A photographer for Life magazine comes to London to do a story on a local theater troupe which never missed a performance during World War II. Flashbacks also reveal the backstage love ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Tonight and Every Night
An American girl falls for an RAF pilot while performing at a British music hall.
You may also like
Tonight and Every Night torrent reviews
Nishlank J (nl) wrote: "It has its tedium, but it's not bad. At times, it's actually quite good."
Elyssa S (us) wrote: Somehow the cliched saying that goes 'either love it,or hate it' has never been more appropriate in description, as is now, when it comes to 'footage found movies'.They are not that popular i woudnt think, for the majority of people, but somehow i am kinda a sucker for them, ever since that Blair Witch project, which was the first of its kind ive seen.Movie was creepy, once they were in the cursed house. However, i am giving this a poor rating, purely due to the lack of scares.Where were the scares man? Could have added some shadows! For sure! Apparitions!The baby cry was cool, digged that, as well as the knocking, but my visual senses were not as satisfied as my hearing ones!The image of the one ghost girl was lame, im sorry guys... It was taken out of one of those asian flicks, and she looked like Samara Morgan, only less creepier...A pretty young girl's face, painted white, just doesnt cut it for a scary film... Very seldom it does, but here it did not work at all.Right at the end, i enjoyed the scene when the day breaks and there is a creepy view of the house... Sun approaches, house is full of dead AND vanished bodies... The music that came on was the creepiest, well done on that, well chosen. Thats why im giving an extra star and being generous :)For fans of handy cam movies, or if you want something 'lighter' than Paranormal Activity...
Radek C (jp) wrote: A standing ovation for being (or at least pretending to be) unbiased towards a person who everyone has their own opinion on. Cool, little documentary, showed the side of the story I wasn't aware of. Still, Polanski should serve the time.
Sarah (gb) wrote: This was a so so movie. The main character for a good 3/4 of the film was so predictable and quite annoying. By the end he started to come around though. The other characters were all quite static as well. Story was alright, the different sub plots didnt mesh great together. And honestly I would prefer a story that concentrates on one part not 4 little parts with one major one. Its just not needed. Oh well. I dont regret watching it, but probably wont again.
Lego G (us) wrote: great movie how does people hate this movie
Saurav G (us) wrote: Different.. Very different... Interesting story line though...
Rory P (it) wrote: Seen it. Don't know what to say about it yet.
Paul Z (ca) wrote: There are visuals in Hal Ashby's Bound For Glory so real or so becoming that I might have to withdraw statements I've made in the past about Ashby not being a visual filmmaker. But the subdued but all-consuming absorption in the imagery eventually takes its toll on the movie's intonation. Scene after scene unfolds at such a patient rhythm, with such forecast and subtlety, that ultimately we appear to be experiencing a moving slideshow of the Depression. The film has a serious nobility and formality, which is fine---I found it fascinating that Woody Guthrie seems to take a backseat through his own biopic and that it is less about him and more about the time in which he lived---however it doesn't tend to have much life, which would be enthralling. The film maintains thorough fidelity to that adventure. Another element I admire greatly is that there's not an ingenuous frame in it, not a moment when we sense the significance of Guthrie's life has been arbitrated in favor of Hollywood license-taking. David Carradine's performance as Guthrie finds just the correct pitch between his dignity and inborn candor. There can hardly have been a period film before it with such affectionate heed to every historical detail, to the ways cars and dresses and living rooms and roadside diners looked during the Depression. We learn so much unconsciously through the mise-en-scene. All of these attributes have been treated cautiously, and with reverence. And ironically, as much as those elements are top-heavy compared to the drama itself, they are all done with the same deliberate subtlety with which Ashby lenses his other films. The imagery never points to itself; it's just there for us to subliminally take in. Nevertheless Bound For Glory is altogether a very sluggish experience. Each scene is organized so deliberately, is framed by immortal cinematographer Haskell Wexler with such virtuosity, is played with such gravity, that ultimately the movie feels too uniform. We want more drollery, more cheek, more of an clue that Guthrie had vinegar infused with his altruism. Anyone who loves movies or is intrigued by Guthrie should see Bound For Glory, though it'll be a rewarding affair that's very languid. There are two shots that are especially unforgettable: One is an incredible image showcasing a dust storm nearing Woody's little home town, and another is a shot on top of a freight train, held for minutes without a cut, while Woody and an accompanying vagabond share worldviews while the train carries them past the infinite fields, into the pitch black of a tunnel, reappears, feels about to run forever. However, the movie's political text, the doggedness of Woody and a musician friend to unionize the migrant workers, is calculable and repetitious. Guthrie's politics were evidently pivotal to his music, and yet in the film they feel virtually unnecessary. The matters of state and activism could have arisen naturally from the story, rather than being wedged in. This is not the only film I've found to be credited as the first film in which the invention of the Steadicam was used, but apparently it is, and that may account for its status as a contemporary classic. It may also largely account for the arresting fascination of the viewer with the Great Depression than the subject of the Great Depression does. So Bound For Glory isn't quite the great film it could have been. However, it is one of the most gorgeous films ever made, in its cinematography, in its locations, in its reconstruction of the America that Woody Guthrie found.
Brandon S (ru) wrote: Stuart Cooper's World War II masterpiece is highly original and the pacing is slow and hauntingly brooding, which combined make for one of the top anti-war films ever made. The way that Cooper intertwines newsreel footage, with actual war shots, and then his own film together is amazing, by doing this it makes the film so much more alarming to the viewer. The acting throughout the film is subdued which is also a great way to add to the realism. Highly recommended.
Thomas B (es) wrote: Me and my daughter enjoy watching this romantic comedy.
Robben M (fr) wrote: There is a case for film theatrics I think. While silent films are guilty of antiquity; bulging eyes, bodies always facing the camera and dancing jazz hands, you cannot help but be amused and almost drawn into these strange little worlds. The naive quality of the sets, pasty faces and eyeliner, the cardboard-almost realist backdrops. What would happen I think, if these elements were transmuted to a new land. Not like German Expressionism, but an aural, visual symphony of quaint-modernity (for lack of a better word.) Enter Ivan the Terrible. Sergei Eisenstein's final films (there are two parts) ostensibly about the rise to power of the first Czar Ivan whose goal to unite Russia resulted in bloodshed and death. At least, not in Stalin's eyes, as was his intention for commisioning the famous filmmaker to set sail on this project. But a new beast was created. Eisenstein remarked that he disliked the overt theatrics of THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI, yet his two films seem to be in the complete land of artifice, where every object has been positioned in such deliberate, impossible spots, where the lights create strange shadows and icons and symbols are transposed to every scene, coloring the film with new meaning each time. Is it propoganda? or highly subversive fantasy? Most agree that the depiction of 16th century Russia and Europe resides firmly in some sort of gothic-horror fever dream concocted by Eisenstein. Looking at his endless sketches and notes, one could make a case that this was the reason for the apparent strangeness that permeates the film. The plot is quite straightfoward, at first. Ivan the duke procalims himself Czar of Russia. This does not bode well for the boyars, led by the over-the-top evil aunt Efrisonia, who wishes to place her half-wit son Vladimir in place of Ivan, so as to consolidate the power of the Boyars and thus continue a reign of despots and corrupt officials. At least, that's how Stalin wanted it to be portrayed. However, it becomes readily apparent that Eisenstein has bigger fish to fry. For one thing, the 'characters' are not symbols, as opposed to his earlier work, where editing and camera movement was designed to mark the bodies of actors and faces into broad imagistic avatars for ideas. In Ivan the Terrible, there are full-blooded characters that develop, often unpredictably and in the most irrational evil way possible. And that is the markedly distinct feature of these biopics. Ivan is neither savior nor villain. he is an ambivalent and contradictory figure that is both un-likeable, mad, and strangely passionate about mother Russia. His followers are equally slimy and also degenerate into despotic behavior that makes the Boyars seem downright benign. indeed, by the end of part two, it becomes clear that Eisenstein has pulled a fast one on us, as he has us feel pity for Efrisonia, who is tricked by Ivan and all her ambitions for her son, destroyed. Ivan's best "friend" also turns corrupt, though it is shown to be an almost instinctive action that Kurbsky has an impossible time resisting. As all the conventions break down and the film becomes increasingly surreal, so do the appearances of the characters and the set design. Paintings take on demonic connotations that are both ambigious and frighteningly clear. Ivan gets a Jafar-stache that accenuates his vulture like qualities. His right-hand man Malyuta, starts looking like an immense dog, his hear curling over his ears and covering one eye, thus fullfilling his duty as eye of the Czar. And Fyodor, head of the Oprichniki, while initially looking young and handsome, starts looking like a slinky devil, eventually cross-dressing at part two's color climax musical sequence that doesn't feel at all out of the blue or crazy. In fact, it is a logical and satisfying conclusion that even Stalin himself was repulsed by. Part was banned and Eisenstein was brought before the man himself for 'suggestions' that if not followed would certainly result in..harsh results. But nevertheless, Ivan the Terrible has a highly stylized look and one can trace the influences to dozens of films and directors, from Fellini, to Kurosawa, to George Lucas, to Scorsese, to Tim Burton, To Francis Ford Coppola, to lots of others and such. It's quite startling to watch and somewhat unsettling. Paranoia is prevelant and you might believe that every action your friends do conceals esoteric, possibily malevolent intentions.
John M (jp) wrote: Hiya, Hildy. This is about a newspaper editor (Cary Grant), and his ex-wife reporter (Rosalind Russell). When the news is broke to him that she plans on remarrying tomorrow, he uses a local hanging as a stalling tactic to keep her in town as long as possible. Vintage classic movies are a bit of a blind spot for me; I spend so much of my time focusing on staying on top of the high volume influx of new movies (people primarily want to know if they should trek out to a theater to shell out hard-earned money or not). Some of the more renowned movies from yesteryear fall by the wayside or get put on the back burner. With my quest through the 1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, it gives me an excuse to watch some of the golden oldies, like this one here. I've always had a fondness of Cary Grant because he makes films that succeed largely due to his overflowing charisma. He's made two of my very favorites in Charade and North by Northwest, and given my modest familiarity with the classics, when I'm watching something out of his library, I get to experience the majority of his works for the first time. He is what elevates His Girl Friday, or more specifically, the chemistry that he shares with Rosalind Russell is what makes the movie sparkle. You're never wholly sure if you're rooting for them to be together, because they keep trying to make plays on one another for their own personal benefit, but when they are on screen together, you're eager to hear the next line of rapid fire comedy to come out of their mouth. Going in, you should know that is pure screwball comedy. The jokes come in fast and furious, and it takes a bit of time to adjust. I can't speak for everyone, but the modern movie has molded my brain on how to review jokes and pacing. I need a moment, albeit a brief one, to allow my mind to process a gag so as to fully realize what I just witnessed. This does not give you that moment, you either keep up or miss the joke, those are your only two options. Once I adjusted, I was able to get on board, but it did take a short while. Also, when the story kicked into gear and things started to get serious, I found myself wanting it to get back to the simple romance triangle; the beginning to this is so good, from the office scene all the way up to the restaurant scene, and I wanted more of that. I suppose that wouldn't have made for much of a story, though, so c'est la vie.
Trevor C (us) wrote: Dope Movie which introduced me to the Awesomeness of Michael Jai White. Very Entertaining fight scenes
Lisa S (us) wrote: This is another movie from Troma, which usually means stupid or over the top type movies, but this one is more of a regular slasher flick of the 80s,although it does have some elements that would remind you of other Troma movies. I found this to be a good balance between the stupid movies from Troma, and 80s slasher movies. This was a good horror movie, I really enjoyed it.
Steve S (au) wrote: Another fine Denzel movie. It ends up being a good heist movie with a great cast. There are some funny/great lines too. However, I take issue with the motivations of Clive Owen's character (Dalton Russell). He wants to stick it to this banker who has some skeletons in his closet, despite the banker guy trying to do good things in the world to make up for his past. What's the point of condemning a man who wants to make up for his mistakes? Fair or not, that thinking conflicts with my own morals, and as such, I shall think of the movie as just "good" instead of "phenomenal".
Jt H (jp) wrote: These cameramen get up close and personal with the members of Metallica, showing times of great struggle, internally and externally, as well as fixing problems, and rebuilding after tough times. Plus, the angry feeling, and tension between James and Lars, gives the documentary steam throughout its entirety. Lastly, there's also a lot of great music to headbang to when scenes transition, or when the band is just jamming together. Any die hard fan of Metallica, like myself, will love "Some Kind of Monster."
Altered E (us) wrote: Never thought I'd see a Star Wars rip-off worse than Turkish Star Wars.