You may also like
How Funny Can Sex Be? torrent reviews
Cattera Y (gb) wrote: Ghostbusterswith thousands of ghost movie produced, Ghostbusters knows how to be original
Tom E (es) wrote: So bad it goes all the way around so bad it's good and back to bad again.
KJ P (gb) wrote: From Top Gun to Mission: Impossible, Tom Cruise is no stranger to big budget action films. Before the release of his most recent franchise starter in 2012 (Jack Reacher), fans of Cruise became very excited to see him take on yet another big budget action film. That being said, this film was far more mixed that one would have hoped, according to reviews and general audience reactions. Personally, I love Tom Cruise and I look forward to every time he is on screen. Whether it be for a great film like Edge of Tomorrow or a failed attempt in Knight and Day, his charisma has always brought me into the theatre. Upon its initial release, Jack Reacher did not do much for me overall, and even though I feel about the same, I have a few more thoughts on this film than I initially did as well. In light of its sequel coming soon, lets revisit this action film that really doesn't need a continuation. Beginning on a very engaging opening sequence, setting up a puzzle for Jack and the police to figure out, Jack Reacher starts off very strong, before becoming a little too convoluted in its own premise. Introducing many side characters and setting up twists that may or may not come to fruition, this film plays with its audience. Rather than letting the audience figure out certain clues on their own, I feel as though this film spirals fairly quickly into a generic thriller that treats its audience as if they are not as smart as the writers. This film is already a very slow-paced one, so the fact that it has to dumb itself down in the third act really takes away from the great aspects. That being said, the very few action pieces presented here, are definitely top-notch. While many people may have gone into this film expecting something overblown, the end result is actually much classier. Each action scene is placed very far apart from one another, making statements as the film progresses. There is not a single exciting moment that does not help the film along. There are very few blockbusters that come out nowadays that don't rely on spectacle for the sake of spectacle in order to get people into the theatre. For that reason alone, Jack Reacher felt like a breath of fresh air; However, even though this film takes much more care with its action and pacing than anyone could have hoped for, it does rely on the star-power of Tom Cruise to keep the audience engaged. This is definitely a Tom Cruise film, but it also wouldn't have been as enjoyable without him. Director Christopher McQuarrie helms this film with ease, as every single frame seems to have a purpose. Thanks to an incredible cinematographer and editor, this film has some very tense pacing, along with some very unique camera movements. Adding all of these elements up, you'd think that an action/thriller starring Tom Cruise would be a sure hit. While all of these aspects truly are superb, this film takes no chances in doing anything special with its characters or story and the ending of this film could not have been any more generic to set-up a franchise if it happens to make money. It may seem like I am being overly harsh on this film for being incredibly generic in its third act, it is without question that with all of the talent involved in front of and behind the camera, Jack Reacher should have been a revelation. Instead, it is just a moderately entertaining action/thriller that has just enough action and character development to keep the most average of moviegoers engaged. There are some people who love this film, some people who hate this film, and others that fall right in the middle. I am the latter part of that statement. I do not mind this film, in fact, I quite enjoy it, but its potential annoys me throughout its entire duration. Overall, Jack Reacher is fine, but the whole film displays missed opportunities in my opinion.
LOZZ s (nl) wrote: winnie the pooh u rock my socks
TTT C (au) wrote: (*** 1/2): Thumbs Up Devilishly entertaining and well-acted. A very good Korean film that I would not mind seeing again soon!
Charlie G (it) wrote: Amusing is an odd way.
Morpheus O (nl) wrote: Based on a true story that actually happened in South Philly, my home town, & not to far from me. This guy, the real Joey Coyle, passed away a few years ago. Seriously, although he was in it for himself, & although he wasn't to bright, ...he did go to the mob to launder the money, it's not like he didn't spread the money around a little & that got him the hero worship for being a Robin Hood-like character. This movie also shows us something that perhaps we don't want to admit to, but it is real and it is within us. Tho there are many ppl who wouldn't admit it & who would even take offense to the notion... that many of us would do EXACTLY as he did & that's a fact!!
Alexis C (ca) wrote: I just love the 80's movies!
Bloodmarsh K (it) wrote: It's a film about a group of pissed off people going about their dull daily routines for about 100 minutes. But since the subject matter is sensitive, we're supposed to give a damn about these people - well, I didn't give a damn about either person.
Kevin M W (ag) wrote: Although Babs had her some little personal experience in the burlesque game, and though she gives it her "that's show business!" all here (there's one scene she dances onstage that'd play any modern day medium ya got) she cannot save this "backstage at the burlesque"/murder whodunit that suffers from a screenplay that, while quick with the witty one-liners, unfortunately plays fast and loose with the intended conclusion.
Harry W (ag) wrote: Considered to be one of Charlie Chaplin's greatest achievements, Modern Times sounded like a hilarious slapstick pieceModern Times is a film that drew Charlie Chaplin accusation of luddism as he refused to move into sound cinema and instead dedicated himself to keeping the vaudevillian spirit alive in the face of changing times. Looking at the film in a contemporary age where all the man's films have nostalgic value, it is clear that Modern Times is one of his finest works. To call the man a luddist is to say Quentin Tarantino is a plagarist.Modern Times is essentially the Tramp's journey into Metropolis. As a means of ensuring this, the production values in the feature are really effective. The production design of Modern Times is beautiful.Cleverly making use of only a selective few locations to tell its story, Modern Times manages to make the most out of all of them. Each scene in the film takes place in a different location, yet the scenes are stretched out so that there is a sense that the potential in all of them is maximized. The result is a lot of creative hilarity from the many situations where Charlie Chaplin takes his slapstick to brilliant extents. Some of the imagery in the film is the most iconic of Charlie Chaplin's entire career, including the sight of him being grinded between cogs. The humour always makes use of the universe around the characters and the entire experience is captured with fine cinematography that really turns it all into wonderful imagery while working with the movements of Charlie Chaplin. And with so much of the footage in Modern Times being sped-up, the slapstick comes at viewers a lot faster and condenses the energy of the film into a swift 83 minutes of consistent laughter. The genuine feeling of it all is kept alive by the musical score which keeps consistently flowing at a fast rate with lighthearted jonty tunes during the funnier moments of the film which also oscillate with the more sentimental tone that comes into the dramatic sequences. Rarely does the humour drag on, but at the same time it is not solely dedicated to the physical comedy side of things.Though Modern Times is clearly dictated to be a stylie-driven slapstick comedy, there is an extent of social commentary in the story which cannot be disregarded. Though it is subtle, there are intelligent comments regarding suvival of the Great Depression and attempts to maintain employment in the face of the industrial age. All of this is buried into the comedy within the narrative so that it gives viewers a chance to laugh while they have their thoughts challenged. These plot points do not get in the way of the narrative being a joyful comedy, but they do demand the viewer's consideration. They play second fiddle to the humour in the film which ensures that it is a comedy at heart and therefore not precisely as meaningful as some of his other works where the use of dialogue is a significant factor in conveying what truly goes on in the mind of Charlie Chaplin, but the elements of political commentary are represented very well by the imagery in the film and serve to give an unprecedented level of depth to the extensive slapstick spectacle. The recurring word to determine value in Modern Times is the term "slapstick", and it is sourced almost solely from the efforts of lead actor Charlie Chaplin. With a clear passion for the film as writer and director, Charlie Chaplin takes Modern Times' material by storm when he enters the screen because he captures his character with every inch of the part from the smallest elements of his facial expressions to his most over the top antics. Charlie Chaplin's natural gimmicks are as refreshing as ever, proving to be the backbone of the film which takes it through the entirety of its 83 minute running time. And yet, there are also some moments where he is really able to bring a touch of suble drama to the film. Though his voice is not heard, Charlie Chaplin evokes a sense of emotional frailty based on the smallest elements of his character since he really sinks his teeth into every inch of the role. And as the final silent film to feature him portraying The Tramp in a leading role, Modern Times proves to be a very heartfelt sendoff for the legendary character archetype, so it is ultimately a hilarious and bittersweet effort on behalf of Charlie Chaplin which never fails to leave audiences of all different times and ages laughing at the sight of a clownish man falling into machineryPaulette Goddard also does a lovely effort. Playing the romantic opposite of the protagonist, Paulette Goddard is not around with the intention of making audiences laugh. She is there to make them feel, and she does a lovely job of that. The level of sympathy she intends to establish is limited by the nature of the film as a silent movie, and yet she transcends that because even as she speaks in silence there is a sense of beautiful passion in her maner of delivering it. She has a smile which just lights up the screen and a determined sense of energy which she uses to keep herself consistently physically active. Paulette Goddard easily has audiences captivated by her naturally beautiful charms, so she is most welcome to be working alongside Charlie Chaplin as she interacts with his passion for physical humour with natural instict, meaning that she keeps up with the pace of the humour in Modern Times with ease.So Modern Times delivers more of the hilarious slapstick that fans of Charlie Chaplin have come to expect, raising the scale with increased production values and increasing the genuine credibility of the film with the addition of intelligent political commentary in the subtext.
J B (de) wrote: Stuart Murdoch's "God Help the Girl" finds a young artist working through her mental health issues with the help of music and like-minded contemporaries. The songs in the film capture the rebellious optimism and wistful longing of youth. It's a credit to Murdoch's precise vision that the singing and dancing feel like a natural extension of the characters' emotional states. The charmingly choreographed musical numbers are buoyed by Emily Browning's mellifluous vocals, which convey both a haunting sadness and innate strength. Stylistically unique, vibrant and uplifting, "God Help the Girl" is a truly divine creation.
Henry M (es) wrote: I really enjoyed this spin on the Apes franchise. Caesar's origin story was executed brilliantly in my opinion, and James Franco's acting didn't disappoint. I loved the plot, the CGI was great, the action scenes were seamless, and the conflict between man and ape was portrayed beautifully. This movie gave new life to The Planet Of The Apes and it's no wonder why.
John B (ag) wrote: Once again, we have the dullness of a Gary Cooper performance ruining an adaptation of Hemingway. Cooper bumbles and fumbles all through the backdrop of the Spanish Civil War providing us with little that is memorable.
Keegan S (nl) wrote: Jeremy Piven yelling at people is good for the bro-soul. As a admitted fan of the show, I bought into this. I admit I don't know if I could give this a fair assessment for others.
Elise P (us) wrote: Disturbing, insane, fucked up. Great cinematography & sound design enthrall you in this bizarre "story". Seeing the outside world through Bubby's eyes. Very strange.