Someone we hear talking - but whom we do not see - speaks of a project which describes the four key moments of love: meeting, physical passion, arguments/separation and making up. This project is to be told through three couples: young, adult and old. We do not know if the project is for a play, a film, a novel or an opera. The author of the project is always accompanied by a kind of servant. Meanwhile, two years earlier, an American civil servant meets with an elderly French couple who had fought in the Resistance during World War II, brokering a deal with a Hollywood director to buy the rights to tell their story. The members of the old couple's family discuss heatedly questions of nation, memory and history.
In part one there is talk of a project on the subject of love, with the example of three couples, one young, one mature and the other elderly. At this point the author comes into contact ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Mind the Book o (de) wrote: A guy with a telescope on his balcony! A budding florist! Pez dispensers! Rain! Hippocampus! I just loved this sweet and touching romcom set in New Orleans.
Gary T (ag) wrote: 5 stars. That's all, awesome, if you ride mountain see it. That's all.
Rhode Rian G (gb) wrote: Truly a guilty pleasure. Over the top but has a lot of fun compared to tokyo gore police.
Megan W (nl) wrote: amazing job such a great movie
Phillip D (ag) wrote: Gifted by one of the greatest special effects productions of all time, Avatar still fails to give Cameron another science fiction all time great. Shockingly, the reason doesn't stem from the spotty storyline and poor dialogue but rather from Cameron's own hypocrisy. Blessed with a recent penchant for political activism, Cameron attempts to follow the line of many Hollywood big shots and create a 300 million dollar political statement. Unfortunately for us, Cameron fails in a ridiculously predictable manner as his own political views prove to be poorly researched farce at best and a shameless money grab at worst. Cameron creates a movie about peace and harmony, even as he spews violence and futuristic weapons in order to produce many of the revolutionary shots that caused people to spend their money on the movie in the first place. Cameron creates a storyline about Native American destruction, all while promoting the fact that a white man is needed to save the day. Cameron creates a film about protecting culture and identity, even as the main hero strips himself of his identity and disguises himself, essentially in blackface, a look he then adopts at the end of the movie. Cameron creates a film to fight against injustice against native minorities all while returning all the stereotypes that were used for so long to degrade those same native peoples. In the end, it isn't the Michael Bay style empty violence, the massive plot holes, the poor exposition, the multitude of shameless science fiction rip offs or the bad writing that take Avatar from a top level epic and place it on the bottom shelf for shiny but ultimately boring things. What does Avatar in is its blatant, poorly disguised, artless political message draped in its own hypocrisy. It is proof once again that mainstream Hollywood is generally incapable of producing social commentary films that rail against the injustices that Hollywood execs have taken part in and continue to take part in every day. It is proof that while Cameron is a visionary director who had directed some of the greatest films of all time, he is an absolutely piss poor source for social and political commentary. It is proof that spending all the money, effort and time to build a movie with quantity still does not guarantee you quality. And that is a lesson that any Native American could have taught Cameron, had he taken the time to actually give a shit about what happened to them.
Jason C (fr) wrote: jimmy fallon is one of my fav people of all time, so i loved this.
Sandy W (fr) wrote: this movie is just weird. funny but just ok. anita mui plays mysterious suspect and stephen chow has to figure out if she killed her husband.
Evan H (ag) wrote: It has it's moments but runs out of fuel by the end of the movie. It has a good cast and director but the script really runs thin most of the time and tries too hard to be funny. It spoofs 1930's gangster movies which really was a good idea that could have been so much more but just wasn't, sadly.
Christopher S (mx) wrote: Surprisingly peppy espionage thriller from director William Castle is by no means a great film, but it's incredibly entertaining. The awkward juxtaposition of bubbly teen antics and dark intrigue and violence keep it constantly compelling in a campy kind of way. A hokey B-movie really, but Castle fans will appreciate its offbeat energy.
Russ B (nl) wrote: 6/30/2012: OK, typical 80's action flick.
Valerie O (br) wrote: This movie was so cheezy, that we watched it because we were in awe... the concept of the story is okay; however, there's tons of fight scenes where you know it's going to happen because the "fight music" comes on, then you witness Bruce Lee move done "Matrix Style". We couldn't stop giggling... but I was so surprised that Ian Somerhalder would do this!! Oh well... I had to look it up online to see what others thought... no ratings yet!