You may also like
The Wild Reporter torrent reviews
Matt C (it) wrote: I've said before that just because a movie has an important or inspiring story, it doesn't mean that it's therefore interesting or told very well. I'll say that again here, as A United Kingdom feels small and restrained despite its large scope and the chemistry of its leads. This is exactly the type of movie that you'd expect it to be, with charming performances and no real technical issues to speak of, but also with fatally safe storytelling that robs the situations depicted of their gravity or urgency. Based on a true story, Sir Seretse Khama (David Oyelowo) and Ruth Williams (Rosamund Pike) meet in 1947 London and quickly fall in love. He's the king of Bechuanaland, now known as Botswana, and she's an office worker. They get married and head to his home country during apartheid as their interracial relationship attracts controversy. He begins to face exile from his own country, they're both resented by their own circles, other government officials are getting involved, and... it doesn't really have an impact. Director Amma Asante continues her racism-and-royalty themes explored in Belle without adding a voice or recognizable stamp to the film, and Guy Hibbert's script creates the feeling that the situation is being dumbed down to appear more palatable. We don't get to see much of anything in terms of these characters' lives before they meet and therefore don't see how they change each other; they fall in love in about seven minutes and get engaged in about 15. The implications of their relationship don't seem to take as much of an emotional as they should given how calm and collected they remain for a majority of the movie, making the movie feel like more of a series of events rather than a progression of emotions or effective beat changes. This makes the movie less interesting as a result, and seeing these two essentially risk their whole lives for each other feels oddly safe in execution. Nonetheless, Pike and Oyelowo are good as always, and as it would work in theory, putting them together makes the movie even more watchable than just having one of them. They do a nice job at creating the illusion of depth to their characters, which the script skims over. Asante's direction isn't bad; it just serviceable at best. There's nothing to really talk about but nothing to jab holes into either, but the establishing shots of Bechuanaland with giraffes and zebras running through the desert did seem easy and glib. A United Kingdom is completely harmless, and that's part of its main issue. The stakes never feel as high as they should especially given what is indeed at stake for these people, but the way in which they're defined only by each other and don't seem to have many sides to them deflates the drama. Some of the pacing is inconsistent and the movie, while technically sound, still doesn't have much to say despite the story being timely, timeless, and unique. 4.8/10, lame, C-, below average, etc.
Ryan W (mx) wrote: A good Guerrilla Comedy film that although isn't quite as good at Sascha Cohen's crazy films, still delivers enough laughs to enjoy and is extremely funny at times.
Kimberly B (it) wrote: This is what happens when Batman actually make a big mistake. A great joyride.
Alec B (ag) wrote: it was so disturbing that i barely made it a half an hour through
John E (jp) wrote: An interesting premise was destroyed by sup-par acting and some of the most ridiculous scenarios. I would not buy this film, rent it.
Prabal P (es) wrote: Just few people were good at act else it lacked content!
David G (jp) wrote: A critical look at the academia slant on evolution.
Private U (gb) wrote: I thought that the performances were appropriate, although what makes this movie work is, well, the entire movie as a whole. It's as if all the parts of the whole make up something utterly organic.
Michaela W (fr) wrote: Plsa has no fear.. Cause he got a lot of beer!
Kevinion J (gb) wrote: Gray's direction and the performances by Cube and Tucker are mainly bringing the film into one of the best cult classics that will be ever watch.
Ernst M (de) wrote: Other than seeing Allison Mack young and Kate Mulgrew pre-Star Trek there was nothing that really kept my interest.
Gena D (kr) wrote: trailer seems like a classic fish out of water movie. :p
Olivier C (fr) wrote: pas le plus connu des film d'Eastwood , mais quel film !!! tout y est : le scenar , les images ( superbes paysages ) , les acteurs,, a voir absolument !!!!
Susannah K (it) wrote: One of my favorite cheap existentialist anti-hero flicks from the 70's.
Brad S (us) wrote: This is one of the few late Hitchcock films I hadn't seen, on it was the only of his last 17 movies. It's a weaker effort, and it is too long, actually it's his longest film. There are still flourishes from him that make it worth a watch, and I'd rather see a lesser Hitchcock film, than most other movies. Give it a try, decide for yourself!
Greg W (kr) wrote: another sanitized version of a Tennessee William's play.
Simeon D (jp) wrote: Unlike the first half of Eisenstein's two part biopic of Ivan the Terrible, this one can't really stand as its own film. It begins with a little "Previously on Ivan the Terrible..." and then starts off of where the first half left off, and shows as the characters develop even further; Ivan's friends desert him and he is encompassed by loneliness, and he also deals with family tensions. Part 2 only covers a seemingly very short amount of time, where as Part 1 tells a tale of several years or so. This, of course, gives the actors more room to show off their superb acting, and because not as much happens, Eisenstein is able to prove his genius through the cinematography; and each camera-shot is brilliant. The film itself is very short, and since nothing monumental happens in the plot, it really seemed like it could have gone without being made, also seeing that Eisenstein originally meant for there to be a third in the series. There's even a shockingly out of place color scene in the midst of this black-and-white film, and though it was beautifully shot, it was unsettlingly out of place. A much deeper masterpiece than its predecessor. 92/100
Hunter W (jp) wrote: It's a risk to make a time-travel film out of a superhero film, but that is precisely why Days of Future Past is the best X-Men film since X2, so the risk paid off.
con s (us) wrote: Garage pure garage not worth a half star