Great Day in the Morning

Great Day in the Morning

After a card game Southerner Owen Pentecost finds himself the owner of a Denver hotel. Involved with two women - one who came with the hotel, and one newly arrived from the East to open a dress shop - he then has to make even more fundamental choices when, with the start of the Civil War, he becomes one of a small minority in a strongly Unionist town.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:92 minutes
  • Release:1956
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:based on novel,  

After a card game Southerner Owen Pentecost finds himself the owner of a Denver hotel. Involved with two women - one who came with the hotel, and one newly arrived from the East to open a ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Great Day in the Morning torrent reviews

Eric B (kr) wrote: Ed Wood lives and he is Persian!This is truly to worst film that I have ever seen in a theater. It makes you wonder whether commercial theaters should have some minimum standard before allowing a film to be shown and having people pay money (full price, believe it or not) to see a picture like this; sitting in the comfortable seats which are normally reserved for legitimate productions. This one looked like a student from film school put together as project for a grade. I would give this an "F". I only give it one star because this is the lowest score available. It does not deserve a star at all.At the end of the film, the words "the End" appeared on the screen and someone in the very back of the theaters stood up and said, loudly, "Thank Goodness that is over!" He got a round of applause from all around. As they were leaving I heard people talking about seeing the manager about getting their money back. They all felt that they had been tricked into buying a ticket and had expected a professional production. This was not the case. The following are the reasons that you might be tricked into spending your money on this disaster.1. Patrick Stewart is the credits: It's a trick. He does not appear on screen and only did about 5 mins of voice work through the entire film.2. Dynamation is back!: Don't believe it. The poorest work of Ray Harryhausen was better than any of this. Much looked like it was done with playdoe. (The Rok was pretty good)3. The first Persian actor to play Sinbad: Don't belive it. He may be Persian but he can't act! He has one expression throughout the entire film and only cracks a smile in the last scene. The fact that he wrote, directed, acted and produced the film should have tipped me off. He cannot write. Everyone laughed over a line where Sinbad was praising the princess' beauty. He said that she had "snow capped cheeks". (What does that mean? I thought cheeks were supposed to be rosey. I asked a Persian friend of mine if that expression was one used in Iran. He had never heard of it.) Shahin Sean Solimon cannot direct. It seems that the entire film was a huge ego production. His sole function as director seems to be to make sure that he was in every scene. I even suspect (I would love to find out If I am right about this) that he dressed up in a costume with a mask and played the evil villain in one of the first scenes where the princess is kidnapped. If this is true, and I believe it is, it is a bad sign of an ego run wild. The movie is confusing and had a disturbing lack of continuity. The movie starts with a flash back within a flash back. Many times I was confused as to what was going on and could not figure out the continutity. There was no chemistry between Sinbad and the Princess. The Villian needed some direction regarding his bizarre facial expressions (not to mention make up which was erratic from scene to scene). It seems that no attempt was made to direct any of the actors in any professional manner. It also appears (and I may be wrong about this) that many scenes were cut which might have made more sense out of the plot. There seems to have been a treasure scene, which we do not see. Suddenly, for no reason, Sinbad is in a cave and reaches into what appears to be a pile of gold and jewels. He picks up a lamp, for no reason, and rubs it and then falls asleep. It was completely contrived and made no sense. The choice in music was poor and often inappropriate for the scenes that it was backing. Well, not everyone can be Woody Allen, but at one point in the film, where Sinbad was in a poorly constructed set, mouthing some ridiculous dialogue that my wife turned to me and asked me whether or not this reminded me of the graveyard Scene from "Plan 9 from Outer Space". At that point I realized that I was experiencing the same feeling that I felt when I first saw that movie. I felt as if I was watching something ineptly contrived by someone who had no experience or talent. That "lack of talent" was was the over ridding theme of every scene. At that point, I realized the only real reason that anyone should see this film. It is the same reason that you would see any Ed Wood film. You should see this film to see if it is really as bad as I feel that it is. I would love to hear from others who have actually put money down to see it in the theaters, and see if they agree with me that Ed Wood now has a rival as the worst director, writer and actor that has ever been in a film that has made it into the legitimate theaters. People should invite their friends and make side comments while the movie is running to see who can make the best jokes while watching this movie. On the other hand, the sound was great and the animation in the credits was well done.

Waleed A (ca) wrote: this was one of my favorite movies when it came out. it feels a little dated now with lots of stuff you can make fun of. still entertaining overall with a cool concept. but the music and the action were underwhelming compared to the usual michael bay movies (about 4 viewings)

Kristina K (it) wrote: Nope. Not because I love Madonna, but because it was GOOD! I absolutely loved the characters, the message and the music. I couldn't see the point of that movie for about 40 minutes, but later it's getting clear. A bit forced, but pretty smart movie. (She used a lot of quotes, sometimes it seemed like she took this book of famous quotes by awesome people and created a script. Well, it worked anyway). So yes, nice movie, I just loved the guy a lot.

Gert W (ca) wrote: Nice animated movie. I liked it a lot more the second time - probably, because the story has quite some gaps.

Cns P (ru) wrote: a kind of present, existencialist 1984 with terapy. -IE.

Jennifer S (de) wrote: I thought this movie was very well done. Directed by James C. Strouse this film was a Sundance Film finalist, and for his first movie to ever direct, he did a great job. John Cusack was great in the movie. I found it interesting to see how his posture and character brought the story of Stanly alive. It was a really good movie, and I greatly enjoyed it. :)

Cody H (es) wrote: bloody crap m8 get life

Nick E (us) wrote: Sleepy Hollow may not be Burtons best work, but it's visually striking and engaging nonetheless.

Josh M (ca) wrote: Campy fun at its most campy.