A mad farmer falls in love with his pig and has mutant piglets with it. When the "piglets" prefer their mother over him, he hangs them all and the sow kills herself. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
A mad farmer falls in love with his pig and has mutant piglets with it. When the "piglets" prefer their mother over him, he hangs them all and the sow kills herself.
- Stars:Dominique Garny,
You may also like
Wedding Trough torrent reviews
Poul F (us) wrote: Needs a bit more meat to fill the bones.
Emeric T (us) wrote: J'en ai connu D bien pire !
Josh G (mx) wrote: C Me Dance is one of the best Christian films that I have seen for some time. It successfully combines ridiculous religious beliefs with terrible acting and hilarious events happening on-screen to make a dark comedy of biblical proportions!Sorry.But let's be serious. Here's a great quote from the L.A. Weekly review: "Its hilarious ineptitude makes it border on becoming a cult classic for the ages... and we??re not talking religious cult."Indeed, the movie has a seemingly endless supply of weird and unbelievable plot points up its sleeve, sure to keep your jaw hanging open in disbelief. Our hero Sheri is a 17-year old girl who has been dancing her entire life, taking ballet classes as a child and entering dance competitions in her teenage years. If only her mother, who died in the movie Duel, had been around to see her beautiful transformation over the years. And then, adding insult to injury, Sheri passes out during dance practice and is diagnosed with leukemia. Leukemia doesn't get a good girl down, and she dedicates her life to dancing. But God has other plans for her!Of course, all of this melodramatic stuff is played poorly with actors who say each line as if they are reading lines from a script. Every word is false, every movement of their hands carefully chosen before filming began. The obviousness of this is embarassing and extremely entertaining. Sheri's leukemia doesn't hinder her in the least, possibly because God wants her to save her agnostic friend who has never gotten to know Jesus. Sheri argues about the existence of God, struggling to counter well-thought out arguments from her agnostic friend, such as: "Why do you care? Nobody else cares about me." As it turns out, agnosticism is merely a result of not enough love from parents. Regardless, Sheri's words have little effect. It's when she lays her hand on the girl that suddenly everything changes. Hallelujah, praise be to Jesus the God Man Baby Child, her friend has become a Christian.Sheri still doesn't realize the gift that she has been entrusted with until she turns a boy to Christ who was about to murder her... in broad daylight, in somebody's front lawn. Her father, meanwhile, has a psychic connection to his daughter that is never explained. When the two of them realize Sheri's super-power, it is divulged in a weird attempt at comedy that doesn't work. In fact, all of the weird attempts at comedy throughout the film do not work and turn out to be funnier for how awkward and unrealistic they are than for the actual, supposed punchline.As Sheri can save anybody by touching them and/or looking into their eyes, her ministry grows. They get the help of a black preacher (for diversity) who is eager to help them out. "Every day," he tells them, "God's creation is going to Hell, and it's starting to piss me off!" He creates an elaborate plan to get Sheri up on stage at a metal concert (where all the atheists and pagans will be) in order to tell them about God's love and convert them all to Christianity. All they have to do is tell the concert promoters that she needs to be on stage in order to talk about, um, something. We'll... we'll figure that part out later.The snowball keeps rolling and getting bigger and bigger. Their plan gets more absurd, the ease with which they accomplish their goals more unbelievable. And then the ending, which ties the dancing thing back into the plot since it got lost in the sea of salvation.There is so much more to say. I did a bad job of explaining it. Just trust me here, this is one of the funniest Christian movies I've seen in some time. And I'm a self-confessed bad Christian movie aficionado.
Jose Luis M (ca) wrote: Discreta e inspiradora pelicula de Eastwood.
Wes K (au) wrote: This film has everything going for it...great acting, great cinematography, directing by Attal...problem is, I really don't care about the metafiction -- I don't care about the 'poor, difficult' lives of film actresses, nor actors, nor directors, et al. (unless it's in the context of censorship, or some such). A movie is in trouble when I care more about the subplot and its resolution than the main storyline.
Vadim D (jp) wrote: When this film came out, it was a complete surprise. The plot isn't very original, but that doesn't matter, because it's funny and has heart. It's not as clever as Best in Show, but has enough smarts to blend satire with adulation for the subject matter.
Jason S (nl) wrote: its very entertaining i enjoy it
Kurt C (ca) wrote: Simply adorable!! Robert Downey Jr is brilliant!!! Lots of laughs.
Tim L (ru) wrote: Sexy, sultry and seductive - but I have to admit I didn't have much of a clue what was going on most of the time! I'll have to watch it again I think.
familiar s (fr) wrote: Tucker. Never heard of him till I stumbled upon this movie (which was just yesterday). Or should I say that I'd never heard of this movie till y'day??!!! (Take your pick from the one that sounds more appealing.) Maybe because the movie didn't have any moment that lingers in your mind for long. Everyone have put in their sincere effort at every level, but not exceptional. The fact that it's based on real life person who struggled hard for success (and whose life story could have been more inspiring) doesn't help it any because it has a feel of "been there, seen it all". As much as I applaud his efforts to realize his dreams, I still gotta admit that the movie was a plain mediocre which doesn't incline me the least to learn more about him or check out how much historically correct the movie was (which happens more often than not for such movies).PS: I know some might feel that it's not fair to consider a movie mediocre just because it's presented without much dramatization, but that's how the score stands for me. Can't fight fact!!!
Harry W (it) wrote: Though The Dirty Dozen: Next Mission didn't boost credibility as a TV movie sequel to a war classic, the returning presence of Lee Marvin was enough to anchor my viewing.There is very little reasoning in making a sequel to a film like The Dirty Dozen (1967). The entire concept of the film revolved around training the titular team of mercenaries to prove that convicted war criminals could be trained to work in a team and respect authority as professionals. Since the possibility of this has already been established and most of the dozen were killed in the climactic mission, the star-studded cast of the first Dozen cannot return and so they must be supplemented by a collection of very loosely-known actors. Essentially, The Dirty Dozen: Next Mission is set up to be a cheaper replica of its predecessor and has no problem living up to that. It is the viewer who is left to have the problem with it, having to re-live The Dirty Dozen with a lot of predictable plot points and familiar drama from beginning to end without the production values, charming cast or even the humourous tone of the original. The general fact that The Dirty Dozen: Next Mission is a TV movie casts limitations on it. The running time is far shorter than The Dirty Dozen and the pace moves along faster so it doesn't waste too much time with its characters being trained, but this also means there is not enough time for there to be essentially any characterization. This hardly matters because all the new mecanaries are forgettable and generic soldiers or pale imitations of characters from The Dirty Dozen. The most notable of these is Arlen Dregors, a representation of the racial oppression present within the military and a half-assed copy of Jim Brown's character Robert Jefferson. So though it copies essentially everything story-related from its predecessor, The Dirty Dozen: Next Mission shows little sense that it knows what made its predecessor great. It has the same high-concept plot, but it is a production outside of the counterculture era and therefore lacks the political commentary that was one of the many aspects making the original great. In essence, The Dirty Dozen: Next Mission is essentially a mockbuster of itself without any kind of humourous edge or sense of exploitation fun. Since there are so many limitations blocking the film from greatness it would have been better for Andrew V. McLaglen to take the same path Enzo G. Gastellari did in adapting The Dirty Dozen into his B-movie classic The Inglorious Bastards (1977), a feature which accomplished its goal of achieving exploitation fun and little more. As if he really thinks viewers will appreciate the serious nature of the film, Andrew V. McLaglen offers little room for fun with his film and delivers a production which effectively just comes off as being pretentious as a result. And even then, it lacks the same level of grit to pack any major dramatic punch.The one chance the film could have put some smart drama in would have come from the end where the characters have predictably succeeded though many of their comrades have died in the process. Rather than using the same style of plot point from the end of Seven Samurai (1954) or its western remake The Magnificent Seven (1960) where the characters discuss how the victory of their mission remains no compensation for the brothers they lost in combat, The Dirty Dozen: Next Mission actually says nothing. It just pushes forward to a generic ending which closes on the exact same note as The Dirty Dozen with dialogue which is near-identical, giving an ending mediocre enough to live up to the standards of everything that preceded it. At least the film knows to end itself with some action.In terms of production values, the larger scale of warfare depicted in The Dirty Dozen must is degraded to conforming to TV-movie movie standards and ends up with a loose collection of lesser-quality stunts. There is some fun to be had with all the explosions and gunfire amid its intentions to be old-fashioned, but there is no denying the B-movie nature of the action sequences. There are simply a lot of medium-long shots cutting between characters shooting or throwing grenades and then their enemies falling with mostly bloodless deaths. The film is essentially a lot of shot-reverse shots with only decent stunts being captured, not that much which is too creative or all that stylish. But since the story is so arbitrary, the action sequences are the best scenes in the film. The viewer is still left to wait for them to happen following a series of training sequences and mediocre dramatic plot points, but if the most die-hard fans of The Dirty Dozen can get over the story then perhaps the action will suffice. Viewer's don't have to be the least-demanding action fans to appreciate the action because it is fairly decent, but the film could use a little more of it.The return of Lee Marvin is the one consistently enjoyable element. The actor returns to the iconic role of Major John Reisman, and though the film fails to offer him any innovative material in the role he still maintains his natural charisma even 18 years on from The Dirty Dozen. Echoing the same plot dynamics he has experienced before, Lee Marvin nevertheless manages to remind viewers how he charmed them all the first time around with the same straighforward attitude towards all the drama with an occasional comedic edge. Lee Marvin maintains the same level of strength he did in The Dirty Dozen, even if the script he is stuck with does not.It's good to see Ernest Borgnine make a return as well, even if it is a mere cameo.So The Dirty Dozen: Next Mission boasts some occasional moments of flare in the action scenes and leading performance from Lee Marvin, but the recycled plot and limited production values fail to create any sparks.
Jaide B (kr) wrote: Underrated war movie with the gorgeous Ken Wahl, and for the guys- Cheryl Ladd. Hope they bring it to DVD soon.
Simon T (es) wrote: Unusual San Francisco-based Hitchcockian thriller from Blake Edwards, rather overlong and under plotted, but well-acted by Glenn Ford and the beautiful Lee Remick, and with a characteristically fine score by Henry Mancini. Hard to believe this is from the Pink Panther helmsman.
JeanFranois S (fr) wrote: "La femme sur la Lune" est le dernier film muet de Fritz Lang. Un film o il dut se battre pour le garder muet, car le succs du cinma parlant est dj l quand le film sortira, la UFA voulait le rendre sonore artificiellement. Aprs le succs des "Espions", malgr des coupes budgtaires drastiques dut aux dpassements budgtaires de "Mtropolis", Fritz Lang bnficie nouveau d'un budget plus consquent pour ce film d'ex-science-fiction, qui reprend une des fins envisage l'poque pour "Mtropolis". Fritz Lang ne voulait pas d'un film fantaisiste ou utopique et tout comme Kubrick le fera avec "2001, odysse de l'espace", il s'entoura d'minants scientifiques de l'poque pour la crdibilit du voyage spaciale, dont principalement Hermann Oberth qui travaillera aux missiles V2, puis la NASA (Hitler classa le film secret d'tat lors du programme des V2). La UFA lui confia mme la tche de fabriquer une vraie fuse pour la premire du film, mais ses connaissances de l'poque taient encore trop limits et aprs quelques checs, le studio abandonna le projet. Toujours est-il que respectants les plans et les conseils de ceux-ci, les dcorateurs du film tablirent une rfrence mondiale en matire de fuse, et jusqu'aux dbuts des programmes spaciaux russes et amricains, tous le monde copiera la fuse de Fritz Lang (dont la clbre fuse d'Herg). Autre innovation plus surprennante, le film marque l'invention du compte rebours. Les futurs agences spaciales gardrent l'ide lorsqu'ils lancrent leurs premires fuses. Mais face ce souci de crdibilit, Fritz Lang se laisse aller son dfaut majeur: un montage beaucoup trop long (2h45!) pour un scnario qui n'en mritait pas autant.
Carlton R (mx) wrote: This movie was a box office smash for madonna, yes its a crazy story, but i dont think people get the fact that madonna chooses to do these thing because she wants to, i love this film, i saw it in the cinema and loved it,
Carly B (ru) wrote: Gabriel Byrne? Love him.This laughable excuse for MST3K-esque horror cheese? Not so much.
Brett B (ag) wrote: A fairly low-rent, silly slice of shlock, but I'll give the filmmakers a bit of credit: there are a couple of legitimately icky gross-out moments that are kind of fun, and there's a touch of southern fried charm that sets it apart from the more bland horror offerings with similar themes of nature going haywire.
Sheila M (gb) wrote: sad ending . she never had a chance