Ukuaru

Ukuaru

N/A

. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechersSize
Download   Ukuaru 1973 Kanal2Other3950483.67 MB

Ukuaru torrent reviews

Andrew C (us) wrote: eerie atmosphere, and darkly comic.

Russell H (es) wrote: not the best of Seth Rogan but funny enough

Matthew P (ag) wrote: Ian (Timothy Hutton) has grown tired of his wife, Louise (Meg Ryan). Instead of going to Chicago like he said he would, he has headed out to the couple's country house, where he said he's meet his wife the next day. He plans to leave a letter for her, telling her that he's run off to Paris with another woman, Sara (Kristen Bell), and that their marriage is over. Unfortunately for him, Louise decides to head to the country house one day early, and after discovering the rose petals lying everywhere -- which were meant for Sara, not her -- thinks that her husband had planned a romantic day for her. He tells her that it's over, she throws a flowerpot at him, and when he comes to, he's taped to a chair and she's sitting on the bed, holding a glass of water. It's offered to him, but he doesn't want it. After all, he's more concerned with getting out of this predicament at the moment to care about quelling his thirst. Ian is informed that he's going to be held captive until the time when he falls back in love with his wife. This happens despite his plans to head out to Paris first thing in the morning. Louise doesn't treat him poorly while he's duct taped to this chair, but she's not letting him go until he can tell her that he loves her -- and mean it. She can tell if he's lying, as he's not very good at it even though he managed to keep his affair with Sara secret for a year (which the film initially treats as a gigantic revelation, but then nothing comes of it). So, most of what we get involves having Ian taped to a chair, and Louise attempting to fix their marriage. She shows him pictures taken over a decade ago, bakes him cookies, puts on a dress, and so on, all the while Ian attempts to convince her that the spark is gone and that she could hold him there forever and it's not going to change his mind. There's a lot of repetition in Serious Moonlight, and this makes the film's 80 minute running time feel a lot longer than it actually is. For the most part, all we see are these two actors talking with one another. The third act is more promising, as something actually happens. A burglar (Justin Long) comes into the house, tapes up Louise, throws her in the bathroom with Ian, and then throws a party downstairs. This excitement helped to re-engage me with the film. We now have more than one thing to do, meaning instead of focusing on the relationship that may or may not ever be reconciled, we can try to figure out how the characters can escape from their possibly life-threatening situation. I have the feeling that Serious Moonlight would have worked better as a play, and it's possible that the late Adrienne Shelly's script was originally planned for the stage. It takes place in a single location, features a limited number of actors, and seems like it would easily work as a play. Without cinematic tools to distract us, we might feel an intimacy with these characters and it's possible that their marriage might actually mean something to us. As it is, I had a really hard time caring. We never find out why they got married in the first place, nor how they managed 13 years. They never seemed to have a spark after the initial honeymooning period, and because of this, it's hard to hope that they get back together. Ian seems like he'd be better with Sara, and Louise has shown to us that she needs to be locked away. Imagine if this same plot happened, except all of the genders were switched. Would a male holding his wife hostage win an audience's endearment? Somehow I doubt it. It's creepy enough in the way that it's presented here. A balance between drama and black comedy is attempted here, but the balance is skewed in the former which doesn't work for reasons I've already explained. We don't care about these people; it doesn't matter to us if they get back together or not. The comedy that's attempted occasionally works, but it's too scattered to make much of an impact or entertain us. Some of the situations made me laugh, and the final scene, while predictable, gave me a laugh regardless, if only for the face given by one of the characters. The bathroom fight between Sara and Louise was also pretty funny, but looking at it in a different light makes it feel more embarrassing for both actors. You laugh, but you feel bad for the performers. This attempted but failed balance also leads to some uneven and unsure performances. The actors aren't bad, but they rarely seem like they know what they should be doing and how to play their part properly. It's as if rookie director Cheryl Hines just let them do their thing, and the result are actors who haven't been directed and don't what would fit best. Perhaps Hines gave them too much credit, or perhaps she should stick to staying in front of the camera instead of behind it. Serious Moonlight is an inconsistent film that probably should have been a play instead of a feature film. It gets repetitive in order to get its runtime above 80 minutes, the actors don't seem to have a clue as to they should be doing, and we don't care about these two leads despite spending almost every frame with both of them. It picks up near the end, and a few of the comedic touches help liven things up, but on the whole it's not a movie that's worth your time.

Alex K (au) wrote: Enjoyable film it's not crap but is no mind blower but is not a waste of time.

R S (br) wrote: Funny! Great kun-fu parodies. Appreciated the appropriate respect for motherhood/fatherhood, too.

Sonika B (it) wrote: brilliant performances, superb direction.... must see for everyone

Bavner D (kr) wrote: Film ini mengemas kisah cinta yang antik dengan cukup menarik, banyak memorable scenes, kualitas akting kedua pemain utama yang cukup mengesankan, serta dilatari dengan musik Cat Stevens yang menambah hidupnya alur cerita.

Nikolai E (kr) wrote: Howard Hawks last film and possibly his worst ever, a fact which he wrongly blamed on an aging John Wayne, who is one of the film??s only redeeming features. Hawks?? second remake of his own ??Rio Bravo,?? which was itself a semi-remake of High Noon pursues pointlessness with bracing fervor. ??Rio Bravo?? wasn??t great, but at least it was entertaining on its own terms. By ??Lobo,?? whatever sense of fun, energy and pride the old-fashioned western once had was diluted to oblivion. Most of the cast couldn??t collectively act themselves out of a wet paper bag, and the one real highlight of the film is possibly the worst love scene ever captured on celluloid. Considering Hawks?? own ??To Have and Have Not?? contains what I would argue is the best love scene of all time, I guess there was no more appropriate way for him to send off his incredible career than to hit rock bottom with the force of a flaming meteor.

Sean C (fr) wrote: This movie suprised me a lot by being a lot better than it had any right to be lol. From the title one would not expect much but they would be mistaken as I was. Their is actually very little nudity in this movie and all of it was done very tastefully. The production value was higher than I anticipated too so the look and feel of the movie was more like professional Hollywood than crappy foriegn movie. The actors spoke English well and the acting was not half bad. The best part of the movie was the fight scenes of which there are many. Both with weapons and without martial arts as well as gun fights. The action was top notch and rivaled any big budget Hollywood movie. The story was good too as it was brutal, tragic and engaging. I did not know this is actually a sequel so I may watch the first one. A very surpisingly good movie, you should check it out!

Jay B (ca) wrote: Funny, sweet and educational. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot mixes a bit of EVERY genre, which IS kind of annoying at times, but ultimately... very satisfying film with great performances and wit for days.

Adrienne L (ca) wrote: Seriously uneven comedy with with no script, no point, and some truly banal cameos. This was painful to sit through.