"Which Way Home" is a feature documentary film that follows unaccompanied child migrants, on their journey through Mexico, as they try to reach the United States. We follow children like ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
You may also like
Which Way Home torrent reviews
Andy C (au) wrote: After seven years of research to understand the mystery of white male attraction to Asian women, Debbie Lum decides to focus on the one story of Steven, a late-middle aged, white toll taker in the Bay Area, who is seeking a mate in Sandy, a young woman from a village in China. Their story--from internet contact to married life in California--has a wonderful if bumpy arc, and to her apparent chagrin, Debbie's voice acknowledges in the end that the couple is still thriving after four years. By its close, the movie is as much about their unusual partnership as it is Debbie's realization that she has crossed the documentarian's boundary of objectivity by giving advice to Sandy while judging her for being a "gold digger" and judging Steven for, well, being Steven--a man of modest means who is seeking "love" over a very long distance. Of course, no documentary film is "objective" anymore than a news magazine is, and one could certainly argue that a personal interpretation may offer more insight and understanding than "just the facts." But the film is subjective in the wrong way: it condescends to Steven, making him exemplar of the social phenomenon that Debbie's project first endeavored to understand.Had the film tackled the messy truth unearthed by seven years of talking to men afflicted with Asian fever, it might not have been so easy to shape into an engaging narrative, but it may have been more revealing of the mysterious reasons people find others attractive and why some (many?) of those infatuations evolve into lasting, deep connections. I'm convinced that something more than sexual colonization or the desire for a submissive spouse--perhaps evolutionary forces--is at play here, and while the fetishizing and objectifying of her into a lowly expectation of good sex is unfair, even dehumanizing, this describes only the tabloid fringe of the phenomenon. Lum herself is married to a Caucasian man, and yet this fact is given barely a five second nod in the film, after which the husband utters one comment off camera but never speaks to the reasons for his choice of Debbie as a mate. Nevertheless, it's a well told story, with the added attraction of describing some of the challenges and pitfalls of shaping research into a non-fiction story. In the end, people respond to story, though it may not deliver the whole complex truth.
Dave J (jp) wrote: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 (2011) The Future DRAMA Independent movie written, directed and starred Miranda July, she plays Sophie who happens to be the common law wife of Jason (Hamish Linklater), and one day they both decided to adopt an injured cat who is oddly narrating the story of the entire movie. Jason happens to quit his old job something to do with going online for an environmental one, while Sophie becomes more self conscious about her looks as she does specific dance moves on front of her 'Youtube' followers. It is then Sophie illicit an affair with a much older man named Jack who Jason corresponded with upon adopting the injured cat, who also jotted down his phone number for a picture his daughter had drawn. Marshall (David Warshofsky) is the older guy Sophie has affairs with just because she wanted to live in a house for a change instead of an apartment. All this means is that Jack apparently is also much more high maintenance than Jason who is conveniently single with a daughter. The movie is shallow for viewers are limited to know more or less of these characters topping it off a cat narrating the events of the story. I also think theirs supposed to be some kind of spiritual thing evolving from the movie which to me is nothing wrong involving Jack except that I didn't like care or anything. 2 out of 4 stars
Donovan D (it) wrote: Man, this movie was pretty good man
Paul D (mx) wrote: Offbeat comedy using mainstream Hollywood actor impersonations. It doesn't quite work and relies on its theme rather than a plot.
Ryan W (ag) wrote: A fascinating and insightful glimpse into the life of one of the great filmmakers in history
devin c (gb) wrote: that's what I get for watching a movie based on a book from the founder of scientology.
Rainer K (ru) wrote: Michael Hanekes Ruhm begrndete sich auf der harschen Medienkritik, die seinen Filmen bis Anfang der 2000er anheim ist.Beginnend mit Der Siebente Kontinent" und seinen Hhepunkt in Funny Games" findet, thematisierte Haneke immer wieder den Einfluss der ber-Medialisierung auf die Gesellschaft und die Perversion der Medienberichterstattung, die immer wieder zum Kollaps gewhnlicher Familien fhrt.Fragmentarisierung ist eines der Themen, dass in solcherlei Diskursen immer wieder auftaucht und in 71 Fragmente" nimmt sich Haneke der Fragmentform gleich in zweierlei Hinsicht an. Einerseits zerstckelt er seinen Film selbst in 71 Fragmente, die durch abrupte Cuts unterbrochen werden und immer wieder ins Nirgendwo fhren, andererseits arbeitet er ebenjene Fragmentierung auf, die seine Protagonisten in den Wahnsinn treibt.Besonders gelungen ist meiner Meinung nach der Einbau von echten Fernsehnachrichten, die das Geschehen in gewisser Weise kommentieren und Hanekes Pessimismus unterstreichen (es geht in ihnen praktisch immer um Krieg und Genozid).Neben diesen Nachrichtenstcken, erzhlt der Film parallel mehrere Handlungsstrnge und genau an diesem Punkt muss ich Kritik ben. Ob bewusst oder unbewusst, durch die ohnehin fragmentarisierte Machart des Films war es recht schwer den verschiedenen Charakteren zu folgen, ihre Motive zu erkennen oder aus ihren Handlungen schlssig zu werden.Haneke verlangt dem Publikum immer einiges ab, das ist nichts Neues, aber wie weit sollte man Medienkritik auf die Spitze treiben? So weit, dass sie dann erst recht niemand versteht?Eine Krux und in gewisser Weise paradox. Genial setzt Haneke seinen Film auf genau die Weise um, die er so hart kritisiert, was aber wiederum dazu fhrt, dass man kaum aufnahmefhig dafr ist.
James M (nl) wrote: It's like Arthur, except without John Gielgud's scene-stealing butler. Tom Conti delivers a very good performance, but aside from that it's rather forgettable.
Hrant B (au) wrote: Another terrible movie with a bad premise. Terrible script with over characterization. It was supposed to a funny romantic movie but it is quite the opposite. I could care less about this movie and so should you.
Iines S (br) wrote: "I don't fall in love w/people, I fall in love w/things" trala laa. haven't you ever wondered what human flesh tastes likes? i've eaten human flesh, but only my own. have killed my father, have killed my mother.
VJ H (jp) wrote: All that a bunch of rough east London kids need is a cool black teacher to tell them not to be sluts!I understand why people like this film: it's sentimental, it's idealistic and it has a catchy pop theme tune. But, it's really misguided. How prudish is Sydney Poitier's character?! What exactly is he teaching these kids?! Where is the overt racism that you'd expect?! I didn't enjoy watching this.
Alan V (es) wrote: What a great little 4 spooler, filmed in Technicolour which takes advantage of the great outdoors, and a good yarn about a town who turns on our hero, led by a sneering, nasty Charles Bronson.WOW the 75 minute running time flashes past. Not a yawning moment in the entire picture - they don't know how to make 'em like this anymore.
James S (nl) wrote: I remember enjoying the classic when I was a kid. :)
Leonard D (mx) wrote: It's got Jennifer Garner in it, the duck face woman of Hollywood! Of course this turned out to be a piece of crap! Why do movies like this exist!? It was hard enough watching Batman and Robin last time!
Steve C (ca) wrote: Channing Tatum is really talented and his wife is really hot. THATS ABOUT IT