Yellowbrickroad

Yellowbrickroad

In the Fall of 1940, the entire population of Friar, New Hampshire walked together up a winding mountain trail and into the wilderness. Without warning, they left behind everything: their homes, their clothes, and their money. The only clue where they went was a single word etched into stone near the forest’s edge: YELLOWBRICKROAD.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:98 minutes
  • Release:2010
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:murder,   suicide,   corpse,  

1940: the entire population of Friar, New Hampshire walked up a winding mountain trail, leaving everything behind. 2008: the first official expedition into the wilderness attempts to solve the mystery of the lost citizens of Friar. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Yellowbrickroad torrent reviews

John M (au) wrote: The comedy lifestyle. So this is about an improvisational theatre troupe. They've got a small following, but they all have aspirations of something bigger. When one of them (Keegan-Michael Key) hits it big and lands a spot on what is the equivalent of Saturday Night Live, it rocks the group to their core. Now I've been affiliated with a comedy troupe before. I was never one craving the limelight so of course I was not a player; I was more of a support member that dabbled in writing, but nevertheless, I saw much of the process behind the scenes. That was sketch comedy, which is a very different animal than improv, but regardless, this movie does a great job at telling it like it is. I've been to an improv show before, and while I had a good time, it isn't really a brand of comedy that I ever have a hankering for. It's just an uncontrollable beast, and it is hard to do right without everybody yelling over one another and stepping on each other's toes. This group is like the best improv group that you will ever see, and honestly, if this inspires you to go and check out a local improv show, you should restrain your expectations, because it is highly unlikely that it will be as good as the material showcased here. The movie does capture what improv is all about, though, and even the script feels very improvised, which is absolutely appropriate. It is all about the live performance, and rolling with the first thing that pops into your brain. Because it is able to summarize an entire subgenre of comedy in 90 minutes, I feel that Don't Think Twice is hugely successful. If you are at all familiar with comedians, you would probably be able to guess that there is a lot of underlying sadness in these performers' personal lives. All the best comedy usually comes from a place of depression, which is why so many of the best comics out there usually get so real with their sufferings in their material, like Louie C.K. for example. The story feels very authentic, and it full encapsulates what a struggle it is just to do what you love. They all want to make it, but the fact of the matter is that in the comedy game, those openings are few and far between, and only a small percentage of a small percentage are actually going to be able to make a living at it. I give this an enthusiastic recommendation, especially if you have ever wanted to know what happens behind the performance.

Wiktor F (fr) wrote: great music, brilliant photography, but not so convincing as a self-contained whole...

Lee M (it) wrote: Best appreciated as the first stab at a live-action version of a Hayao Miyazaki ecologically minded extravaganza like Princess Mononoke.

Romi G (gb) wrote: Rara, solo eso se puede decir

Casey M (es) wrote: Somehow this raunchy, gross movie is highly amusing and feels like a cult classic.

TheScarlatescu R (au) wrote: its interesting, but that orny adams is so annoying !

Chris B (gb) wrote: Loved it. Lots of laughs.

Simon D (es) wrote: poor film, acting was bad and Ifans should steer clear of this type of film, he's wasted on it.

John A (us) wrote: keitel carries the movie - solid acting on a good script.

Tracy F (ru) wrote: Forgot how great this movie was. Thanks, Netflix. :) Tupac was phenomenal.

Tanner B (us) wrote: Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989) C-100m. ??? 1/2 D: Steven Soderbergh. Peter Gallagher, Andie MacDowell, James Spader, Laura San Giacomo. Amazingly insightful look at four individuals and how each bring their own perspectives in complex sexual relationship. Impressive debut for video-snob Soderbergh has pitch-perfect performances and Oscar-nominated script by Soderbergh; brains outweigh heart, but the movie's so well put together and so riveting it's difficult to criticize. Spader won Best Actor for Cannes.

Dan M (kr) wrote: First half of this was just all over the place, it felt like some scenes were missing maybe. The second half is decent enough and Olmos has some funny scenes but overall, forgettable movie.

David S (ru) wrote: I've watched it this weekend on Fox Movie Channel. I remember seeing it on late night non-cable TV and didn't like it very much at the time. Now I know why: they cut out the good parts! They included what happened after Harry Flashman charmed the legendary Lola Montez, how Lola managed to be King Ludvig of Bavaria's mistress ("I don't believe they're real!" *Sound of ripped bodice* "No! The spiders! I don't believe THEY'RE real!"), how Harry defrosted a German Duchess and how Harry managed to escape death several times under impossible odds! While I wouldn't recommend it to fans of the Flashman Novels, I definitely would suggest it to fans of "bawdy" costume dramas like "The 3 (and 4) Musketeers" and "Tom Jones."

Wesley S (ca) wrote: Again, though some actions in the film that are depicted are, in fact, true, it's Jacopetti's racist universalism that destroys the film. He claims that all blacks are brutal and savage, and that all blacks wished to kill whites during the civil rights era, a politically incorrect view that is enough to even piss off me, one of the most politically incorrect fellows around. Like Africa addio, Jacopetti tries to point the finger at the white man as to why blacks are this way, but merely insinuating that ALL blacks are this way is a piss-poor world view. Even back in the 1800s, when the whites are obviously the antagonists, blacks are shown as to be wild and uncaring, climbing trees and having open sex without decorum. He cites only one example for each incivility and claims that it is universal behavior for all. Though it surely happened in certain areas, to claim an entire race is this way is what negates the anti-white message that is present. Still, accuracy in depicting the atrocities commited by whites during slavery somewhat saves the film.

Sayer F (kr) wrote: It keeps some of the depth of the play, and both Tennant and Stewart are great. However, some acting isn't that great and the editing was pretty poor. Shots from surveillance cameras seem random and out of place, but it's nothing atrocious. Overall, an enjoyable movie, but falls short of some other adaptions.

Zach B (it) wrote: And here we go. Thinking back on it, it probably is one of the best things for Godzilla to end up having it's numerous sequels, but at least I can safely say that this is one of the better ones. Being made right off of the coat tails of the original, I think Honda figured that he would not be able to make a Godzilla film that would be able to top the original in terms of theme, experience, and just pure film making. Instead we get something that, to me, feels like this is Toho's answer to all of the Universal monster mashes of the forties and fifties. The main problem with this film is that the entire idea of Godzilla is lost. Yes, this does contain some of the characters from the previous film and the main idea that Godzilla is a metaphor for nuclear testing is mentioned in a creditable performance by Takashi Shimura (Dr. Yamane in the first film), but the direction and the story never really does anything with it and treats it like it's not important. I am not really clear as to why Honda decided not to really focus as much on that like he did the previous film, but there you have it.But let us be real here: there is only one real reason why anyone would consider seeing this film. The fight scenes between Godzilla and the opponent he is set up against. This idea would later put a staple on the giant monster genre, and for the first opponent being Anguirus. I will admit that he is okay as another monster that was, like Godzilla, awoken by atomic testing back in WWII, but I am left wondering: why are they all of a sudden being discovered? Why are they as of now fighting? Why did they not fight when the original Godzilla was awoken? Well, at least this film gives a reason as to why they are fighting. But the other things I am left wondering. I will say that it was interesting to see Godzilla having his first fight and it was nice to see Toho trying different ways of staging and filming the fight scenes, I just wish that the plot and idea of the film in general would have been given more thought.As for the other parts of the film, it is all more or less the same as the original. You have the score by Ifukube, Honda directing, and great special effects for the monsters. My thing as a film lover is just that I wanted more of plot and idea for the film instead of something that feels like a run of the mill monster bash. Is this film worth watching? I honestly say it is not. Entertaining, sure. But not a film I would revisit anytime soon. Please note: I am not saying it is bad. Just not really my type of giant monster film.

Hank H (nl) wrote: One of the masterpieces of American Cinema, Modern Times is one of the last films with little talking. Technically it is a silent film, however there is a short scene with talking for effect. The little tramp also sings gibberish. This movie is amazing. It deserves much praise. Modern Times is the last Chaplin silent film and one of the last silent films (excluding more recent ones like Silent Movie and The Artist) in the sound era.

Brandon S (ca) wrote: Easily one of the finest American action films of the '80s. However, this film has a lot more going for it than one may think. Firstly, the phenomenal chemistry between Gibson and Glover, which is helped by a great deal of improvisation friendly direction from the great Richard Donner. All while sporting, possibly, the best performance of Mel Gibson's career.If, somehow, none of that interests you; Shane Black's script is a masterpiece, and the action is spectacular.

Paul E (us) wrote: Makes me embarrassed to be British the makers of this should be sued by the creators of the original TV series and film spin offs for dragging the great concept of the Sweeney down to the complete opposite of of what the original was.As for Ray Winstone he should know better he should have played the villain, how old was the bloke playing Carter he looked like a kid to me, but that might be my age.They should have re made it set in the seventies like "life on Mars " Well they had a good pedigree to work with, let's hope someone else has a goRay how about a sequel to "Sexy beast" you excelled in that.

Carlos M (de) wrote: It is painful to see Coppola indulge himself with this personal nonsense, an incoherent mess that doesn't know if it wants to be an unscary Gothic horror story, an overstylized nightmare or an unfunny comedy. It is only bland, pointless and, even worse, sleep-inducing.