You may also like
Golimar torrent reviews
Barbara T (nl) wrote: Suppose to be a feel good movie but aside from old Paris animation, it felt much too predictable. Disappointed. Elle and Carly made it worth 1/2 star. If not for them, I would give it a big fat zero
Peter I (br) wrote: While this documentary opens your eyes to a debate that may not surface too often and lays down some pretty horrifying facts, the argument that's taken at the end is quite appalling. I walked away feeling that the documentary wanted us to view the war on drugs as a negative impact to society. So much so, that people using drugs should be an OK thing and people dealing drugs should be punished lightly (if punished at all). Each individual in this film seems to forget that drugs ruin lives. Drugs ruin the lives of the user, their families, and everyone and everything around them. The whole story is based off of the director's "nanny" who lost her child to drugs. While she claims that she "never understood the war on drugs" as she mourns her son, she is forgetting the fact that he ultimately made the wrong decision to use and unfortunately paid the ultimate price (death). To look back on his life and blame "the system" is ignorant and irresponsible. The war on drugs is also not forcing a specific race, color, gender, etc to sell or abuse drugs (which is another argument in this film). Its up to the individual to make the right decisions in life. Users and dealers know the criminal penalties related to drugs and don't have a right to complain when they go to jail for a long period of time. While the jail time is definitely harsh and outdated, it is there to protect society from people that could potentially harm it. In the end, I came away more upset and angry towards users and dealers because their lack of judgement, moral character, and responsibility is ultimately what hurts society. Not the war on drugs
Craig T (ca) wrote: As atonal and unfocused as it (very) often is, there's an enduring sweetness and revolutionary bite never far from the surface. Lajoie is unskilled but effective and Borden's supporting turn is quite strong. This should have been a better, more daring film. What's surprising is that almost nearly was.
Jenn T (us) wrote: Acting was horrible.
Ari S (nl) wrote: Years after watching this film like wine does, it resonates more as I get older. The screen play, dialogue and performances are nothing short of a home run. It's not ground breaking or deeply life changing however it's intelligent and eloquently woven together. It's undertone and meaning from conversations about wine is honest and reflects the characters deeper truths about themselves but more importantly can resonate similar themes with the audience.
Isabel V (it) wrote: Tigth moves the have on here I like it
Rosemary G (kr) wrote: I was surprised at how much I enjoyed this movie. I had read mixed reviews and expected a lot less from it. A nice companion film to Carrington.
bill s (us) wrote: As a no brain pop corn flick just enjoy the ride.
Tom H (kr) wrote: ok film but dissapointing.
Andrew C (ru) wrote: I am inclined to clarify my rating on this film. This movie is pretty bad. Bad acting, ridiculous story, utterly irrational characters, a somewhat judgmental narrator and, for an "Erotic Horror," nothing the least bit erotic or horrifying. But, without excuse, I was mesmerized and thoroughly entertained by every illogical event that took place.
Michael W (gb) wrote: Camp reconvenes five years later with a new group of counsellors adjacent to Camp Crystal Lake. Very similar to the original, except Jason is introduced as the killer and blazes the path the series would follow.
Andrew B (gb) wrote: The story's very bland, but the style is so..."rad"
William C (it) wrote: Rating-3.5/10Hard Target is an action movie, or more of a cat and mouse game really containing much violence and Wilford Brimley. Now this is the kind of movie you find late at night on TV, and many will go and watch it, it seems on the outside a good action thriller directed by a known director and starring an action legend. The only problem for me was, it isn't very good and that action legend isn't either.Jean-Claude Van Damme is that action legend and for me he is poor here, his character works in the story well though and if watched in the right way, his performance can be ignored. The plot as said is like a cat chasing a mouse, expect the mouse is a human in New Orleans and the cat or cats should I say are the very rich paying to chase them down. A unique take on an action movie but so unrefreshing that I can't give it credit for having uniqueness here.The director I mentioned is John Woo who's first ever American movie is actually well done, but only from him. With a poor script and acting and a plot that does hardly any favours, this is one movie where I feel kind of bad for Woo. He as I say does it nicely, he seems to know what he wants from the actors but they don't pay him back, the villains of the show are the real star actors with Lance Henriksen and Arnold Vosloo being the best, not great for the bad guys to outshine the good.I'll give the film credit where it's due, and it deserves it in terms of the stunts and choreography it has, Van Damme does excel with his high leg kicks and powerful head smashes, but don't worry, the violence isn't too crazy for those who dislike it. The one thing that really again hurts this movie is the editing, the strange camera shots then coupled with edited shots of people, it makes the action scenes seem like some crazy movie that makes no sense, or maybe that's what it is possibly.Whatever your view on action films there is no denying this is not how to do them, Woo gives it a go as I said and does it well, but problems hamper this throughout. It's the kind of movie that I have come to expect though I mean there aren't many action thrillers similar to this that actually turn out good, even the best of them are usually only average. This I feel just needed a bit more heavy action, more fighting but with less insane death defying stunts that make this even more hard to believe. I think it is crucial John Woo is not remembered in years to come for films like this, and to be fair same with Van Damme, both can do much better.Overall I felt it is a bad movie as you might guess, but it isn't awful and not by quite a bit. It's a piece of film where you can watch it and not be too bothered by it, you won't finish with it and decide to smash things in anger about it, but you may just feel this should be more clinical. A big shout out to the man in my first paragraph Wilford Brimley, makes an appearance albeit for not too long but he is funny and his accent and jokes make the the movie kind of more fun than dark in his certain moments.