The ghost of "patient zero", who allegedly first brought AIDS to North America - materialises and tries to contact old friends. Meanwhile, the Victorian explorer Sir Richard Burton, who drank from the Fountain of Youth and now works as Chief Taxidermist at the Toronto Natural history Museum, is trying to organise an exhibition about the disease for the museum's "Hall of Contagion".
- Stars:John Robinson, Normand Fauteux, Dianne Heatherington, Richardo Keens-Douglas, Bernard Behrens, Charlotte Boisjoli, Brenda Kamino, Michael Callen, Marla Lukofsky, Von Flores, Scott Hurst, Duncan McIntosh, Cassel Miles, Benjamin Plener, Ann Medina,
- Country:Canada, UK
- Director:John Greyson,
- Writer:John Greyson
The ghost of Zero - "patient zero", who allegedly first brought aids to Canada - materialises and tries to contact old friends. Meanwhile, the Victorian explorer Sir Richard Burton, who ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Zero Patience torrent reviews
(gb) wrote: a really nice movie... the 1st half of the movie was very gripping and acting by the the kids and naseeruddin was top notch.. sharman joshi was very likeable and faruk kabir as the debut director was good but needs to poilish his acting.. overall not a bad movie
(br) wrote: So random, and so boring. Its not only that we have seen this story a million times before, but its actually been done better, a million times before. I can not believe that a film with a cast like this, manages to fall so flat and become so transparent in character building and humor. With a main character that is looking and acting like a confused, helpless little bunny through the whole thing, really ticks me off. Paralyzed figures is fine for the time being, but if they become completely incapable of any action what so ever, i just back down, and ultimately stop caring about what happens. A tedious little "comedy", with very little substance. I dont think i laughed a single time, but rather kept looking at the timer, to see if it would finish soon.
(de) wrote: The concept here is fantastic...the movie, however, is not. The style of the film isn't too bad and it's obviously a low-budgeter. It just never really grabbed me. The acting by Dean Stapleton was okay but the lead, Christian Oliver, was lacking. I think the movie could have benefited greatly from more interesting cinematography and atmosphere. The lead, to be frank, was creepy at times but in ways I don't think he should have been..."You have no idea what's going on inside of me right now."...It just came across...uncomfortably. Anyway, there are worse ways to spend some time...but there are much, much better ways too.
(ca) wrote: Oh my this is horrible never shall be watched by any viewer with the intelligence of being aware of how bad this is.
(jp) wrote: Dated, but I enjoyed it in a weird kind of a way. Maggie is very entertaining and Claire is engaging. Strung out plot though, more story and less 'talk' would have been nice.
(ru) wrote: This movie starts out being pretty dull, then it tries to be comedic, and lastly a more serious and romantic horror story. It actually isn't scary at all, there's no blood or gore, and the ending isn't at all like a horror movie. For some reason I liked this movie for a while, though, mostly in the middle and near the end. It could have been a great movie if they had ended it earlier, had more blood, and made the first couple scenes more exciting. Overall, it's just okay.
(fr) wrote: An overlooked gem from Wes Craven. And while the film's odd pastoral setting for a slasher is oddly satisfying, the final act is so gonzo it totally redeems any flaws in the film.
(fr) wrote: Perfect! Just the right amount of wit and humor, all wrapped up with good writing. But really, it is Hepburn and Tracy that bring it to life with their wonderful acting and relaxed camaraderie.
(jp) wrote: I still haven't decided if it's a good thing or not that this film hardly strayed from the original at all, but instead, bought it into the modern world in both the story and in the technology they used to make it. I enjoyed it anyway, some pretty good performances.
(ca) wrote: If Retards on this website thinks that this Movie was Bad than they must die or Kill themselves or destroy this websiteI am out of it after learning that there are Monkeys in disguise of Critics & no sense of humor. shove this Tomatometer in your assesThis MOVIE was Hilarious & Amazing
(us) wrote: This movie is so funny. Its a coming of age movie and the family is so orginal and funny you just grow to love them. I never get sick of this movie. Its great to this day. If you havent seen it then you missing a winner. Dont pass this movie up!
(ca) wrote: "Watchmen" is Zack Snyder's 2009 film, written by David Hayter and Alex Tse, it is based on the critically acclaimed 1986 graphic novel of the same name written by Alan Moore. The film is set in 1985 in an alternate universe where superheroes have existed since the 40s. Their presence changed the curse of history, and of the United States. Now, in 85, Nixon is the president of the States and nuclear war is at its peak, as the U.S and the USSR continually threaten each other, to the point of a possible nuclear war. Superheroes are now outlawed and most are either dead or retired. When the former superhero known as The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan, a former member of the Watchmen) dies, the now retired Watchmen, all become targets of the mysterious assassin, all, as a possible plot to end the world happens.I've personally never read the famous comic, but judging from all the heat, I can only imagine it's at least a bit good. The novel pretty much started this thing of making serious comics that attack serious issues and focus on character depth, and storytelling, instead of the usual thing, where the hero fights the bad guy and saves the day. But only from this film's plot, that's based on the novel, of course, it's noticeable how great this movie could've been, due to its amazing source material. I think that in the hands of better writers and director, this film could've been much, much better.So what's so wrong with it, well, where to start. The writing, god, it is jut too bad, not saying it is HORRIBLE, but it's pretty bad, not going to specify certain lines from the movie, but if you watch and listen to the dialogues you'll notice, believe me. So much exposition dune through narration and constant, never-ending flashbacks, accompanied by poorly-developed characters (with expectations) are all part of the film's poor written script. The visuals and direction are as Zacsnyderish as you can think, with non-stop slow mo, that does work at times, but for most of it, simply unnecessary. Some useless scenes too, that go nowhere and that did not need to be in the film, and of course the dark-toned looks, pretty much what you'd expect from the "300" director.Another thing is, I understand that Snyder tried to stay as faithful as he could to the comic (as said, I have not read the novel, tho I've heard that the film is a fine adaptation, in terms of staying true to the comic), but damn, did it have to be every single detail. Much like his recent disaster "Batman v. Superman", "Watchmen" suffers from Snyder's dedication to trying and do the best adaptation ever, instead of trying and improve the material, so it would fit better onto the big screen. I could list the problems. The runtime, 163 minutes, that is way too long, for such film, the amount of (as said before) unnecessary scenes that could've been cut out of the film to give more space for character development, or you now just to reduce the film's runtime. But I still have to recognize Snyder, in light of all these problems with adapting the comic onto the screen, I've got to give the man some credit, he did an adaptation that the hardcore fans probably loved, and still managed to sustain a solid picture for the usual movie-goers.So what are the goods? Well even do I've seen my share of it, and he sometimes exaggerates with some aspects of it, Snyder's visuals are truly beautiful when used correctly, they truly are, but the best thing in the movie, for me, was Jackie Earle Haley's performance as Rorschach (A.K.A Walter Kovacs), the man is a spectacle. Differently from some of his fellow actors (badly miscast) in the movie, Haley is in his top game here, his best scenes being the ones without the mask, as the actor is able to express and act much more, then when inside Rorschach's face. As said before with this impeccable source material, the story and plot overall are great and pretty entertaining, and for me, that's what saved the film."Watchmen" has many, many problems, but it has its qualities, I'll say the movie should be a treat for the fans of the novel, as for the ones that aren't familiar with the material, it all may seem a bit weird or kinda long, I think it varies from person to person when it comes to "Watchmen". 3/5.
(nl) wrote: I think Ina Balin was miscast in this film. But other than that, its quality of staying somewhat true to the long melodramatic novel of O'hara was good but perhaps not great. The real standout in this film is Newman's real life love, Woodward in one of her best roles ever.