We're Not Dressing

We're Not Dressing

Beautiful high society type Doris Worthington is entertaining guests on her yacht in the Pacific when it hits a reef and sinks. She makes her way to an island with the help of singing sailor Stephen Jones. Her friend Edith, Uncle Hubert, and Princes Michael and Alexander make it to the same island but all prove to be useless in the art of survival. The sailor is the only one with the practical knowhow to survive but Doris and the others snub his leadership offer. That is until he starts a clam bake and wafts the fumes in their starving faces. The group gradually gives into his leadership, the only question now is if Doris will give into his charms.

Yacht owner is stranded on island with her socialite friends, a wacky husband and wife research team, and a singing sailor. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


We're Not Dressing torrent reviews

YunHong C (ru) wrote: When there's another movie called "Lincoln" and Daniel Day Lewis play the title character so brilliantly not too long ago, you know this movie will suck compare to "Lincoln"

Ron G (it) wrote: Good thing Cthulhu isn't awake to see this bad acting.

David E (us) wrote: Watch this film with no distractions. Pay attention to all the subtle details and you will agree with the 5 stars.

Mikko L (es) wrote: Blue in the Face is a hard flick to review. Is it a kool flick, or are they just riding in the wake of Ultra Kool flick Smoke? It's a sequel. They're both released the very same same year. The setting is the same; you're in a corner shop which sells tobacco in Brooklyn. Only this time they march in a number of celebrities, take Madonna for one example (or take Roseanne Barr for two examples), to play for cameos or small roles. While Auster has his spoon in this soup, as in Smoke, the kool stories are not there. Jim Jarmusch and Lou Reed make the two most interesting guests in this flick, but their parts taste a bit like mere interviews, and but borderline dry ones. BTW, I do wonder if Jarmusch really puffed his last Lucky in the movie set, or has he returned to his habits? Awright. I give up. Can't quite figure this out, but I'll award it with four and a half stars. You can very well watch it if not too long time has elapsed since the last time you watched Smoke.

Tristan G (jp) wrote: This was a little too mean-spirited and it didn't have the same charm as the original. I did like it though.

Grant S (br) wrote: Not overly profound, and the conclusion is somewhat incomplete, yet overly neat, all at the same time, but somehow it works. A movie really just to sit back and absorb the characters and relationships. A great nostalgia piece, Big Chill-like.All-star cast, though some weren't stars yet: Matt Dillon, Timothy Hutton, Mira Sorvino, Uma Thurman, Michael Rapaport, Natalie Portman (14 years old at the time), Lauren Holly, Annabeth Gish, Martha Plimpton, Rosie O'Donnell, David Arquette, Noah Emmerich, Great performances all round.

Zoran S (gb) wrote: Rare is the American independent film that has anything meaningful or observant to say about relationships. And so I was pleasantly surprised to see that LOL had more in common with the spirit of the films of John Cassavetes and his observant dissections of relationships instead of the drivel of the aforementioned films. No, I am not suggesting that Joe Swanberg is a filmmaker of Cassavetes's caliber. Rather, what I saying is that in LOL, Swanberg mainly limits himself to presenting a series of emotionally complicated and observant scenes about relationships. In other words, instead of a detailed plot, the film is content to drift through a series of scenes that aim simply to obverse.In particular, Swanberg observes how men of a certain generation (in their late 20's and early 30's) use technology as an escape from engaging with their relationships. While this is not a terribly original insight, it does produce some wonderful, funny, and sad scenes: the awkwardness of phone sex, preferring to surf the internet to watching your girlfriend undress and change in front of you, and in general the obsessive need to check your email rather than engaging with the people around you. I found myself laughing at many of these scenes early in the film, but became distraught by them eventually as the characters merely repeated their awkwardness and obsessions. Most people, I imagine, would be bored by the film's repetitions and moreover its rather "cheap" looking digital video aesthetic. However, I felt that the look of the film was appropriate for the subject matter. Most scenes are shot in awkwardly framed close-ups without clear establishing shots beforehand. The effect is to produce a form of abstract intimacy (or paradoxically a "distant" intimacy) with the characters in the film. Somehow this mirrors the relationships in the film: the men and women in the film, in other words, who are in intimate relationships and are also totally distant from one and another. LOL is no masterpiece to be sure. In fact, I hated certain parts with a passion. The footage of people making funny noises seems more appropriate to the crappy world of Miranda July instead of the rest of the film. Still, the film has an emotional complexity and intelligence to it that is lacking in most recent American independent cinema.

Michael J (br) wrote: A movie where a black guy beats white guys on behalf of God can only please so many