Almost You

Almost You

Alex and Erica Boyer's marriage is in a crisis: job and wife bore Alex. When Erica has an accident that has her staying in a wheel chair for some time, it changes their life: Alex meets Erica's young therapy assistant Lisa and gets the idea that she'd be the end of his boredom and he could start over with her. However Lisa's boyfriend feels what's going on and isn't idle.

Alex and Erica Boyer's marriage is in a crisis: job and wife bore Alex. When Erica has an accident that has her staying in a wheel chair for some time, it changes their life: Alex meets ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Almost You torrent reviews

Mike I (de) wrote: Do not let the two and a half stars fool you - this is not even remotely a good movie. This actually may be, in fact, the worst movie I have ever seen. I mean EVER ever. I've said that before - check other reviews, I'm sure there's been a handful of "worst movies" - but this one truly is.So why 2.5 stars? Because the sheer amount of SUCK that this movie has oozing out of it makes it diametrically more appealing. The acting is atrocious. Lines are delivered with no inflection and, in some cases, apparently forgotten.It appears to have been shot using a video camera. I'm guessing one of those old-school, big, heavy-ass suckers that you can't even find at a pawn shop anymore.The sound is bad, not even syncing up at times. Sound effects are even worse.The pacing of the movie staggers around more than a wino after downing a bottle of Mad Dog 20/20. At times it's daylight despite it being night seconds earlier.The characters are borderline retarded. When the zombies attack, they usually just stand there, allowing themselves to be bitten.The plot, at it's simplest level and on paper, is worthwhile. The plot, as executed, makes no sense.But all of this combined makes this worth watching. It's all so bad, it becomes funny. And in a train wreck kind of way, you want to keep watching. Maybe it's to see if it ever gets better, maybe it's just to see how bad it can get or maybe it's just because you feel sorry for everyone involved.In any event, this movie will find a special place in your heart. If not, just blame the main character. Apparently he likes blaming himself for everything, so I'm sure he can shoulder the weight of that as well.

Carlos M (ca) wrote: The meandering quality of the film's plot (which may put most viewers off) is in fact what I like the most about it, while the solid performances, nice cinematography and Gia Coppola's firm direction help make this a solid debut for her as a filmmaker.

Keith E (kr) wrote: one of my favorite movies.

Chris B (kr) wrote: OMG!!! I Saw That In Theater And It's So Amazing.Poor Child!!! Not A Child So Live With That =(

Alex r (au) wrote: Annapolis is an awful, clichd mess of a film that fails to entertain. This is the type of film that relies on a poorly thought script, one that simply doesn't work. The characters are generic, and the story is something that we've seen many times before. James Franco has done far better work than this, but Annapolis is one of his worst films. This is a bland affair, one that is just boring, with nothing that's ever interesting that occurs on-screen. The dialogue and performances are laughable, and this is simply put, a film that isn't worth your time. I hated the film, and felt it was a pointless film. This is a prime example of what happens when a film has too many clichs going for it, the end result suffers greatly, and it ends up falling flat. If you're looking for an entertaining film with this one, you'll sadly be disappointed. Annapolis is a forgettable film that scraps the bottom of the barrel. This is one of those films that should have been reworked on before getting green lit. Watch something else; you'll be glad you did. This film just copies every feel good film, and waters down the formula and plays out every clich in the book. Annapolis is a collection of bad actors and a poor story that ends up being a pointless effort. I don't think that the filmmakers cared to really make a good film with this one. Overall this is a soulless movie, and one we've seen many times before. The only difference is, is that there are better films out tackling the same subject.

Adriano B (ru) wrote: A bit perplexing high-fantasy wuxia which to western tastes falls irredeemably in the magic realm of kitsch. Ingenous, outlandish, but silly: in one word, Zu-Landerish.

Daniel J (nl) wrote: Not my favorite but not a bad fim, vengeance and betrayal .

William C (au) wrote: Smokey and the Bandit is an action comedy/adventure movie that takes all the seriousness of a true chase movie and throws it away, only to introduce a fun old time and even the most dangerous times are taken in leisurely by the main characters. With American muscle cars screeching at every corner, and really quite annoying police sirens everywhere, this is one movie that although flawed in places, is still very much OKBurt Reynolds is the main man around the highways playing the Bandit Bo Darville, who's reckless driving and blatant disregard for the law are seen as a good thing(but we have to support the good guys right?). Jackie Gleason as the old Sheriff Buford T.Justice is good, pretty funny and he just makes you dislike him even though you kind of want to see more of him, the partnership between him and his deputy(who also happens to be his son) is a little stupid at times, but nevertheless still kind of funny. Sally Field is OK as Carrie a bride who well doesn't want to get married and meets the Bandit, the chemistry between all involved is pretty tight, and the director does a good job on that.And on that note the director, Hal Needham, whose direction takes the film in a nice direction, fast paced and well timed but also with a few scatterings of jokes. The few times the movie is funny are probably outweighed by the poor jokes involved, I don't think it is the delivery that is off, the script just doesn't always make the joke come off right, and so your left either cringing or very mildly laughing, VERY mildly. It's basically the kind of movie to be enjoyed if you want fast pace as I say, look into too much and you'll just start to dislike it, I for one didn't take it seriously and found it alright.I mean this movie grossed into the hundreds of millions, whether it deserves that is another question but does prove to me how big this movie was and possibly still is. That said this movie is not great, I mean as I have been saying it is satisfactory but far from very good, a movie that gives off the kind of vibe that it was going for just OK from start to finish. I think Burt Reynolds is a good addition to the movie; his presence is welcome and makes the movie a little more fun too, even with his very calm demeanour. Overall the movie is as said throughout OK, never reaching the any true heights but still finishing up nicely. I would recommend this to those from the 70's, well OK not just people from the 70's, also those who enjoy good old fashioned fun and likeable characters, all mixed in a barely just about funny movie. This spawned two sequels and a TV series, some could say that shows success but for me it shows a film grossing well first time around and then milking the hell out of it!

John W (ca) wrote: Part horror, part psychological thriller and completely disturbing. I liked it...I think. Unlike so many films, Blood River doesn't walk you through the plot or beat you with it's meaning. Well acted, stunningly filmed and superbly directed. It does move at a slower pace and requires a good bit of thought and participation on the part of the audience to make it a worthwhile watch, but it is. This is the type of story your mind keeps coming back to again and again to puzzle over details.

Stuart M (gb) wrote: I'm not sure why this film was so popular. There doesn't seem to be anything special about it and the much vaunted "chemistry" between the two leads seems more like loathing until it suddenly and inexplicably turns to respect. And the level of casual racism and abuse with no sort of self-awareness is a little disturbing from this distance in time.

Thomas B (jp) wrote: Not that bad, then again. Not that good... Lol

Wiebke K (ru) wrote: This movie is trying to be too clever -- jumping between three story lines that are all one and the same, the story is plain silly.

Alan G (gb) wrote: Rather than diving straight into chaos, or insulting the viewer with a cheesy setup, "He Never Died" gives us an idea of the main character, Jack's daily routine. While this seems like nothing at first, just simple exposition, it works out later, as when the trouble starts, you feel like you know Jack. All of a sudden, you're rooting for him, with every blow he lands, you feel like you threw the punch. You can feel what Jack feels, and it adds unexpected depth to the character.While Rollins' performance was excellent, it would be a lie to say that no one else could play the role just as well as him, or even better, although it doesn't negate Rollins' work.