The Jerk Theory

The Jerk Theory

An aspiring recording artist, Adam, is burned by a bad relationship experience and decides that if women won't respond to the "nice guy" then he'll be "the jerk." This is wildly successful with meaningless relationships, but when Adam meets and falls for Molly, who doesn"t fall for his jerk routine, Adam is forced to reconsider his dating philosophy.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:93 minutes
  • Release:2009
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:dance,   priest,   dog,  

The film starts with a strange thing that the leader singer and guitarist of a high school rock band suddenly declares that he is a newly converted jerk. Can he change himself bạc to his former sweet self? With the help of a girl? . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


The Jerk Theory torrent reviews

Jeremy K (br) wrote: Another lovely, tiny-budget installment in the Swanberg mumblecore collection. Keep 'em coming, dude.

Jon N (it) wrote: The story of a kid whose parents are splitting up. The boy is upset and his grandfather tells him a fantasy story. This is all the film turns out to be just a verbal story acted out by men in wetsuits?

Aephraim S (it) wrote: I'm not sure if I would have thought this was anything but absolute idiocy before spending a few months in Japan, but now it actually seems to sum up a remarkable amount of the culture with shocking accuracy...

Ashiya L (br) wrote: not funny, unbeliavable and doesn't make any sense

Melissa B (de) wrote: Loved it! I can't believe it wasn't marketed better.

Aaron B (us) wrote: A fantastic documentation of the many struggles and setbacks that come with making a film, especially one in the horror genre.

Matthew G (br) wrote: Any film which has Pete Postlethwaite and Sinbad from Brookside in has to be worth watching; a masterpiece.

Eric R (us) wrote: Enzo G. Castellari, known for his amazing Italian action films in the 70s, was really struggling when the 80s came calling directing a laughable "Jaws" rip-off with "The Last Shark" and a number of frivolous yet insanely entertaining dystopian future flicks with the likes of "The New Barbarians", "1990: The Bronx Warriors" and its sequel "Escape from the Bronx." To be honest Enzo had become a full fledged B-movie filmmaker regulated to making cinematic sludge... entertaining sludge but still sludge none-the-less. It was time to redeem his name so in 1984 he decided to adapt the novel "Tuareg" into a serious, well-meaning film so he can once again be taken seriously as a filmmaker. So did he succeed at redeeming his career? Well considering this film is relatively forgotten in his filmography I would have to say a big fat NO.Mark Harmon plays the title character, with Tuareg meaning "Desert Warrior" (as you couldn't tell from the subtitle). Two dehydrated men wander into his camp where Harmon and his clan aid them back to health but not long after their arrival soldiers show up to truck them off as apparently they are wanted for murder. Harmon doesn't take kindly to this as you see, apparently due to his cultural beliefs, guests cannot be forced out of their host's home so he risks his neck to rescue these two guys and lots of people die as a result.What the fuck is up with this plot? This desert warrior risking his life, as well as his families, because soldier's come in and truck off two drifters they took in that are wanted for murder. They are wanted for murder... let them lock them up for Christ sake! Cultural differences my ass... what the fuck is this guy thinking? I'm sorry but I have a hard time rooting for a guy that's risking his life and his families to rescue two guys, strangers no less, that are wanted for murder.Castellari gives the film his wonderful style and makes it a mish mash of "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Rambo".... just far too much "Lawrence" and not enough "Rambo". Enzo is foremost an action director and "Taurag" does have a few good action scenes but they are too few and too far between with most of the dialogue is filled with rather pointless dialogue and to be honest I lost interest a number of times during the running time of the film... and that NEVER happens when I watch a Castellari film even when his pictures are at their worst.I do have to say that Mark Harmon, having a resurgence of fame with his leading role in the television series NCIS, is sorely miscast in the lead. He does have the piercing blue eyes that Castellari adores but he just doesn't pull off an Egyptian warrior well. He gets all tan and beefed up for the role (complete with plenty of eyeliner) but my real problem is his delivery of the dialogue. He dubbed his own voice but he gives a dead pan delivery with no attempt to hide his American styled voice resulting in his performance appearing rather half assed, like he just really didn't a shit. If he put more effort into his dubbing his performance would have been magnified ten fold. To be honest this role was tailored for Franco Nero, a frequent collaborator with Enzo G. Castellari. Where is Nero when you need him?From a technical standpoint this is Enzo's best film of the 80s.... just far from his most entertaining. He tries exceptionally hard to make a serious film with a wonderful style and cinematography but Harmon's performance, lack of action, and a plot that I can't get behind the hero for makes this a rather dull affair from the master of Italian action. This is why it hasn't received a proper DVD release and has fallen into public domain hell regulating it forever to subpar DVD treatments. It's not good enough to be respected by cult Italian film fanatics and it's not bad enough to have the immense entertainment value trash fanatics crave. It's just middle of the road and really won't appeal to anyone unless they are hardcore Enzo fans (like myself). Enzo will always be my favorite Italian film director but I will be honest when I say "Tuareg" is really one of the most uninteresting films in his entire filmography.

David B (nl) wrote: The aspect that I really liked about this film was that it keeps you interested from beginning to end, & it was way ahead of its time. The engineering of human beings is all over the news now & is the subject of numerous conspiracy theories. In the film Chuck Norris is trying to kill a super humanoid created by a bunch of zealot doctors. Instead of letting the serial killer die they experiment on him via the use of new unproven procedures to make him superhuman. The late Ron Silver plays a Dr. that is sort of the conscience of the film & is against this sort of thing. The film was a lot better than I expected & about 20 years ahead of its time. In the end it's mid-tier film entertainment but still worth seeing.

jesse p (it) wrote: Pretty much an Updated version of the 1963 classic Blood feast but instead the killer is an Aztec not an Egyptian. So main reasons why I watched this the title sounded promising and it if it was a semi remake to blood feast I was going to watch it. The film itself is very hard to get your hands on that?s what took me ages to watch it. Low rent semi-remake of Blood Feast. The movie that broke the barrier in showing gore on screen. In this version of the same story, instead of an Egyptian character we have a deranged Aztec high priest as the main character. A serial killer in a welder's mask stalks the streets of New Orleans during the Mardi Gras festival. He is a strange intense-looking guy who shows up at a bar which is also home to the town's prostitutes. The Aztec priest takes a prostitute back to his place and makes her strip. He then ties her to a table in his basement and begins doing some magical ritual. He then proceeds to torture her by amputating hands, then feet. Well like Blood feast there is a detective on the case looking for the killer. The story could have been better but to tell you the truth it never god boring. The acting is rather mixed usually we get a performance other times its kind of bad. The special effects are a big praise in my opinion that the reason this movie landed in the video nasty list. Some of the murder scenes were just unbelievably cool yet sick. Lots of nudity yeah and some sick acts of sexual nature. Music and setting are a different thing the music okay nothing scary about it but I liked the setting not scary but good. Here are some facts I found. The film was listed as one of the DPP's 72 video nasties in the UK and even made the final list of 39 official titles for prosecution. It has yet to receive a UK release. Shot in 1976 but couldn?t be released until 1979. But overall my final verdict is kind of recommended. If you love horrors of slashers your going to have a great time.

Andy P (br) wrote: Whatever message Ken Russell hoped to convey about religious fanaticism is blurred by the senseless depravity on show, but much like Salo, the scenes of twisted sexuality and violence are as striking and unforgettable as they are unsettling.

Greg W (ca) wrote: an idealogical spy thriller

Becca W (br) wrote: Gosh I hate Alyssa Milano but this is a really fun sex film. She used to have such pretty breasts.

Brian B (ru) wrote: The Godfather, The Godfather Part 2, Pulp Fiction, and Goodfellas are usually called some of the greatest gangster films ever made. However, Scarface also gets a lot of praise from the audience and it is often compared to them and sometimes it is even considered to be the best film from the genre. I disagree.Tony Montana, a Cuban criminal, slowly takes over a drug cartel as he slowly succumbs to greed and eventually goes mad with power.Firstly, this movie does have its positives. Firstly, the acting is great. Al Pacino does a great performance here and his acting gets more unnerving as he gets more greedy as the film goes on. The other actors gave a good performance too but Al Pacino did the best job. It's not as groundbreaking as his performance in The Godfather Part 2 but it is still great on its own. The score is very memorable and fitting also.Also, the final 20 minutes are very well-done. It shows how Tony's fortunes and wealth begin to collapse in on itself and he finally gets what's coming to him. The gun battle at the end is masterfully done. It contains a very quotable line of dialogue and it is executed very well. And by the time the end result comes, it is certain to make your jaw drop. Also, the other couple shootout scenes are very stylized and well-done too.However, this is why I think that it isn't as good as other movies from the genre.The longer a movie is, the more likely it will run into pacing issues. Being 170 minutes long, Scarface does in fact have pacing issues and it doesn't have the same perfect pacing that The Godfather did. The issue with its pacing is that it takes a while for them to set up Tony's character and it also takes a while for his personality to change in the movie.Also, I found this movie to be very bland. Sure, it picks up in the last 20 minutes but there isn't a whole lot of action going on beforehand. I mentioned that this movie has pacing issues and those issues can often make it feel very boring. Not much exciting or interesting events go on in it. Several scenes should've been shortened or removed altogether.But despite what I said, this is not a bad movie. It does have its flaws but I'd say that it has a little more good things about it than there are bad things. This is entertaining if you don't mind bland movies and the slow-pacing. I just don't think that it's as good as other highly-praised movies (which I listed earlier) from the same genre.

Dan K (it) wrote: Todd Solondz's depressing mood swings as usual, breaking some ground.