A widowed reporter recruits the help of a federal agent to investigate her late husband's secrets, but the two become the target of unknown attackers. When FBI Agent John Nelson’s key informant, Miles, is abducted and shot, all that’s left is a severed finger. In order to find a new lead, Nelson travels to New York City to inform widowed magazine reporter Rebecca Scott that her long dead husband, Miles, had only recently been murdered to see if she had heard from him in recent years. Perplexed, Scott joins Agent Nelson in the wealthy enclave of Australia’s Gold Coast to find out what really happened. The two soon discover Miles may have been part of an elaborate “Ponzi scheme” to bilk investors, and a vengeful billionaire, out of millions of dollars. As more layers of Miles’ secret life are exposed, can the two stay ahead of the mysterious attackers who will stop at nothing to halt their investigation?
Writer:Jeffrey Schenck (story), Peter Sullivan (story), Kraig Wenman
Rebecca Scott, As more layers of Miles'; secret life are exposed, can the two stay ahead of the mysterious attackers who will stop at nothing to halt their investigation? . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Amirah B (fr) wrote: Nice romantic comedy... Liked it...
Dane S (us) wrote: The film takes a little while to find it's groove, but once it does it finds a right balance between comedy and drama, led by an able cast and steady direction. Recommended.
Jonathan D (ca) wrote: Striking a truly impressive balance between engaging the mind, the heart, and the heart rate, Inception is the first movie since The Dark Knight that I wanted to see again the very next day (no coincidence since they were made by the same person). It has been said that Hollywood relies too much on special effects to cover lazy storytelling; not so with Inception, where truly stunning visuals only supplement what you'll really be talking about: the story, what it means, how it moved you, and how shockingly original it is. I've never seen anything like it, either in concept or in narrative structure. Neither have I attended, in a long time, a film that gave my brain such a workout.This is a movie that expects you to pay attention and make connections. Leonardo DiCaprio gives a heartbreaking performance, leading a cast of top-notch actors playing interesting characters in a film that appears to be a science-fiction action/heist caper (a rather unique concept in itself), but is actually about guilt, the desire for redemption, and the raw power of simple ideas. Director Christopher Nolan, as he did with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, takes something fantastic and paints it in realistic tones. This is what unbridled imagination, combined with intelligence, emotion, and talent looks like on film. It is mentally and emotionally challenging. It also has some terrific action (including a physics-bending fight sequence that is jaw-dropping) and is very creative in its use of cinematography, editing, and music. Though comparatively light on language, with no sexual material and action violence where physical harm is not what's at stake (you'll understand when you see it), Inception is nonetheless not recommended for anyone younger than teens due to its complexity and intense subject matter.
Johnny T (it) wrote: Adapted from a short story by fright master Clive Barker, writer and director Anthony DiBlasi's horror movie offers a potent mixture of heart-pounding thrills and extreme violence. After an hour or so the experiment predictably goes terribly wrong and Dread shifts from soft-core porn into the realm of torture porn. The characters are dynamic and project a level of horror that is psychologically based even though we get a fair amount of brutality and violence. I think this was a interesting ride, that probably wont appeal entirely to mainstream audience. The script is wordy and pretentious which doesn't fit the mold of the American viewers exactly. A bit too concerned with gore to really grapple with the concept of dread, but too full of dialogue to be genuinely thrilling. While the movie is unfolding, however, both its poor acting and its eventual lack of a satisfactory payoff scarcely seem to matter.. VERDICT: "Not So Hot" - [Negative Reaction] These films are truly terrible films. They are not the worst things ever made, but they are definitely awful and should not be seen by anyone. (Films that are rated 1.5 or 2 stars)
Jack L (es) wrote: Cute. Kind of a Lebanese Love, Actually.
Jason R (ca) wrote: See it. Chances are, you'll fall in love with Idlewild in spite of how many times you've seen this plot before. But that might be the Georgia boy in me talking...
Kenneth L (jp) wrote: Gimmicky and contrived with dubious political didacticism to boot.
Kevin N (jp) wrote: Meh, it tried realllllllll hard, and didn't really come through.
John T (au) wrote: Seeing the hotties dance was nice, but that's pretty much all this movie had.
Andrew U (jp) wrote: As far as disturbing imagery goes, it doesn't get much more gruesome than this.
Robert H (nl) wrote: POLYESTER, while representing an improvement in filmmaking technique from previous John Waters' movies, is still noticeably lacking in the narrative department. I suppose that maybe his style isn't the best fit for me, but the biggest problem with this movie is that the story is rather disjointed and lopsided. A lot of time is spent building on Divine's character's frustration and torment, but the payoff of is rather short-lived and weak. Part of the reason it's like this may have something to do with the type of movie that POLYESTER is making fun of, and the satire is pretty dead-on at times, but it succumbs to a lot of the goofiness and clichs as well. As far as acting is concerned, Divine was never really the greatest actor, but she managed to put together a decent performance here, at least more so than she did in previous John Waters films. Here, she played an entirely sympathetic character. Also starring was Tab Hunter, who was a heartthrob from the 50's and was in a bunch of movies I've never seen. Obviously, it would have helped if I'd seen or heard of him before seeing this, but I can only imagine he was poking fun at his previous image and he did look like he was having a good time onscreen. Overall, POLYESTER isn't John Waters' best movie nor his worst. It's an average story with improved production values. It's also more tame than previous Waters movies, so newbies to his style wouldn't be as put-off by this as something like PINK FLAMINGOS or FEMALE TROUBLE.
Grant S (mx) wrote: Uneven, with some mildly interesting stories and some pointless ones.Based on Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, Pier Paulo Pasolini's adaptation doesn't do the book much justice. Many of the stories are plain dull and pointless. Some are interesting, but then end anti-climatically. (This is worse, in a way, as you get your hopes up of a decent story, and then it doesn't really go anywhere). Quite similar to Pasolini's previous work, The Decameron, in many respects. Also doesn't have anything that ties the stories together (although The Decameron did at least have a summarising statement at the end, which was reasonably profound).Performances here are better than the The Decameron, though there are some absolute shockers again. The lead character in the Chaplinesque scene involving the egg salesman takes the cake in terms of hammy acting.
Paul M (us) wrote: To be honest whilst it is a relatively well made slice of giallo it does get a bit tedious. It follows a formula of introducing a character, following them and killing them off whilst the detective runs around one step behind due to not following up on some pretty obvious leads, I know it would be a short film if he did but they are fairly obvious ones. The murder set pieces are very tame by modern standards and unfortunately there is no option to watch itin its original language as dubbed films always sound flat.
Jeff B (ca) wrote: I wanted to really like this film, but it just didn't click with me. Yes, the acting is excellent all around, particularly Peter Finch, but I wasn't drawn into the story. I was hoping that Finch and Glenda Jackson had a longer scene together, rather than that brief moment at the end. There were some good moments throughout, but it felt a bit too out of order for me, some scenes came out of nowhere.
Darren H (kr) wrote: The beautiful Criterion restoration is both a revelation and a rejuvenation.
Wayne W (ag) wrote: The cast should read Edward G. Robinson, Jack Carson, Jane Wyman, Anthony Quinn, Harry Davenport & a small & early part by young Jackie Gleason. This is a very funny movie & Woody Allen even stole the idea for his "Small Time Crooks". Watch Edward G. wait on a customer & laugh your butt off!