all of whom regards as 'scum', even those who admire or like him. The film was groundbreaking 45 years ago; much of that seems very ordinary now, but is well worth watching.
David L (jp) wrote: Men in Black has terrific special effects that aged like fine wine, the performances from Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones are superb and the two are a great duo and the plot is entertaining, but that story is also too silly, the action is overwhelming and this is the perfect example of a bad genre classification - just because the movie has a couple of funny scenes does not mean it is a comedy and that genre mix is typical of its time and did not age well. But it is overall a fun and solid film, albeit nothing too remarkable.
Grant K (fr) wrote: One of the most ambitious narratives in film in Innaritu's profound masterpiece.
Leon B (es) wrote: Review:After looking at the poster for this film, I thought that it would be half decent but none of the big actors are actually in the film that much. The film is about a professional gambler called Jack Daniel, played by George Eads, whose approached by a man in a casino with a proposition that is hard to pass up. With all of his debts piling up, Jack calls the guy and ends up spending the whole night with him, in a strip bar and then he goes back to his house and finds out that all is not what it seems. After a bad accident, he ends up in deep trouble so he turns to Seagal for help, who he owes money to. This is one of those cheap movies which has a terrible storyline. The director had loads of chances to make it interesting but the whole concept was just too unrealistic. The acting wasn't that great and it seemed to go round and round in circles. On the plus side, it's quite short so it gets right on with it from the beginning but it goes nowhere fast and I got fed up with it after a while. Disappointing!Round-Up:After watching a couple of Seagal movies lately, I thought that I would give his films a chance but they all seem cheap and badly put together. It seems like Seagal, Vinnie Jones, Danny Trejo, Ving Rhymes Christian Slater, Cuba Gooding Jr etc, all use the same agent because they all make the same type of, straight to DVD, low budget movies that are quite bad. There must be an audience that actually enjoy these films because they do produce a lot of them but I personally only watch them for a laugh because they are so awful. Anyway, I thought that this was going to be about gambling, with loads of violence but it was just about a man who has to get himself out of a tricky situation. Seagals scenes weren't bad but I won't be watching it again in a hurry.I recommend this movie to people who are into their thrillers about a gambler who ends up in a impossible situation after sleeping with a sketchy man's wife. 3/10
Tyler M (gb) wrote: Classic coming-of-age-extreme-sports 80s flick.