You may also like
Tirumala Tirupathi Venkatesa torrent reviews
R E (us) wrote: Slow, dull, terrible acting, nonsensical story and stilted execution
Noah20 D (au) wrote: Spider-Man is a strong entry into the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and not because it's based on my all time favorite superhero. It gives Peter Parker a great origin story. The web-slinging action scenes are simply fantastic. Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, Willem Dafoe and James Franco bring unique perspectives to their characters. Sam Raimi's creative style pervades the film and enhances the material rather reducing from it.
Don S (gb) wrote: Horribly dubbed version of a German vampire movie. Only women are turned into vampires because men are "too stupid and greedy" to handle immortality. This band of lady vamps begin killing indiscriminately and bribing security to let them into malls so the can steal whatever they want - so in other words, they become too stupid and greedy to survive eternally.Merely average effects. The dubbed voices were awful. Not a pleasant experience.
Marcus D (us) wrote: Unfortunately true about the USA lie.
Mil G (au) wrote: I bet this movie is pretty bad but it has arnold in it I've heard
Verito U (es) wrote: Another sad movie of a young boy surviving the streets.
David A (ca) wrote: awesome dolph lundgren movie
jay n (es) wrote: Enjoyable and handsome version of the old English tale. Not having read the book which is the basis for the story I'm not sure how closely it hews to it but if you're a fan of Austen, George Eliot and similar English authors than this will suit you well. The boy playing Fauntleroy is at times too precious for his own good but his earnestness seems right for the role. He is supported by many fine British actors and the story has a nice mix of seriousness and humour to keep it moving along.
Matt H (ca) wrote: Solid old school thriller. Kind of a cross between James Bond and Indiana Jones - but less cool than either, of course. Some beautiful scenery and solid direction from Eastwood.
michael b (au) wrote: bad and black in the 70's
Edith N (jp) wrote: Maybe If They'd Cast Her as Elizabeth . . . . Much ado is made over the fact that Katharine Hepburn (herself a relative of the Earl of Bothwell, here played by Fredric March) ended up directing the love scene between herself as Mary and Bothwell. John Ford, director of the movie itself, didn't really know what to do with a period love scene in blank verse between a queen and one of her subjects. But this really raises the question as to why exactly the studio assigned this film to John Ford in the first place. I mean, this was well before he became known as the great director of the American West, but there's nothing in his history which indicates that this would have been a film at which he would have excelled. Three years later, [i]Gone With the Wind[/i] would go through several directors, so it's certainly not as though they couldn't have just hired someone else. And it's certainly not as though he was the only director on the studio lot. This is, of course, the story of Mary Stuart, starting from the day she arrives back in Scotland after the death of her first husband and ending with the day of her death, though it glosses over quite a lot of what happened in between. She has the support of her people, at least at first, and she thinks she has the support of her nobles. After all, they're largely led by her illegitimate half-brother, the Earl of Moray (Ian Keith), and he wouldn't go against her! She marries Lord Darnley (Douglas Walton), even though she's in love with Bothwell, because . . . something. I kind of missed it. (I know the historical reasons, but the film isn't much concerned about those.) And then Darnley somehow gets all caught up in the plot to murder David Rizzio (John Carradine), Mary's secretary. And then Darnley is murdered, quite how and by whom is glossed over, and Mary must fight her nobles because they're angry at her over the whole thing for reasons that aren't very clear. See, this is the problem. We're just supposed to go along with the fact that these happen, and it's never clear why. We get brief glimpses of John Knox (Moroni Olsen), but other than calling Mary a "Jezebel of France," and a mention or two of religion, the reasons behind the conflict are left vague. The fact is, it's all but impossible to get a clear idea of what the problems are between the various sides, because religion is vital to the history but mostly left out of the movie. I think this is because it was, after all, 1936, and the heroine is Catholic. The idea that essentially every villain in the piece was the "right" religion for the United States at the time is not one that was going to go over well. What's more, I'm pretty sure the Code would have had things to say about making a preacher into a villain and the reason for, let's face it, the total overthrow of a government. Which could not under the Code have been seen as a desirable result. At least not until they were making films about Nazis. This is young Katharine Hepburn, who is still able to do starry-eyed, I think, but it's kind of hard to believe her as the total innocent Mary is traditionally shown to be. No, I don't believe Katharine Hepburn would marry someone just to appease her lords, but I think we have evidence that she knew how not to handle it. After all, Spencer Tracy never did marry her. Never divorced his wife for her. And she never caused a scandal over the thing. Biggest open secret in Hollywood, sure, but she didn't ruin their careers over it. Even young Katharine Hepburn would not have let her romance destroy everything she was supposed to be doing. Elizabeth (Florence Eldridge) is shown as being petty and jealous, but it's true that the historical figure had a greater understanding of the requirements of monarchy than most people in history. Elizabeth was, if nothing else, shrewd, and Mary never understood how the world worked, and that's why Katharine Hepburn was miscast. The problem with any biopic is that most lives are too vast to be shown well in (in this case) 123 minutes. Yes, okay, a lot of Mary's life was spent in prison in England after her abdication. But there's a lot of back story involved in knowing why Mary ended up at Fotheringay in the first place. Mary, as she tells Bothwell, was brought out of Scotland in the middle of the night and taken to France when she was six years old, suddenly the queen of a country which was completely unsafe for her. There's a lot more to her than just a romantic girl, even if you believe that she was a romantic girl. (As I've said before, your stance on Mary will change depending on a lot of factors which may or may not have anything to do with the evidence.) You can't really make a romantic drama out of her story unless you drop a lot of the history, and it just leaves the whole thing terribly, terribly confused. The audience, too, you have to figure. It makes you wonder why they choose to try in the first place.