You may also like
Easy to Love torrent reviews
Jason T (jp) wrote: A decent little thriller with some good performances just wish everything was not so predictable.
Christopher E (nl) wrote: Just read the book a couple of months ago, looking forward to seeing the movie.
Frederick v (au) wrote: Robin Willians um editor de vdeos das lembranas gravadas num implante cerebral que s acessado depois que a pessoa morre. A tecnologia alvo de protestos, pois as pessoas no podem desligar ou tirar o implante feito antes mesmo de nascer. Algumas pessoas fazem tatuagens para bloquear o implante. A mesa de edio muito bacana, toda em madeira. O filme no l grandes coisas de roteiro, mas tem algumas ideias interessantes. Muito adequado para assistir em lembrana ao ator principal, que faleceu hoje.
Peter M (de) wrote: Very atmospheric little sci fi/ horror.
Harry W (us) wrote: I'm a sucker when it comes to 1980's fantasy films, and one featuring Warwick Davis in the lead role and directed by Ron Howard sounded like a lot of fun.The Golden Raspberry Award nominated script for Willow is not as bad as you might expect. Although the film wants to be both a serious adventure film and a silly one, the balance between themes is not found. And a lot of the jokes in the script are hit and miss while much of the dialogue is rather corny and a bit generic. But for what it's worth, it does the job for Willow. If I was a kid I would have found the film a lot funnier, and I would have enjoyed its adventure even more. Yet still at age 18 I can appreciate many of its virtues, although I can also pick up on many of its problems. Among them are mostly the fact that the characters are all one-dimensional and that while the first 40 minutes of the film start off the adventure and explore the universe of the film, after that it makes a downturn and becomes pretty repetitive. The general motif of the story is the titular character Willow Ufgood meeting new characters on his journey, but while this is decent the first few times, forom then on it just ends up happening a few too many times which becomes frustrating. The focus of the story should be on Willow UfgoodThe story in Willow is pretty basic for a fantasy. Ron Howard takes a very style over substance approach to the film and makes it all visually astounding while neglecting to implement in a good story or enough action sequences. The slow pace of the film didn't really bother me at all because I was enjoying the visual assets of the film and its genuine sense of fun, but for a film of its length and of the Fantasy adventure genre, there is really not enough sufficiently clever storytelling to justify it or enough action scenes to distract the viewer from that problem. While the effect of the film's visual brilliance is terrific, it would be even better if there was more action and if what action there was proved to be more versatile. The action scenes in Willow seem pretty conventional and lacking in creativity, and there isn't really all that much of them either so it is a problematic film in a few ways. But really, when you get right down to it the central issue is that it's a story that is all too familiar and since the action is not sufficient enough in quantity, it is easier to pick up on that. There is a certain level of fun to be had in the sword fighting scenes, but it is clear that they were not expertly crafted which is a shame considering the kind of involvement that George Lucas had with the making of Willow. Yet still, I walked out of Willow having enjoyed the film enough to call it good.Visually, Willow is just spectacular. It is very reminiscent of the 2012 Fantasy Adventure film The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, and yet it beat the film to the punch by 24 years. The thing is that it captures all of the magical scenery of a medieval fantasy by showing off beautiful country land with a magnificent production design, as well as a versatile series of costumes for all of the characters and terrific makeup for them all. The large budget of the film clearly went into its visual assets which are spectacular and would have been amazing back in the time of its original release, as well as the fact that to this day they are still beautiful. But the visual effects is the most truly amazing aspect. While there are a few brief moments of weakness, the kind of colour that it presents to the film and its depiction of mythical creatures and such is just spectacular and is definitely Academy Award worthy material. If nothing else, Willow is worth seeing for the quality of its visual effects. The visual effects reveal the true extent of Ron Howard's eye for visual material when he directed Willow, and while there is no denying that he took a style-over-substance approach to the film, it paid off because the style of the film is just excellent.As well as having great visual qualities, Willow is edited very well and has sound effects placed into everything at the best times. And above all, the musical score of the film is excellent. It sounds a lot like something composed by mastermind John Williams, and so James Horner proves what he is truly about with his contribution to Willow. The musical score is great because it has a truly fantasy feel to it and a large scale which gives things an innovative and adventurous atmosphere. So Willow is brimming with fantasy life in both the eyes and the ears of viewers which ends up rendering it a treat in multiple areas, and so the technical aspects of Willow are its best qualities and surely the most unforgettable aspects of the film.The general consensus for the acting in Willow is the fact that the actors all make an effort to be both serious adventure heroes and cheesy figures, and the success is rather hit and miss as a whole. But they embody their roles convincingly even if the roles may not precisely be the best.Warwick Davis' leading performance is not perfect because the character is not all that deep, and he is a rather cheesy leading hero as the titular Willow Ufgood as he has to lead the story as a Nelwyn Dwarf who is yet to grasp his power. But for what it's worth, Warwick Davis is the perfect casting decision for the role. He delivers his lines with a lot of determination, and while he does not always manage to get them 100% perfectly and does have to face quite a few rather cheesy lines along the way, he is a great casting decision in the role of Willow Ufgood. He has plenty of energetic charisma which makes the role seem legitimate, and in that part he stands with strong emotional articulation for the role. The role of Willow Ufgood is a cheesy character, and he performs in the role with a lot of dedicated power. It is a lot to place on his shoulders at age 18, but he manages to stand his ground in the part well in a heroic Hobbit type figure. Val Kilmer performs in the role well, but be flips back and forth between being serious and being silly. He delivers all of his lines with dedication to the character and he reinforces the cheesy atmosphere of the film, but the role seems a little too zany for him. For the role he ends up doing a decent job but I found it difficult to see him in the part. It was weird, because all in all he was ok but he was just rather miscast. So Val Kilmer's performance evokes a mixed response because although it is difficult to believe him in the role, he contributes his to his part well enough to pass.Joanne Whalley's performance is largely a charisma free zone. She tries to be both a legitimate antagonist and one who transitions over into being a hero, but the transition is weak and her attempts to interact with Val Kilmer are poor. The chemistry between the two presents only him as the one who is trying while she attempts to learn from him, but it is clear she did not learn fast enough and cannot play a romantic opposite to him which is strange considering that she later married him. Joanne Whalley does herself no favours with her performance in Willow, and although Billy Barty was the one nominated for a Golden Raspberry award, it was she who deserved the nomination if anyone in the cast really did.Kevin Pollack and Rick Overton attempt to evoke comic relief in Willow but their efforts are thin and very repetitive which creates absolutely minimal laughs and fails to make the entertainment value of the film any better, rather than making the viewers feel annoyed.Jean Marsh's character is another example of a thin one, but she creates the antagonistic nature which evokes memories of a mix of both Angelina Jolie in Maleficent and Louise Fletcher in Flowers in the Attic. The character isn't that much and what she does is hardly great, but it is good enough and she does have some entertaining scenes where she interacts with Warwick Davis.And I don't know how Billy Barty got himself nominated for a Golden Raspberry award, but his supporting role was good because he fit the profile for the character perfectly and performed in the part well. Billy Barty performed in his role just as well as you could expect and therefore was a good addition to the cast.So although the story in Willow is unoriginal and uninspired while the action scenes are insufficient in quantity and not as exciting as you might hope, the film itself is acted well enough and looks spectacular which renders it an unforgettable treat on the eyes.
Eric R (jp) wrote: In good Indiana Jones rip-off fashion this sequel to King's Solomon's Mines decides to add our characters name to the title. However just like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was a couple of steps below Raiders of the lost ark, this sequel also isn't as good as it's silly predecessor (which is hard to believe considering the original was bad enough in its own right). Both Richard Chamberlain and Sharon Stone return to their "respectable" roles and now they are happily married. All is fine until Quatermain learns that his adventurer brother has disappeared in Africa while looking for the Lost City of Gold. So he and his wife along with a guide (James Earl Jones, counting his money on the way to the bank) decide to trek across the continent to find him.The main problem with this sequel is that it really lacks the over-the-top nature of the first film. The original had it's tongue placed firmly in its cheek making the outrageously stupid sequences stomachable. There are still plenty of idiotic sequences to be had her just taken a little more seriously. The absolute most silly sequences include an extremely fake canoe ride into a cave with flaming water and another scene when our heroes have to battle giant worms with what look like dragon heads... no I am not making that up. The film also lacks the brisk pace to the plot making Quatermain meander a bit through his adventure, and the film especially slows down when they arrive at the city of gold.It helps this sequel that both Chamberlain and Stone return. Without theme this film would have been dead on arrival. Recycling Jerry Goldsmith's rousing adventure score also helps. Fans of B-movie serial adventures might have some fun (I had a little) but Cannon films financial struggle was showing throw and this sequel doesn't have near the production value of the original. Overall it's a bad sequel to a bad film, but it still is able to entertain some for the right audience.Bonus Rant: I read an interview with James Earl Jones that he only took this role because it meant a free trip to Africa. Not surprisingly it shows in his dismal performance and him swinging his overblown staff got me to crack up on occasion.
Michael G (au) wrote: It's so bad it's great! b-grade at it's best.
Shane P (mx) wrote: This is an amazing example of the marriage of sound and silent films. So much of this era of film is so dialogue-heavy. And this movie is written brilliantly, giving Laurel and Hardy great dialogue and only when necessary so that these two masters of physical comedy can show how talented they are. So funny.
Lorri B (ag) wrote: watched a million times loved
ToniMarie N (ag) wrote: good solid movie with very believable performances especially from Famke Janssen.