After the marriage of her niece, Rosemary, Anglo-Indian school-teacher Violet Stoneham lives a lonely life in her single room flat located at 36 Chowringhee Lane in Calcutta, with only a tom cat for company. She is thrilled when a former student, Nandita Roy, looks her up and also brings her boyfriend, Samaresh Moitra, to her flat. Samaresh is an author and likes the solitude of Violet's flat, and would like to write his new novel there, to which Violet readily agrees to. He likes her antique record-player and she gives it to him as a gift. She hopes she has become part of a family again. It is Christmas time and Violet would like to bake a cake and visit Nandita and Samaresh to surprise them. But is a surprise that awaits her when she reaches her destination.
After the marriage of her niece, Rosemary, Anglo-Indian school-teacher Violet Stoneham lives a lonely life in her single room flat located at 36 Chowringhee Lane in Calcutta, with only a ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Ian C (it) wrote: More of the sameNot watching anymore of these just same old shit with a different name.
Sydney Y (us) wrote: This was a good movie. Never a dull moment.
SUSAN J (fr) wrote: Best movie I have seen in a long time. Absolutely loved it. Fantastic performances. Fabulous seemless plot. If you're in the mood for some Tarantino with way less violence. I highly recommend this movie. I personally can't fathom why it has such a low rating here. Watch it. Allow it to take you on a wonderful, joyous, softly turning, melodious journey. Enjoy it. And then rate it highly as it truely deserves.
Toad K (ag) wrote: It was good telling a story of ones journey
Nathan G (mx) wrote: My favorite Robin Williams movie is Patch Adams because it seems that Williams was actually being transparent.
Nilufer R (ag) wrote: It was a cool fun movie. I didn't know Jodie Foster also directed it, good for her. It's a slightly above average family movie.
Jessica H (us) wrote: The sweet moments are great, but there seems like there is something huge missing.
Paul S (gb) wrote: It's difficult to know how to rate this movie since it is really a collection of short films, some great and some awful. I've decided on five stars merely because one of the vignettes in it really is five stars. Having seen many of Derek Jarman's films now, I would rank him as one of the world's most sensitive directors, if not one of the greats. If only he'd lived longer and achieved his potential. His short film in this collection, accompanied by Charpentier's Depuis Le Jour, is not only the best of the bunch, it is probably the best short film I've ever seen. It features an aged prima donna looking back on her life and realizing she had a pretty good time. It was very comforting to me who though not afraid of dying is afraid of aging. The others are a mixed bag. Ken Russell's is much like his other feature films in that it's worth watching but probably not worth while. Franc Roddam's, to Wagner's Liebestod, is nice because it seems somewhat inspired by the opera it's based on. Julien Temple's, too, is inspired by some of the themes in Rigoletto, albeit taking a much lighter tone. In fact Temple's is probably the most avant garde of the bunch as everyone else, upon hearing they should make a short film to aria interpreted it as make an art film, while Temple's is a screwball comedy. Easily the worst of the bunch is Godard's Armide, which I suggest skipping as it takes one idea and extends it interminably. Altman's too is quite a yawner.But I recommend to anyone for the films I've mentioned. And as I say, it should be required viewing for any Jarman fans.
Thanassis T (au) wrote: It could be seen as a documentary on life, family and family values in agrarian areas in the Mediterranean only a few decades back.
ray r (ca) wrote: Just watching this now and cannot understand how its gotten such high reviews. Its shite. It stupid and I dont even know if I am meant to take it seriously. Its ridiculous.. I was expecting a proper serious war movie but this is a farce and looks like it cost 2 euros to make (last 10mins aside).... oh and Homer is a ridiculous character as is Corby... actually they all are. Visually the fighting scenes at the end look good and the last 10mins are good but the build up is very poor and so is the acting / script... Only gets going towards the very very end.
Brandon S (it) wrote: Hitchcock valued highly the emotive capability of the human face. He never did a simple shot-reverse-shot when he filmed dialogue. Takes were always long, reactions were vital to his structure, and everything is intentional.We learn about the inner workings of a given moment by the expression of the actor or actress therein. Faces are the language of cinema, and clearly Hitch knew that.On the level of story, we don't have to do much chasing; we aren't on the edge of our seat much. In that sense, I was a little bit disappointed. However, on a technical level, this is truly brilliant. There's a purposeful drive behind every shot, every cut, every movement.With all that being said, this isn't one of Hitchcock's best, but it is memorable nonetheless.
Tim S (nl) wrote: Outside of Car Wash, this was my first foray into blacksploitation, much to my shame. So with that, I revel in just how fantastically awesome Coffy is. This movie won't be for everyone, but for outrageous cinema or grindhouse fans, it's a feast for the senses. Pam Grier stars as the sexy bad-ass mutha Coffy, out for revenge against the scum of society. The acting here is about what you'd expect from these sorts of movies: mostly campy and WAY out there, but fun and enjoyable. Don't expect any Oscar-worthy performances. Just enjoy the ride. On a sidenote, keep an eye out for Allan Arbus, who fans may recognize as the infamous Sidney Freeman from M*A*S*H. He popped up in the main cast and I was thinking "Sidney, my man!" :D The score is the typical 70's blacksploitational fare; lots of wah wah guitar and smooth black voices. I love it and can't get it enough of it, particularly the pimp's theme which repeats 'George' over and over again. Hilarious and groovy. I can't really find any faults with this flick because it's not meant to be anymore than what it is, and that's ok because I enjoy the hell out of it. Pam Grier kicking the underworld's ass, all the while being sexy AND bad, but most people won't get it. It's blacksploitation, action, sexiness (there are tits popped out in a LOT of scenes), cheesy dialogue, explosions, guns and car chases. You'd be hard-pressed not to have a good time with this one.
Andy P (us) wrote: Easily the best of all of Seagal's early 90s films at the height of his popularity. That might have more to do with Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Busey though.
Camille L (us) wrote: Aprs deux films plutt calmes et modestes, Steven Spielberg revient la grosse machine avec La Guerre des Mondes en 2005. Mal lui en a pris tant cette nouvelle adaptation du roman d'H.G. Wells est rate du dbut la fin. La premire partie souffre d'une photographie hideuse, d'une imagerie plus que douteuse mais se trouve tre un peu sauve par un sentiment d'alerte que Spielberg matrise assez. Quant la deuxime, elle est tout simplement soporifique et ne fait absolument aucun sens (hormis un cache-cache entre les Aliens et Tom Cruise assez russi). Tom Cruise se bat comme un beau diable, mais il n'est pas aid par Justin Chatwin, Tim Robbins et Dakota Fanning, qui sont absurdement nuls. Pour tout ce que russit La Guerre des Mondes (les effets sonores, le sentiment d'urgence...), il y a trois ou quatre lments qui gchent le reste. A oublier.