Outside the forgotten desert mining town of Darwin, getaway driver Chooch O'Grady is stranded with a busted car and a bag of stolen cash. He's picked up by J.T., a predatory psychopath who murders Chooch and abruptly disposes of the body, leaving signs on the trail. J.T. and his meth-addicted boss, Archie, butt heads over the incident, but the real tension lies with Archie's girlfriend, Rebecca O'Grady. Her affair with J.T. contains false hope that he would be her ticket to freedom. Chooch's murder is all but forgotten until a quiet Stranger shows up looking for the money. Before he can leave behind the isolation that is Darwin, the Stranger must navigate the bizarre ghost town and bring its outlaw inhabitants to justice.
Outside the forgotten desert mining town of Darwin, getaway driver Chooch O'Grady is stranded with a busted car and a bag of stolen cash. He's picked up by J.T., a predatory psychopath who ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Irvin K (gb) wrote: This movie bored me to death. Nothing happens in this flick. NOTHING!!!
Paul S (de) wrote: If you are at all serious about being an environmentalist and/or take global warming seriously, you absolutely must see this movie. It fully admits that there us global warming but unlike an Inconvenient Truth, it is actually serious in doing something about it. Spouting off about the evils of carbon emissions is great for appealing to emotions but it's not a solution. This movie focuses on the realities of the world and brings up different ways of addressing it.
Alexander P (gb) wrote: Seems like a decent horror for a while but the twist is so awful and to be honest a waste of time. The acting is poor and so is the plot, don't bother
m f (kr) wrote: "Amazing how grimly we hold on to our misery, the energy we burn fueling our anger. Amazing how one moment, we can be snarling like a beast, then a few moments later, forgetting what or why. Not hours of this, or days, or months, or years of this... But decades. Lifetimes completely used up, given over to the pettiest rancor and hatred. Finally, there is nothing here for death to take away."
Bryn C (ru) wrote: I've been waiting for this film for over two years and, yep, it was worth the wait. Best Christmas film ever?
Hamed G (kr) wrote: The Powerpuff Girls Are The Best
Eric H (us) wrote: Touching, beautiful and ultimately very moving. Italian cinema has an emotional content more sincere and accurate than any other nation.One of the rare foreign-language films to be nominated for a Best Picture Academy Award, it lost to the thunderingly to "Braveheart
Gradhito O (jp) wrote: a really admirable performances by nick nolte
Kyle M (es) wrote: pretty terrible, but just full of "WHAT THE FUCK?!" moments which redeems it a little.
Cathy C (us) wrote: Loved this movie as a teen... my brother and I used to laugh out loud... kind of dated now.
Jerry R (au) wrote: With all the good will in the world, I sat through Jonathan Livingston Seagull with an open mind and struggled with my better judgment not to be cynical. Yet, I failed and the cynicism found me anyway. I have an open mind toward almost anything, but in this case I have to confess that there will never be an open spot in my imagination for a story about an existential seagull. Thank God they are in limited supply. Jonathan Livingston Seagull is based on the improbably popular book by Richard Bach first published 1970. I have read the book twice in my life, first as a child, then later as an adult. The kid version of me simply rejected the concept of a seagull wanting to venture into the world and discover what the it has to offer him. The adult version of me simply rejected the concept of a seagull wanting to venture into the world and discover what the it has to offer him. I?m sorry, this is just not a story that I could wrap my mind around. The movie stars no actors on screen, just 99 minutes of nature photography, mostly of seagulls either flying or sitting. It opens with about 10 or 15 minutes of water, sky, rocks, and Neil Diamond. The seagulls are characterized with human voices, provided by the likes of James Franciscus, Juliet Mills and Dorothy McGuire. The voices sound muffled and are mostly heard in a monotone. We don't see the seagulls speaking the dialogue, we only hear it. That wouldn?t be so bad if their dialogue actually meant something. Most of it simply consists of inane nonsense like: ?The only true law is that which sets us free.? Yeah . . . okay. The story involves the title bird, a seagull that sees the world of his flock and wonders if life might contain something other than searching for food. His purpose, the movie insists, is to break his own flying speed record. He wants to travel where seagulls don?t go, and do things that seagulls don?t do. This doesn?t make him very popular among the seagull township who call him into a town meeting where (and I am not making this up) they pass judgment on him and cast him out for having the unmitigated gall to have the capacity for abstract thought. Even if I had the capacity to get foothold on this nonsense, I have a fundamental problem with the fact that I just can?t get cuddly with a seagull. Seagulls are nasty, noisy, ungainly scavengers who poop everywhere and eat garbage. Opening scenes show a flocks of gulls on a trash pile pecking at the refuse doesn?t exactly further my endearment. Apparently they aren?t very nice to each other as evidenced by the fact that we get close-ups of the birds pecking at each other over a few scraps of food. Plus, the noise. Seagulls make, for me, one of the most unpleasant noises in nature. Oddly enough, I found the dialogue in this movie to be even less tolerable. Even if I could accept the concept of hearing a seagull?s thoughts, I would imagine that what is in their heads might be more interesting than worrying about flying speed. Jonathan?s dialogue about his flying speed makes him sound like a test pilot, a boring one. The rest of the dialogue sounds like it came off of a funeral parlor calendar. Honestly, for those reasons and many more I am perplexed by this film even at the concept level. My mind wanders over the two or three dozen fundamental questions that this film raises and never answers. Yet, I don't ponder on them too long. I have better things to do.
Greg W (br) wrote: good stuff not really noir like the box says but enjoyable
George B (it) wrote: Not what I expected, but a pleasant surprise. Whilst the film isn't as stylish as many of Scott's other films, this is more than made up for with two excellent performances in Cage and Lohman, and an outstanding story.