You may also like
Turn the River torrent reviews
Andrew B (de) wrote: It's actually pretty funny that I just watched Adaptation immediately before watching Entertainment, because they have quite a few things in common. Near the end of Adaptation, Charlie Kaufman asks how to make a movie about real life. You know real life where nothing happens and the characters don't grow. This is that movie.This is also, like Adaptation, in that it's a very meta movie with Gregg Turkington playing a fictional actor playing his real life fictional persona Neil Hamburger, or at least a character very similar to that character. It's not entirely clear within the context of the movie if having any knowledge of this character existing outside of the movie is of any importance.Co-written by Gregg, alongside the director Rick Alverson and Tim Heidecker (Jack Black is also listed as an Executive Producer but so are quite a few various people so I'm not sure how much he actually had to do with the production), Entertainment is the spiritual sequel to Tim and Rick's similarly ironically titled The Comedy, and features more of the same anti-humor and pitch black comedy but with a heightened level of surrealism which make me question whether or not I actually understand what the movie was about, or if there even is supposed to be anything you get out of this movie. It's simultaneously a very down to earth drama and a Jodarskyesque surrealist dark comedy. Most likely not a movie that many people will enjoy.
Eduardo C (ru) wrote: Thank God for David O. Russell. This was the film Marty Scorsese could have made but never did. It lacks Marty's notorious blood and guts falling out violence and that's for the best. What it has is brilliant ensemble acting by Bale, Cooper, Adams, Lawrence, Renner and Louise C.K. It is dynamic, gripping, exciting and a WHOLE LOTTA fun. I love that it says at the beginning "Some of this actually happened". It's honest and mysterious that way, unlike a film that pretends to be all true but isn't, such as "Argo". This film is much better than that one.
Joseph J (br) wrote: This is the exact definition of a great movie! I loved every moment of it. The one thing that I didn't like was the corny acting. It could've been better.
Toby C (us) wrote: Gritty, and hard to watch. It shows a very realistic and up-close side of war.
WaiYen W (jp) wrote: ... part of the 25th SG French Film Fest 2009. I particularly enjoyed the interaction of the two women with the old man from the mountains...
Deb S (es) wrote: Claude Van Damme plays two roles; a brutal serial killer, Edward "The Torch" Garrotte with a taste for young mothers - killing them before burning them and the replicant of the same killer (because clones clearly have psychic connections to their evil originators) created in a government laboratory for one reason only: to help a cop find this killer. Michael Rooker is the ex-cop who had been assigned to the "The Torch" case and who gets the job of babysitting the "replicant". OK the plot is ridiculous but who watches a Van Damme film for the plot? You watch it for the violence and action and I had a Damme good time watching it lol.
Elvia F (jp) wrote: Pretty good film. Aishwarya Rai only has a small, guest role for one song "Ishq Kamina".
Daniel L (nl) wrote: Un film temoin de son epoque. A mi-chemin entre le realisme du cinema americain des annees 70 et les series televisees du debut des annees 80. Plaisant, et interprete avec generosite par un duo atypique (Newman/Wahl).
Jayakrishnan R (ag) wrote: DOUBLE THUMBS UPViewed this on 8/4/15Arlington road is a unique, realistic, potent, edge of the seat thriller that's able to hold the attention of the viewers for each and every single instant. It doesn't even have a single dull moment, it's pacing is extraordinary and that balances out all the predictability of the film. Arlington Road is extremely realistic film about terrorism, false security and faulty investigative nature.
Claire M (kr) wrote: This is literally one of the funniest movies I've ever seen! I love it so much! Tina and Steve are two of my all time favorite actors and I constantly quote this movie
Caleb C (it) wrote: This made-for-TV horror film is about as good as it gets for these kinds as far as old school ones come. It felt laughably bad at times but embrassed it's slight cheese so well that it works. I loved how everything was crafted here even though it is littered with many cliche's. It is however quite creepy at times, and then we do get comfortable with the film while still on the edge of our seat slightly. This is a horror classic for anyone who is with a group of friends. Either you'll love it, or have a good time laughing at how bad it is. As for me, I loved it. For fans of horror in general this is a must see before the incredicbly creepy looking remake comes out this summer.
Jonathan D (ca) wrote: What a perfect way to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of Star Trek! This looked cheesy, and the premise (actors roped into an intergalactic adventure) seemed worthy of Ed Wood... but I'd heard it has a cult following, so when it popped up on Netflix I gave it a chance.It's actually a pretty adorable parody of Star Trek in which washed up actors playing the fan club circuit do get roped into an adventure - but much of the wit comes from the unlikely circumstances through which everything plays out just like an episode of Star Trek - and the spectrum of reactions that the actors have toward this. It's entirely unlike "Spaceballs". In that movie, Mel Brooks just used Star Wars as a canvas on which to put his shtick. Galaxy Quest is done from the inside - it was clearly written by big Star Trek fans who simultaneously love the show while being acutely aware of its absurdities, and who have a similar love and amusement for the Trekkies who take their love of the show a little too far.
James S (fr) wrote: Is it just me or does director Rian Johnson, (Brick, The Brothers Bloom, Breaking Bad), have major childhood issues? Think about it, Brick is a noir murder mystery set against the back drop of a high school, The Brothers Bloom is about a pair of sibling con men, and Looper has Freudian, psychoanalytical readings a plenty to sink your teeth into. I might not be far wrong here. Looper is an action sci-fi noir film from the man who's to bring us Star Wars: Episode VIII. It has a time travel premise that would honestly take me the whole of this review to lay out to you, Joseph Gordon-Levitt's (Inception, The Dark Knight Rises, 500 Days of Summer), character has a speech memorised and everything. Needless to say, himself, 30 years from now is around making business and some very bad people want to hurt both of them, or one of them, this time travel shit is confusing. I mean that's one way of saying it, another way of saying is that it's clearly evident that this film's time travel laws make absolutely fuck all sense and crumble upon the slightest inspection. In fact there's one scene that has been cited the world over as echoing the scene from Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me in which Austin is told not to worry about the ins and outs of time travel, before Bazil Exposition turns to the camera and goes "and I suggest you do the same", Bruce Willis, (The Sixth Sense, Die Hard), keeps repeating to Gordon-Levitt that "it doesn't matter" increasingly forcefully until he shuts up. The thing is about that time travel is that it makes just enough sense to keep you engaged, and it does at a first glace it seems perfectly fine but as the film goes on it begins to fall apart but you're hopefully so involved in the drama at that point you might not care. The key success of Looper is that it does the three things that sci-fi has done brilliantly but separately since its inception, except all at once; it explores interesting scientific little widgets like, 'what if this particular brand of time travel was a thing and it just went horribly wrong', in the vein of, maybe Ex_Machina, Moon, or Blade Runner; it explores sort of real emotional/political depth, (less the political in this case), like District 9 or A.I. Artificial Intelligence; and it provides great crashbangwhallop set pieces in the vein of The Matrix and Star Wars, and it does each of those things perfectly fine. Emily Blunt, (Sicario, Edge of Tomorrow), very much provides a counter to the raging, and actually slightly problematic machismo of the rest of the film. She only shows up until the last act and the only real women character up until that point is the typical noir prostitute/stripper girlfriend stereotype that is really just tired and slightly offensive at this point, but Emily Blunt, probably the best thing about the film, isn't exactly strong and indomitable, she has moments of weakness and fault but they give her character a depth and complexity that works very well with her bolder moments and honestly she's just fantastic. The machismo is definitely there with the film's action and noir trappings, Jeff Daniels, (The Martian) is there doing that thing he does of looking quite amicable and friendly but also like he's also going to alternately fire you or snap your neck depending on the age rating of the movie, and Bruce Willis does that thing Bruce Willis does of stroking his ageing ego by holding a very bug gun very high on his body and firing it very quickly and loudly with a very big frown shouting very gratuitous insults. However, I think the film does enough for me to forgive it. Paul Dano, (Love & Mercy, There Will Be Blood) is there, and I love Paul Dano, and I'll watch him in anything, but honestly he's wasted here and he can do better I know he can.All in all, Looper is a fairly ambitious piece that succeeds through a heartfelt plot, a level of cineliteracy I liked, (there's one shot of Bruce Willis before he's lost all of Gordon-Levitt's hair that is unmistakably a visual reference to The Fifth Element that I quite enjoyed), and a neat little sci-fi widgety plot as well as some top notch world building and production design from Ed Verreaux, (Jurassic World, Rush Hour 3).
Nathan C (gb) wrote: The Title Explains Mario Why he doesn't wanna see the movie.Abba Isn't in this movie, The Actors were bad and i hate the way they act,This is the worst Musical film of all time it is not memorable at allThis is Worse than Hairspray and You all know what this movie is going to get.Score: 0/10
OliverTodd H (br) wrote: Wasn't too bad, wasn't scary or anything but still stayed interesting. I enjoyed how they linked the first movie to this second and not just made it a whole new cast with no story link. If you've seen the first movie and somewhat enjoyed it, then this second will be worth a watch
Craig L (au) wrote: Best Film I've seen all year
chris g (es) wrote: Terrible movie 90's actioner, only worth viewing to marvel at Don Johson hair and Rourkes teeth!
Peter L (ag) wrote: My Rating: 3/5 stars; Grade: B-; Gesture: Thumbs Sideways; Status: Passable (Fresh); Emoticon: :-I.