Yatzy

Yatzy

A teenager relocates to a new environment but can't quite escape the reach of his traumatic past, in Yatzy, a haunting coming of age saga from Norwegian director Katja Jacobsen. At the age of 15, Daggi has fallen in love with the wrong girl, and has experienced horrors so extreme that circumstances force him to move out and take up a new residence in the country with new parents.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:110 minutes
  • Release:2009
  • Language:Norwegian
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:one word title,  

When Daggi is 15 years old, he gets the opportunity to change his life. A fresh start, another chance. But is it possible to start over? . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Yatzy torrent reviews

Mark W (mx) wrote: Fred returned and yes I did have to check it out... I'm guessing by now you either love Fred or absolutely detest him... However, you have to acknowledge that Lucas is creative and may have a great career in physical comedy! Overall this film was complete trash to be totally honest, but I guess that's any sequel for you... Especially since the first wasn't exactly comedy gold!

Divya B (mx) wrote: OMG this was sad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Scott C (us) wrote: The film that really made Colin Farrell a star.

James Z (es) wrote: with even gibson, usually a cogent franchise asset, appearing weary and a course thoughtlessly cavalier with its extensive establishment, 'lethal weapon 4' is clearly a detritus of the series' prime found in the second. a plastic and concrete outcome of mass manufactured 'lethal weapon' films.

Robin D (it) wrote: An awesome love story.

Christa M (ru) wrote: Oooh! I love Creature Comforts! You might be familiar with the recent CBS version of this. The original is better!

Jim M (es) wrote: Micky Rourke is an IRA operative grown tired of the killing, finds himself in London protecting a priest and his blind niece from a mobster all the while persued by the police and IRA. This movie had so much potential but it ends up being a major let down.

Matt M (ag) wrote: Film chronicling the tales of a modern times western road show led by the title character and made up of ex-convicts, whose troubles seems to begin after they are joined by a heiress. Unremarkably dull, this film is one of the least memorable in Eastwood's directorial filmography. However, one cannot help but see the character of Bronco Billy as some sort of a self observation and his own reunion with a lead actor of western side of his.

Pawel B (ru) wrote: I think I do not understand this movie. There are some intersting scenes but in general it is much worse than other films of the same director.

Claire E (ru) wrote: Such a great film with most of my favourites from the carry on crew.. Jim Dale, Joan Sims, Sid James, Percy Herbert, Kenneth Williams etc!! Fantastic performances by all

Dylan D (jp) wrote: Ali isn't quite a masterwork or the best film in the Michael Mann canon, but it comes awfully close. The movie occasionally falls into over length and overindulgence for Mann, but its core is splendidly realized, focusing much more on the man rather than the fighter, and by extension finding the fighter in the man. It's beautifully assembled beyond a few moments of slowdown. Casting and performances are absolutely fantastic and the movie is a treasure even amongst the long and storied history of Boxing films.

Daniel M (br) wrote: F. Scott Fitzgerald, author of The Great Gatsby, once said: "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." His point was that coming down on one side or another in a given argument is relatively easy, while it takes an active and detailed engagement with the topic in hand to understand the implications of each opinion.It's difficult to know exactly what Fitzgerald would have made of Bring It On. The chances are that he would have hated it, given his bad experience of working in Hollywood in the 1930s, turning out scripts for Joseph L. Mankiewicz. But his maxim does provide us with a useful means of assessment, since Bring It On leaves us completely in two minds. Peyton Reed's debut effort is both a bitingly cheerful snipe at cheerleading and a confused missed opportunity. Whichever side you gravitate towards, it is definitely worthy of its cult status.When I reviewed Stick It, I spoke at great lengths about the difficulties of writing believable female characters, particulary when it comes to sports films. One could write whole theses on the notion that cinema as a medium could be considered inherently masculine, but in any case the sports genre is dominated by stories of men rather than of women. Hence any sports film which centres around women, or addresses the standards to which they must confirm, has to overcome both the standard baggage that comes with writing female characters and the extra baggage of the genre's reputation and target market.Because Bring It On is positioning itself as a satire, it must do two things to succeed. Firstly, it must get to grips with its subject matter, exposing the absurdities and hypocrisies of cheerleading in a humourous and relatable way. And secondly, it must achieve this while giving us characters which feel like real people, either by having them expose cheerleading from the outside, or by doing a Spinal Tap and making us laugh as their delusional levels of self-belief.In both respects, Bring It On is a partial success, albeit in a deeply frustrating way. In essence, it does a great job of showing us how shallow and pointless cheerleading is by making us actively hate pretty much all the characters. The result is that we are completely on board with its criticisms of the sport, but feel like an audience at a circus laughing at clowns rather than feeling for the people under the make-up.This would be fine, up to a point, but as the film moves on its plot movements become more predictable and it attempts to turn its whole premise on its head. Having got across a clear message about the stupidity of cheerleading, through characters which take it so seriously that it hurts, it then mutates into a feel-good underdog comedy in which we are meant to root for Kirsten Dunst and her term of perfectionist brats. The tone of the dialogue doesn't change much, but the shift is not wholly convincing and ends up softening a lot of the satirical blow.If there is one word to describe the entire tone of Bring It On, it is bitchy. The film is written by Jessica Bendinger, who would later demonstrate on Stick It that she could write a range of interesting, very different female characters (and direct them very nicely too). Here, however, it quickly becomes difficult to distinguish between the main protagonists. We can identify Missy because she sees through the group's vacuity, and we remember Kirsten Dunst's character because of her subsequent success. Everyone else, on the other hand, is much of a catty muchness.As a result, Bring It On can often come across as grating and stereotypical. We're all familiar with the many film and TV cliches surrounding cheerleaders, whether they are spiteful and spoilt (Libby from Sabrina the Teenage Witch) or so oversexualised that it borders on creepy (subverted in Jennifer's Body). But Bring It On doesn't make as much effort as it could to challenge any of the personality traits associated with the sport. It just assumes that we already find cheerleaders annoying, turns the characters briefly up to 11 and leaves it at that.It is entirely possible to make a compelling and interesting film which is populated with characters who are unlikeable or even reprehensible. The classic Ealing comedies, like The Ladykillers and Kind Hearts and Coronets, did it all the time, giving us protagonists who were often jaded, corrupt or just plain malevolent and somehow making us bond with them. The key, as is so often the case, is character development: we have to learn something about the characters to make them seem more human and less one-dimensionally hateful, a point that I raised in my negative review of Sightseers.Bring It On does fare better in this regard than Ben Wheatley's deeply misjudged dark comedy, but it's still stymied by its predictable story arc. When it's in its early stages, documenting the early failures of the group and all the girls' misplaced anxieties, it feels like a freeform, independently-spirited comedy drama which in the right hands could have been great. But as the more familiar plot elements encroach, the character development is put on hold in favour of montages, physical set-pieces and a strange desire to cheer us up.Had Reed and Bendinger stuck to their guns and given us a darker, more twisted look at cheerleading, this film could and should have been a whole lot better. Dunst's comic timing and perky demeanour could have been used to expose some of the physical pressures affecting cheerleaders, whether from within the squads, fromthe teams that they support, or from outside expectations. It wouldn't have needed to be Heathers with pompoms, but there are opportunities all throughout the running time for it to dig a little deeper - opportunities that it very rarely takes.Part of the reason why it doesn't take these lies in Reed's sensibility. Prior to this, Reed mainly worked in TV, directing episodes of the animated Back to the Future series as well as remakes of Disney's The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes and The Love Bug. Despite the presence of The Evil Dead star Bruce Campbell in the latter, none of these efforts are becoming of a would-be cult director. They're largely safe and harmless affairs, which often pull back from doing anything controversial or radical.What makes Bring It On worthy of cult status is not how cutting-edge or adventurous it is. Instead it's a misshapen oddity, a film which can never quite decide what it wants to be and why. Under normal circumstances, this would render it a failure along the lines of Oliver & Company, to continue the Disney theme. But while it's trying hard to make up its mind, it plays out its conflicted self in a memorable and enjoyable manner on screen, a facet which ultimately redeems it.If we approach Bring It On looking only for Spinal Tap levels of insight and intelligence, we'll quickly grow disappointed and lose interest. If, on the other hand, we come looking for entertainment, while being open to the idea of maybe learning something, then the film becomes much more agreeable all-round. The substance is still there in muted form, and the film is every bit as conflicted, but like Highlander its flaws are overriden by one's desire to enjoy the action, even if just to admire the prowess of the performers.If nothing else, the film is another feather in the cap of Kirsten Dunst as an actress. Having cut her teeth as a child actress, in the likes of Jumanji and Kiki's Delivery Service, this was one of the first roles which began to establish her as an adult talent. This is probably the part that contributed most to her being cast in Spider-Man: Torrance Shipman has a perky yet headstrong quality to her which draws some comparisons with Mary-Jane Watson. Dunst carries the action with ease, and as with Get Over It the following year, her presence causes everyone else to lift their game.Bring It On is a heavily flawed cult oddity which should be embraced as entertainment in spite of its satirical shortcomings. Fans of satire will find good cause to complain that it doesn't go far enough in either its characterisations or its deconstruction of cheerleading, but its flaws makes it a more refreshing perspective on the sport than many other teen-aimed efforts of the day. It's nowhere near as good as Stick It, but there are many worst sports films that you could be forced to endure.

Armchair O (kr) wrote: Atom Egoyan's Devil's Knot is wholly unnecessary. Here is a fictionalized recreation of the brutal 1993 murders of three elementary school boys from West Memphis, Arkansas that has already been documented to death, first in Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky's brilliant 1996 documentary Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills and then in three subsequent follow-ups. If you've seen those films then you already know all the people involved. Those films were intricately detailed portraits of West Memphis with all its oddball characters and bizarre hysterical theories that led to the conviction three teenagers that the community believed were serving the devil. By this point, what can Egoyan's fictional narrative tell us that we don't already know? The short answer: not much.It is not for lack of talent. Egoyan is a brilliant filmmaker. His most effective landscape has been the wilderness of his native Canada. His best films like Exotica and The Sweet Hereafter deal with events in The Great White North in a way that never seems generic because the territory seems as familiar to him as the letters in his own name. In stepping outside his usual landscape, he finds himself wading knee-deep in the waters of our expectations. They recreate the events without the intricate details so their film comes off feeling like a barely passable reenactment.What is presented in Devil's Knot (which is named after the wooded area in which the three boys were found) is a fictional narrative that never comes close to the details presented in Berlinger and Sinofsky's documentary. The monumental task for Egoyan and his screenwriters Paul Harris Boardman and Scott Derrickson, is to create the same kind of creepy effectiveness that we got from the documentary. Yet, where the documentary had the advantage of prying into the private lives of the families and the legal team, this docudrama finds its focus on Ronald Lax (Colin Firth), the private investigator who took on the defense pro bono. In doing so, many of the major players remain off-screen. The three accused teenagers, Jesse Misskelley, Damian Echols and Jason Baldwin remain shadows here. We see them fleetingly, mostly in the backgrounds.The same goes for the families. There were six families devastated by this crime, but the film focuses almost exclusively on Pamela Hobbs the single mother of one of the victims. She's played by Reese Witherspoon in a performance that feels somehow muted and unfocused, as if the real meat of her performance was left on the cutting room floor.What is strange is that Egoyan and his screenwriters would focus on the relatively banal figure of Hobbs (from a fictional standpoint anyway) when the most curious mainstay of the case has always been John Mark Byers, the stepfather of Christopher Byers, one of the murder victims. Byers was always the most outspoken of the grieving parents, a creepy and laconic man who spoke passionately about his faith in God while his background contained elements of a life of bitter chaos: DUIs, blackouts, hallucinations, violence, a brain tumor, restraining orders. Plus there was that strange business in 1996 when his wife Melissa (and Christopher's mother) suddenly died of "undetermined causes." Those details are to be found in the documentary. In Egoyan's film, Byers is seen fleetingly in the backgrounds.Even from the standpoint of filmmaking, Devil's Knot never really breathes with life. Egoyan is the master of his canvas, an expert at knowing how to paint a portrait of a grieving town, as he did in his great 1998 film The Sweet Hereafter about the deaths of several school children when their school bus crash through the ice. The weight of that film came from the community that had to deal with those events. It could reasonably be hoped that he could create the mourning atmosphere of West Memphis, Arkansas that led to the suspicions and hysteria about Satanic cult rituals on which the three teens were accused. Yet, it doesn't work because our brains are so fine-tuned into the real facts and the real people, that any fiction feels phony by comparison.

Joey F (kr) wrote: It's really dumb, but it's also really clever. It's cheesy as can be, but so likable. I went in expecting to just groan the whole time (I did for the first third), but by the last third, I was enjoying myself thoroughly. It's not a masterpiece, but it's really fun.

Laura M (jp) wrote: Instead of attempting to make me a fan of his it made me roll my eyes even more than before.

Adam T (jp) wrote: Why this film recieves the panning it does, I don't know. It essentially mixes classic spying with an exotic Bollywood storyline. Yes, Moore spends some time at a circus in clown make-up, swings from jungle vines yelling like Tarzan and rides in a toy crocodile, but gimmicks aside... The liabilities never compromise the movie as sheer entertainment. It's a movie peppered with many death-defying action sequences styled for an Indiana Jones generation while not dispensing with the cold war intrigue. It should be noted too that Moore's lighter touch and gifted comic timing made these films all the more enjoyable even if it did make the dramatic situations less believable.

Ca M (kr) wrote: Such a boring movie, especially considering the cast. You hope for a little more. But it doesn't deliver. It did have some pretty natural scenes from high school at times. That was about the only good thing.

Alden S (us) wrote: 9 out of 10:Great adaptation of a classic book.

Jamin M (es) wrote: This movie is well..bad. The editing is clumsy and acting is so-so. The film is has great setup for a story, but they don't go all out. I love Chris Pine and Reece Witherspoon, but they could have used their talents for a more worthy movie. There are rarely any funny moments. I only remember laughing two or three times. The romance is also really weak and it's not that engaging. The characters are pretty boring and don't have any level of depth. On the bright side, the action scenes are fun sometimes and the cinematography is alright. Overall, This Means War is a bland and forgettable film.