Internes Can't Take Money
The young Dr. Kildare treats and falls for impoverished ex-con Janet Healy, widow of a bank robber, who can't find her baby. Later she helps Kildare sew up gangster Hanlon in a tavern back room. Kildare pursues Janet and enlists Hanlon to help her; the gangster's solution, not surprisingly, is violent.
- Stars:Barbara Stanwyck, Joel McCrea, Lloyd Nolan, Stanley Ridges, Lee Bowman, Barry Macollum, Irving Bacon, Steve Pendleton, Pierre Watkin, Charles Lane, James Bush, Nick Lukats, Anthony Nace, Fay Holden, Frank Bruno,
- Director:Alfred Santell,
In his first film, young Dr. Kildare helps a female ex-con find her child. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Internes Can't Take Money torrent reviews
(ca) wrote: Somewhere in The Railway Man is a really great movie just dying to get out. It has it all, a strong and able cast (Colin Firth, Nicole Kidman and Stellan Skarsgrd take leading parts), a good, moving plot about a difficult period of history, some great cinematography and boasts Frank Cottrell Boyce as a part writer. However, it doesn't quite reach the level it should. Don't get me wrong, it is a solid enough film but it feels lacking in impact. The story concerns an old soldier and railway enthusiast who is unable to come to terms with his awful treatment by the Japanese as a prisoner of war during WWII. Forced to help build the infamous Burmese railway, he is tortured as punishment for his pivotal role in building a radio by which the Allied POWs are able to find out about the progress of the war. Firth's character is very reserved and quiet, obviously traumatised by his experiences. He is prone to night terrors and rages which threaten to drive his new bride, played by Kidman, away and destroy any chance of happiness he has. It is then he learns from a colleague in the British Legion that his torturer is still alive and showing tourists around the camp where he was held. Based on a true story, this should have been horrific, moving, tragic and uplifting, really taking the viewer on an emotional journey but it just seems to miss its mark and I was somewhat disengaged rather than drawn in by it. Trying to pitch all the different and difficult emotional elements just seems too hard a task and I think, the problem is that we don't really get to know enough about the two leads. This is especially true of Kidman's character Patti. She must have been an incredibly strong and loving woman but she is given very little depth to help the viewer understand her. That fact that she loves Eric (Firth's character) very much is taken for granted but never really picked apart or examined and, personally, I feel that the movie is the poorer for this omission.
(us) wrote: This really isn't a very good movie at all. There's something so low-rent about this movie, something like you'd catch this on your local channel at 3 am on a Sunday because that was all they could afford. And, apparently, it turns out that, in fact, this movie premiered on the Lifetime Channel about 3 weeks ago, approximately. Do I have to say ANYTHING else other than that? Of course, that's not to say that the fact that it aired on Lifetime means instantly makes it a shitty movie, I'm sure Lifetime has aired some decent movies in the past. But it really doesn't do this film any favors. Perhaps a reason for why it was aired on TV rather than released in theaters or direct-to-dvd is the fact that I don't think this movie would've made anyone much money. There's no way you can promote this movie to where you can make it look interesting enough for people to want to pay to see it, there's just no way. Horror films will ALWAYS have an audience, there's an audience for low-budget horror out there. So even if the film looks like crap, at least you're guaranteed some unintentional laughter. I don't think the mystery/suspense, though close to the horror realm, shares that same dedicated audience. So it was probably a very smart idea to make this a TV movie rather than run the risk of producing thousands of DVDs, costing a lot of money to produce, that would go directly to the $5 movie bin of your local gas station that you'd make release it as a TV movie and get some money from the ad time that sponsors would buy. But, I digress, this movie is just no good at all as I mentioned. It's certainly an easy watch as it's only like 80 minutes long, but the ineptitude this film shows at actually creating decent tension or interesting characters will leave you scratching your head as to who thought that making this movie would be a good idea in the first place. The film's events wouldn't take place if the characters weren't such idiots. I think I'd be willing to forgive them the idiocy of their characters if at least they were interesting, but we can only be so lucky right? First things first, and this is the most egregious of these examples, is the fact that Chad, knowing that he needs Ryan alive in order to find out where the diamond and the money is, goes ahead and kills the fucker. He kills the guy who knows where the shit he's looking for is and then starts to interrogate Sara, who didn't know anything about Ryan's past life, to figure out where the shit is. This guy is a dumbass. They do explain it away later by saying that Ryan came at Chad so that's why he had to kill him, but I really think that this guy could've incapacitated him if he really wanted to. Secondly, there's the fact that Sara, since becoming blind, has seen some of her senses heightened...like she can figure out from smell that someone's in the room. This is fine and dandy, except when Sara comes home exactly after Ryan is killed, and Chad is in the house with her, she isn't able to smell him...at all. Despite the fact that the guy is super close to her, she's somehow not able to pick up on the scent. Yet, later in the movie, she's able to figure out that the guys are still there. How is she able to do this, you ask? Well, she knew they were there because she picked up their scent. Maybe she had a runny nose or something and she couldn't breathe properly. Yea, that was probably it. There's also this hilarious scene where Chad, when Sara locks herself into the room, breaks through the window to her room by throwing himself through it. He does this in spite of the fact that he grabbed a chair to break the window. It was super stupid, but definitely funny. There's just this low-rent feel and look to the film that leaves such a poor taste in your mouth. There are movies where they don't have a lot of money for the actual filming, but they have a solid script, so that, despite the obvious technical limitations, you can get something out of the movie thanks to its strong script. The low-budget feel for this movie went across all aspects of it. The script isn't any good and it looks like garbage. I guess you could say the acting is decent, but it barely gets by. The cast didn't feel inspired to be there, this was just a paycheck to them. I don't blame the film's problems on the cast, they're the least bad part about this film, but they didn't do anything for me at all. So you have a poorly written script that doesn't know how to build tension, poor direction and an uninspired cast. What do you get when you add all that up? A Lifetime TV movie, that's what you get.
(br) wrote: If you haven't read the books you basically have no idea WTF is going on or the point of it all for 90 per cent of the movie. Will Poulter plays an annoying twat with his drag queen eyebrows as usual. Dylan O'Brien and Ki Hong Lee being beautiful kept me going. Entertaining but nothing special.
(kr) wrote: Psycho! Groupie , not taking her pills crazy!! Ahh! Crazy movie!
(kr) wrote: (52%)Without doubt a film that assumes that the audience is as interested in the behind the scenes of the Hollywood movie making industry as it is, yet for all its assumptions I still kind of enjoyed this one. Whether or not you may take anything from this depends on how much you like the idea of following around Robert DeNiro as a typical movie producer for just shy of two hours. Despite this supposedly on the outset to use a more subtle form of comedy, it in fact is full of much more simplistic methods to draw out the laughs, so expect many actor/director based outbursts, people falling into open graves, animal death based black humour, and test screening score cards covered with insults. None of which comes close to ever being subtle, but I thought overall it worked okay. The film in the long run doesn't have enough puff to go the distance, but as successful failures go, this ain't too bad at all.
(es) wrote: everything you could ever want in a movie..... motorcycles women a bad ass...
(fr) wrote: Thieves accidentally release the Djinn trapped in an old artifact. The Djinn is sent to prison for the robbery where he grants wishes to prisoners. Best wish was the guy who wished his lawyer would go f*** himself.
(it) wrote: I couldn't hear a lot of the film because I was in a noisy room, but it was pretty boring from what I could tell.
(gb) wrote: one of the best memories of my childhood.
(it) wrote: Loved this one, Jodie Foster as a young Bull. It doesn't get any better than this.
(au) wrote: Hugh Grant can only act one way, But for some strange reason I do enjoy his films, And even though his films aren't amazing they are easy to watch, And About A Boy is the same with a nice little plot, Some good English comedy thrown in, It's pretty good.
(br) wrote: One of the most remarkable musical, comedy movies I've ever seen in my life. I hope that one day I can see a movie could do better than this cheerful one.
(nl) wrote: ty flixter another lost review
(jp) wrote: very good movie. intense writing and subject matter and the clothes were beautiful