To See the Moon in the Morning Sky

To See the Moon in the Morning Sky

Two children discover a satchel filled with thousands of dollars in cash and the criminal who stole the money knows they have it and is determined to get it back.

Two children discover a satchel filled with thousands of dollars in cash and the criminal who stole the money knows they have it and is determined to get it back. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


To See the Moon in the Morning Sky torrent reviews

Robert M (de) wrote: A family of spoiled narcissists spend a long weekend at their fabulous Lake Tahoe home(s). The children are, for the most part, unreflective, unaccomplished and unkind. Self-absorption incarnate. Add assorted wives, boyfriends and hangers-on. Mom (the always glorious Patricia Clarkson) has the most unbelievable character trajectory from uptight, cold control-freak to, well, the opposite of that. Dad pretty much looks angry and disappointed all the time (with some good reason, if you ask me) until he, too, experiences a miraculous transformation at the very, very end where he is kind and gentle to his now changed wife. In summary: a group of exceedingly unattractive and under-appreciative people do rather little over the course of a weekend, but one or two seemed to be changed by it. Oh, and they sell the house. I would keep the house and get rid of the damn kids.

laura b (ag) wrote: Really weird. No real plot line. Bad acting by a few people. Shit ending. Not really very funny, overall a big flop.

Joanna F (nl) wrote: funny, moving. a film we will watch again and again

scott g (es) wrote: armed with a yo yo, and her sailor outfit, our hero goes undercover at a high school, to discover reason behind a countdown clock on a internet sight, and uncovers bullying and corruption tied to events, some interesting moments, and some nifty action keep you entertained, and a enjoyable turn from the lead, like most of this type of film coming from japan, theres bad points, but its kept to a minimum

Shiv N (it) wrote: the story is good.. but nt original.. ajay acts well.. but salman overacts.. the songs r good.. but none of the leads manage to Lip-sync.. cinematography and art direction are top notch.. but the screenplay is nt up there.. it is deff nt vipul's best work.. all in all an average movie..

Olly H (br) wrote: a nice sunday afternoon movie

Hasan S (it) wrote: that was a MIND BLOWING movie, im very very proud of the Lebanese Cinema!

Joseph B (kr) wrote: Michael Bay's 1998 film "Armageddon" is sometimes a beautiful film to look at, but unfortunately the film is boggled down by horrible ham performances from most of the cast, an extremely unrealistic scenario, sappy sentimentalism, and jingoistic themes by Bay. Is this the fault of Michael Bay or is it the fault of the script written by at least nine people with only five being credited including J. J. Abrams and additional material written by Robert Towne. The dialogue is hapless and when the actors speak these lines written for them, you can get the sense they don't quite believe what they're saying.You would know a Michael Bay film if you see one. His style is very distinctive. Big budget films loaded with special effects with an emphasis on explosions. His films are fast moving and visual. But they often lack story. His name is used pejoratively to describe films made for thirteen year old boys. His films are not for everyone and they are certainly not for me."Armageddon" involves an asteroid the size of Texas that is on a collission course with Earth and its going to hit in less than 18 days. NASA thinks they could land a crew of astronauts on the asteroid who could drill into the center and drop some explosives in an attempt to break it into relatively smaller pieces that if blown they would pass by the Earth. NASA recruits the best oil rigger, Harry Stamper (Bruce Willis) who will only do the mission if he can take up his own men. A motley assortment of roughnecks from all walks of life extremely unsuitable for the severity of this mission. Now these oil riggers have to train for space travel in 12 days. Everything must be condensed and they probably don't understand much of what they were taught and they probably didn't get everything actual astronauts would receive. They are buffonish, but they embody the American working man. Despite the pressures of their mission, these men all agree to save the Earth.There's a bit of a subplot involving Harry's daughter Grace (Liv Tyler) who has been dating A.J. Frost (Ben Affleck) much to Harry's dismay. Why Grace spent most her life on an oil rig is beyond me. Harry and A.J. have a bit of a rivalry and they butt heads constantly, but the issue is always about who Grace loves more, regardless of what they may be arguing about. Harry wants Grace to do better than an oil rigger, because she is better than that. It's just a catalyst for the audience to see how human these characters are and give us something to care about in this long, boring film.At times there is humor, and that humor seems incredibly misplaced. When these oil riggers are training and should be taking things seriously, they are laughing and fooling around. The Earth is about to be destroyed in a week or more and they have so much to learn. Is this a way of dealing with the stress of the mission? Possibly. But at this short notice, this is the best NASA can do.There are many problems with this film, but what I can't understand is why the mission isn't an international mission involving the best and brightest from many countries with space programs. It just seems incredibly jingoistic and arrogant that it's working class Americans who will save the Earth. There are exciting moments in the film, but they are so hard to follow with the editing and camera moving around so much. Overall, this is a film surely to delight people not looking for anything much more than some eye candy infused with patriotism and ideas of self-sacrifice.

David S (jp) wrote: Life as a tapestry of anger and loss, immersed in music and song, full of events from the past that echo in the future. An intriguing piece of work for how we remember and how our lives are shaped.

Jake C (ru) wrote: Man, I love that part when someone was blowing them self up at the plane!! :)

Benjamin M (kr) wrote: A twitchy, self-consciously quirky film, Jean-Luc Godard's premiere feature has gone on to influence a wide variety of films, and still stands an entertaining, light-on-content, heavy-on-style little romp that, thankfully, seemed entirely unawares of how much it would end up influencing cinema, and therefore feels gratefully devoid of pompous posturing or illusions of grandeur, but is, in the end, more flashy spangles then depth of content.Clocking in at a mere 90 minutes, Breathless is a film that lives up to its name by keeping a brisk, kinetic pace, and keeping things simple and stripped down to the bare bones. It's plot is minimalist, with a lackadaisical thief named Michel Poiccard (Jean-Paul Belmondo), who, after stealing a car, manages to shoot a police officer, sparking a manhunt. Determined not to go to jail, he manages to hook up with his ex-girlfriend, an American student and aspiring journalist, Patricia (Jean Seberg), who seems to treat him with a stand-off aloofness. The film then follows his attempts to seduce her to run away with him to Italy, before she eventually decides to inform the police about his whereabouts. The cops arrive, and while a friend of Michel insists he take a gun, going as far as to toss it into the street for Michel to pick up, Michel refuses, seemingly viewing jail a better option. He goes to pick up the gun, only managing to get shot, stumbling several dozen meters before collapsing, dying from his wound.Godard keeps the minimalistic, barely-there plotline moving by his innovative use of jump-cut, combined with a general sense of laid back irreverence. It's not a film that takes itself seriously, nor does it seem to feel it has any grander message. The conversations the characters have about the nature of love, and human relationships, feel oddly tongue in cheek, almost as if Godard is making fun of the trope of intense philosophical musings. His camera work is loose and unpolish, hand-held camera following everyone around, either letting the scene play out with minimal edits, or instead hopping through time moment by moment, to give the illusion of the abrupt passage of time.The acting from Seberg and Belmondo is sedate and unpretentious. They feel real and naturalistic, and their interactions have a lazy, familial chemistry between them. It helps tie the film together, especially since there isn't much real plot to speak of, more just a sequence of loosely connected events, blended with caf-hipster musings on romance and love.And, in a way, that's how this film feels. While undoubtedly innovative and enjoyable, one can still get an undeniable sense that Godard is trying just a mite too hard too be different and to break cinematic conventions. There's always a sense that Godard brings up an thematic idea, or a motif, only to intentionally and deliberately subvert it and deconstruct it, if only for the sake of deconstructing it. It's so minimalist, it just ends up feeling like it really doesn't have anything to say, since there's so little in the way of real plot or character development.Compare, for example, Ingmar Bergman's masterpiece, Persona, a film that is equally deconstructive and genre-busting, but with the added depth of Bergman's disturbingly intense meditation on Jungian psychology. The moments of deconstruction and fourth wall breaking (such as the film literally grinding to a halt and exploding, or the smash edits of disturbing imagery), feel like a visual interpretation of the character's psychological state, and as visual metaphor for the themes of how humans consistently put on artificial masks and personalities in order to better keep up appearances.Meanwhile, in Breathless, Godard seems to twist and bend the cinematic medium around simply because he can, and I'm not sure how it reflects on the narrative or thematic elements, mostly because the narrative and themes are so thinly drawn.But, nonetheless, the film is entertaining, and, thanks to the short running time and fast, hyper-caffeinated pace, doesn't feel burdensome or like a waste of time. If you approach it as a pure popcorn film that just so happened to choose to take a deconstructive route, then it's a gem. Just don't try to read subtext into it when there really isn't much there.I suppose 3 out of 5 will suffice. Entertaining, but ultimately ephemeral.

Johannes J (jp) wrote: Frank R. Enley: "You don't know what made him the way he is - I do!"

Esther C (kr) wrote: I've seen logs act better than Hayden. But the rest is pretty decent.Too many annoying Lil droids though.