A young man embarks on a search for his masculinity by becoming a bouncer. He meets Craig who has been doing it for years and it is all that he knows. The two embark on a story of ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
A young man embarks on a search for his masculinity by becoming a bouncer. He meets Craig who has been doing it for years and it is all that he knows. The two embark on a story of ...
You may also like
Doorways torrent reviews
Bryan E (it) wrote: With a movie called Sand Sharks, I expected a horrible movie. But I wanted a horrible movie of epicness. I wanted a ridiculous film with more action and gore. But what we get is a disappointing film that is not as exciting as it should be. Also it does a poor job at spoofing Jaws.
Katja A (mx) wrote: Kerrankin hieman erilainen poliisitrilleri, jossa action on korvattu psykologialla. Tarina silytt mielenkiinnon ja ylltyksellisyyden loppuun asti. Derek Yeen vakkarinaamat Louis Koo ja Daniel Wu tekevt aika normiroolit, mutta eivt mitenkn svyt. Mietin, ett roolijako olisi ehk toiminut paremmin toisinpin. Tarinaan ngetyn kolmiodraama oli ehk toisaalta turha, mutta lopputulos positiivisen puolella.
Jason C (fr) wrote: I can't even tell you if this is any good or not and the reason is because I gave up on it after ten minutes and the other movie I can recall doing sucha thing with is The Reaping, and I intend to watch that again down the line. This however, shall never see the inside of my DVD player again. Whoever the director is, and I can't even be bothered to look to the lefta my screen to find out has obviously seen one too many MTV videos as I hadda headache after 5mins. Fast past cutting, all frenzy like with music blarring. Urgh! I'm gonna give a tip to all aspiriong directors and the directors who actually make these pieces of shit movies based on real life killings. HOW CAN YOU FUCK IT UP?!!! The story is already there, the characters are developed, how can you fuck it up? Just tell the fucking story, that's why I bought the DVD, to see the story on film. I don't need to be inside the killers head, just because he's mind might be going atta hundred million miles an hour doesn't mean that you have to try and show it. Keep it simple. Zodiac got it right, Henry got it right, Manson's movie didn't, Bundy's didn't, and this one didn't!
Ashley M (gb) wrote: I loved the film. I saw it in its 35mm original format which made it even more beautiful than what it may have otherwise been. The story line was incredible, the acting was great, and the amount of knowledge that was put into the film was impressive.
Andrew Sutton (jp) wrote: Funny, but little substance.
Evan M (au) wrote: Whenever we as humans see someone with something we don't have, we imagine that they must have the best life. That because they have what we don't, there life is automatically better that ours. But that is not always true. Just because a man drives a better car than you, doesn't mean that he is going home to a better life. Good Will Hunting speaks to this concept in a unique way. By showing us a glimpse of a boy who could have anything, and yet is content with a life that is less than spectacular to say the least. And it is about another man's journey to show him that he is worth more. Will Hunting (Matt Damon) is a peculiar boy. He has the ability to think harder and more critically that anyone around him. But he would rather work as a janitor at Harvard, than attend. But one day while he is working, he sees a math theorem on a chalkboard and he solves it. As he is leaving, a Professor Lambau (Stellan Skarsgrd) spots him and upon realizing what will has done, he proceeds to track will down, finding him in jail, due to Will's unruly attitude. The Professor convinces the Judge to put Will under his care on the condition that Will attend some math classes with him and that he see a therapist, Sean Maguire (Robin Williams) This movie does a very good job at developing the relationship between its characters. They are all centered around Will, giving the movie a well-grounded feel. The movie knows what it is trying to prove and does it very well. Stellan Skarsgrd's character has problem the worst relationship with Will, but that is only because he is the only one who could be seen as the antagonist. He wants Will to become the best he can be using his remarkable ability to think and learn. But in doing this, Skarsgrd's character neglects Will's mental health and only thinks about what is good for his future. Robin Williams' character is different and it is his relationship with Will that carries this movie. In Williams' portrayal of physiatrist Sean Maguire, we see a man who character sees past Will incredible ability to think and can tell that he has had a hard life and that he is damaged into thinking he is less than what he is. He helps Will, first by showing him that just because he knows all the facts about everything, doesn't mean he know everything about everything. He is then able to help Will to realize that what happen to him in his childhood doesn't need to dictate his life. If there is something wrong with the movie, I would say it is the conflict. The idea is that Will needs to see a therapist because Professor Lambeau bailed him out of jail. But this is quickly forgotten as soon as we meet Sean. It just gives us the idea that things would go right back to the way they were if they were allowed to with no consequences. This movie does a great job of showing us that we are more than just the thoughts in our brains. We matter, to ourselves and others, and that is worth more that money and fame. But it is important to be reminded of that from time to time. We like to feel loved and this movie helps us to realize that.
Chris D (us) wrote: Overrated, I'm afraid. The pacing of this film is horrendous: I followed it patiently through the first act (about an hour and a half), but I began fast forwarding as the second act started. The film simply takes too long to get to the point, and there's a lot of dreary and dull scenes between the good ones. A few shots I found to be very beautiful: the child with the kitten, who's about to fall asleep, between his lap, the bird that lands on Gish's shoulder, as well as the final scenes in the snow and ice floes. I might have liked the film more if I had seen it prior to Broken Blossoms (another, better work by D.W. Griffith), but that film had more going for it. Gish is a much less sympathetic character here, as a naive country woman who foolishly elopes with a man she barely knows. The baby scenes I found very distasteful: melodrama for melodrama's sake. I understood that Griffith was trying to illustrate the pain Gish was going through in the most visceral way possible, but those scenes felt incredibly unsubtle and even corny. A dead child should not be scripted this way, although Gish does her best with the scenes. It all clicks too easily: the baby dies right before the doctor arrives again, her phony husband lives next door the Bartlett's. The movie has a cold feeling, visualized nicely by the climatic ice-river scenes (probably the best part of the film). I simply don't understand the culture of the times: she is thrown out of home she was staying when her baby died, because they learned she had no husband. Maybe the time frame wasn't made clear, but I had the impression her baby had JUST died, so I was horrified by the callousness of these women giving her the boot. I lost my suspension of disbelief at this situation that was contrived just to get Gish wandering to where she'd find the farmhouse. I started fast forwarding when I realized that this movie was simply "Broken Blossoms" with a change in scenery: a physical abusive father replaced by a emotionally abusive, fake husband. The Chinese lover replaced by the Country lover, both much more tender than the last man in Gish's life (not to mention played by the same man!). I think the baby was added just to make sure we were aware how bad her life really was, the physical abuse was enough in Broken Blossoms. I can't avoid the comparison, and despite the handful of well-done scenes and the great climax, I can't recommend the film as a whole.
Michelle J (mx) wrote: I have read these series of books more times than I can count. I really wish they would remake this movie and do it right. This could be a really good movie and many would want to see it. V.C. Andrews had a serious following.
Lucifer S (ca) wrote: This was an amazing movie...Jk it was horrible. This was not a mystery, you knew which girl was going to be the last one from the beginning. This was definitely more a comedy than anything else. Some of the scenes were absolutely pointless for the story line ex. The man in the window, I just laughed. They started by making you think it's set in the old days and then all the sudden a car rolls in and there is a party right next to them. They did a horrible job of making it scary, and most scenes were very predictable. The entire plot was pretty much people being murdered. The idea behind it was good but it was really badly executed, the cast was good but the script was bad. The main priest guy was overly disgusting and dramatic. So if you are debating watching this movie, just don't.
Ryan S (jp) wrote: 4.5/5. Equally hilarious and brilliant. Both Robert Downey Jr. and Tom Cruise are incredibly funny in this insane film.
Jason B (nl) wrote: The Third Man is not my favorite British film. It is a very, very fine British film. I am planning on writing a much longer review on this film for the Criterion Bloggathon so I won't say more now.