You may also like
Viva la republica! torrent reviews
Qasim Arif S (de) wrote: Excellent Movie...........................
Sylvester K (it) wrote: A tale of cheaters. Meet Everett and Miles, a gay couple with a disabled son. While Miles went on a father and son trip, Everett met a handsome travelling writer and as you would have expected, one thing lead to another, Everett must decide between the old bound and new romance.The acting was disastrous, no chemistry could be seen. The script was ridiculous and the direction was all over the place. It's like a really long and really bad soap opera that wouldn't end. Would have been better if it was a psychological thriller.
Timothy H (de) wrote: Straight to DVD type material...again a 3am movie on Showtime so can't expect much.
Silke B (ca) wrote: John Fante touches my heart with his words in a way very few authors do. His protagonists are always very different from myself. I have not much in common with their situation, their attitude or their way to treat people, but I find myself in their way of thinking, in the foggy cloud that seems to hang over their heads and their struggle to get what they want, though all seems hopeless.Arturo Bandini (Colin Farrell) is a writer. He is broke and uninspired, but he likes to brag about the story he once published. The only person he relates to is Hellfrick (Donald Sutherland). His neighbour who got gassed in WW I. Arturo's problem is, that he is a mean asshole, because he is insecure. He can't write about the real things in life. He has never experienced the real things, he was always busy sitting at the typewriter, while life was flowing by.When Arturo meets Camilla (Salma Hayek), he gets dragged into the real life. Suddenly the fog between him and all the emotions, all the sadness and happiness, all that life that he never tasted, starts to vanish.I never felt the same desperation during this movie, that I felt while reading the Bandini-novels. And if you had asked me, I would never have wanted Colin Farrell to play Arturo Bandini. He was ok, but absolutely pale against Donald Sutherland. I came to think, that maybe there is no recent actor who would be skilled enough to play Bandini the way he appeared in the novels.Excuse me now, I have to cry a little more, while thinking about Camilla's words:Arturo Bandini: "What does happiness mean to you Camilla?"Camilla: "That you can fall in love with whoever you want to, and not feel ashamed of it."
Alison P (us) wrote: Mediocre webcam murder mystery that exploits themes such as: porn, voyeurism, long-distance love, family loyalty, and well, exploitation. Not really worth seeing. If the idea intrigues you, you might as well see the less-mediocre Diane Lane psychological thriller Untraceable. Plus Colin Hanks is a way better (and more believable) geek that Eddie Furlong. Oh wait, he is grown up, so please call him Edward.
Cris C (ag) wrote: Wonderfully done. Great acting, directing, etc. Loved Patrick Stewart as the Ghost and Claudius (were they twins in this one?)BUT. They CUT some of the To be or not to be speech. HOW do you cut anything out of that speech?? It pretty much IS the play!But, the rest of the movie was really great, so I only took off 1/2 a star from what would have been a 4-star rating.
Muhammed A (de) wrote: there is a value in this one good acting
William D (kr) wrote: Coincidentally enough, in 1946 both Bette Davis and Joan Crawford starred in mediocre melodramas set in the world of classical music. Davis's vehicle was called "Deception," Crawford's "Humoresque," which is the name of a style of Romantic music. Also coincidentally, I happened to review the Davis film just a couple months ago. Crawford's film has the far better title, but the films are equally shallow and phony. Audiences in the 1940s flocked to theaters to watch Davis wreak vengeance and Crawford cry of a broken heart. Writers tried to dream up situations where revenge or self-pity would seem authentic to the characters, and they mostly failed. All through the second of half of the over-long "Humoresque," Crawford's self-lacerating destruction seems fake. Her character is in love with a superstar violinist played by John Garfield, and he's in love with her. For the story of doomed love to work, there has to be a compelling reason why the couple can't be together. But there is no good reason. I kept wanting to scream at Crawford's character: Just marry the guy already! There are great elements of "Humoresque" though. The first half-hour is scintillating. It tells the story of the Garfield character, growing up in a working-class family in the Bronx and breaking the social code by falling in love with the violin instead of the baseball bat. We watch him struggle with the competing concerns of developing his artistry and helping his parents put food on the table. His parents emerge as authentic and fully realized characters in their own right. And rarely have I seen Garfield feel so at home in a role. Then he meets the Crawford character, a high-society alcoholic in a loveless and childless marriage. They meet at a high-society party hosted by Crawford. This party sequence is so good that it should be as legendary as the party scenes in "All About Eve." The dialogue in this sequence was so brilliant, I wrote some of the lines down: - You just spoiled the beginning of an odious relationship. - Every time I look at you, I get a fierce desire to be lonesome. - With all that talent, he'll probably end up in jail. - I'm constitutionally given to enthusiasm about nothing. Clifford Odets is credited with writing the script, based on a novel of the same name by Fannie Hurst. But I get the feeling that Odets for the most part had his script dumbed down by the Warner Brothers assembly line of hack script doctors. Only the party sequence bears the mark of a genius writer. Yes, there's a lot of great music played in the film. In fact I think there's too much. I don't watch movies to listen to an hour of music. No matter how great the music is, that's not what cinema is about for me. I can listen to great music any time. I don't have to go to the movies to hear that. Director Jean Negulesco continually put long concert sequences in the film whenever he ran out of story ideas.
explodingboy1989 (es) wrote: Director Ching Tsui Tung (Chinese Ghost Story I and II, East is Red) manages to give the tubby Seagal his first movie of the new millenium that rises above the two star or below level. The story is engrossing, the acting passable, and- even though he is still heavily doubled- the action scenes don't really suffer that badly. I can't say that Belly of the Beast is a great movie, but it's probably the only movie Mr. Seagal has done in the past ten years that isn't easily overshadowed by the latest Lorenzo Lamas movie or Witchcraft entry in its entertainment value. That's probably saying a lot, but I doubt it. Watch it. Probably. LOL