Jean-Michel Basquiat: The Radiant Child
Director Tamra Davis pays homage to her friend in this definitive documentary but also delves into Basquiat as an iconoclast. His dense, bebop-influenced neoexpressionist work emerged while minimalist, conceptual art was the fad; as a successful black artist, he was constantly confronted by racism and misconceptions. Much can be gleaned from insider interviews and archival footage, but it is Basquiat's own words and work that powerfully convey the mystique and allure of both the artist and the man.
- Stars:Jean Michel Basquiat, Julian Schnabel, Larry Gagosian, Bruno Bischofberger, Tony Schafrazi, Fab 5 Freddy, Jeffrey Deitch, Glenn O'Brien, Maripol, Kai Eric, Nicholas Taylor, Erika Belle, David Bowes, Peter Brant, Kevin Bray,
- Director:Tamra Davis,
- Writer:Eric Martin, Lois Vossen
Director Tamra Davis pays homage to her friend in this definitive documentary but also delves into Basquiat as an iconoclast. His dense, bebop-influenced neoexpressionist work emerged while... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Jean-Michel Basquiat: The Radiant Child torrent reviews
(us) wrote: O roteiro fraco, a animao pouco inspirada e, no desespero de buscar uma relevncia por referncias, o filme exagera e perde sua prpria identidade.
(gb) wrote: Best superhero movie ever it is a master piece and in my opinion best movie ever
(de) wrote: FREE TIBET!!!!and Taiwan is not part of China either~
(au) wrote: Unintentionally hillarious.Really bad production value.
(ca) wrote: I liked this B movie! I have it on VHS :) it's cheesy, but it keeps you in suspense. Has a few twists, and definitely entertaining.
(ru) wrote: A heart-warming, nostalgic picture which is beautifully acted and wonderfully written with such fun and love that it's hard not to enjoy it's tacky, used feeling. Cher delivers a dramatic and poignant performance as the mother, a strong but fragile character which only could be performed by a wonderful actress, such as Cher. Christina Ricci is great too as the cute little girl whose convinced she is the world's greatest swimmer, but the main star is Winona Ryder, as the sweet and innocent nun-wannabe who believes she is a sinner, not actually having the birds and the bees talk. A great film with dramatic depth, quirky characters and comedic one-liners.
(kr) wrote: i LOVE LOVE LOVE True Blood, i would watch it every day
(nl) wrote: There's a crossroad that some people cross where they have to simultaneously find a solution for their parents' generation while trying to live their own lives. At what point have you done enough? And are you doing it out of love or out of the pit of guilt you feel when you ignore what you ultimately view as a problem? I teetered on whether or not the two Savage children, Wendy (Linney) and Jon (Hoffman), are completely reprehensible or just the average selfish adults who are angry at having to handle their detached father's descent into dementia. I decided that nobody in this film has an ounce of anything worth saving if the world were coming to an end, and the only real sadness is the lives Wendy and Jon have cultivated for themselves, devoid of any semblance of happiness. It is almost as if they view their father's condition as an unnecessary distraction from the blah of their lives.
(fr) wrote: Quite different, but still, a lot of fun.
(br) wrote: i am an optimist and i hated it. i am a movie fanatic, and i loved it.
(it) wrote: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 (1928) Steamboat Bill, JR SILENT ACTION COMEDY Original running time is about 70 minutes centering on two steamship companies who are at odds with each another whereas one is losing money as opposed to the new and improved steamship boats. Steamboat Bill, JR is the Buster Keaton character William who's just seen his dad for the first time in a very long time. His dad who owns a small old steamboat ship company who assumes that with his son's help may help improve his dwindling business since he's losing much of it to his competitor. The famous side of the house scene which that stunt was echoed in a Jackie Chan film called "Project A Part II" doesn't happen until 1 hour in. And the stunts in this film become more creative as the film progresses. 3 out of 4 stars
(au) wrote: 300: Rise of an Empire is an amazing movie and worth seeing for those who like action, war, and historically based films. This film is a stunning classic of R rated war films and is worth the watch. This film gives the viewer an in-depth view of what it was like in the Greco-Persian Wars that took place almost 2500 years ago. Blood and gore. That's what makes a war movie look real. It makes movies look more realistic for the audience so that they can get an aura what it's like in war. In 300: Rise of an Empire, there was an over dramatization of blood and dismemberment throughout the film. Now, probably hardcore war film fans won't be bothered by this, but people who've never watched a war movie like this one before might have a problem with all the gore and dismemberment. Scott Bowels claims that, "The '300' sequel is beautiful and bloody" (Bowels). The film makers of this movie and its prequel '300' put a mass of time into resembling warfare and what it looked like in ancient times. Combat during ancient times were beyond callous and maybe more devastating in terms of hand to hand combat then in today's combat. People who received any type of wounds from ancient warfare usually died from the wound. From the movie's start bloody fighting ensued. The Battle of Marathon scene was an intense fighting scene. Blood and body parts were flying all around. According to Stephen Whitty, "300: Rise of an Empire has more blood spilling than 300" (Whitty). Why so much blood and dismemberment? Well the only way for people to understand what warfare was like in the ancient world is to make it as realistic as possible. People now-a-days like if not love bloody gory movies. Fans of gory movies would sure like this movie with all of its blood, gore, and violence. Sure war movies with guns in them are bloody and gory, but war movies with just melee weapons puts a new emphasis on the terms bloody and gory. The movie Saving Private Ryan was bloody and gory beyond belief, but in terms of comparison to Empire, Empire beats it out right in contexts of blood and gore. 300: Rise of an Empire may be an extraordinary film about the Greco-Persian Wars from 499-449 B.C., however Hollywood tends to rewrite history in their historical based movies. Right from the start of the film there were historical errors. During the Battle of Marathon scene they show us Athenian Shock Troops lead by Themistokles, an Athenian general, surprise attack the landing Persian forces on the beaches of Marathon, Greece. Everything up until that point was historically correct, but as Hollywood always does, they change things. The scene later shows Persian King Darius I and his young son Xerxes I watching the battle form Darius' command ship. Neither of them were present at the Battle of Marathon. Another error in that same scene was that Themistokles kills Darius by shooting him with an arrow from the shore. Darius dies of old age back in Persia. Xerxes is the heir to the throne but in both 300 and Empire, they tell us that Xerxes became a God-King which is historically false. Persian Kings were not worshiped as Gods of any kind. Later on in the movie another character is brought forth and her name is Artimisia, a Greek woman who commanded part of Xerxes' fleet during the Persians' second invasion of Greece. She is a very important historical figure in the Greco-Persian Wars, she is actually real. However, Hollywood makes their own spin of her life story. In the movie they tell us that her family was killed by a band of Greek Hoplite soldiers and she was then captured as a slave and used for sex aboard a slave ship. They continue on as to say that she was found by a Persian emissary and was raised to be Persian. In all reality she was Queen Artimisia of the Greek- City State of Halicarnassus. So why make historical mistakes throughout the movie? Was it to make the movie more exciting or entertaining? Presumably both actually. Hollywood twists history around when making movies because it makes the movie more exciting and entertaining to go watch. Though at the same time that's a bad thing because people will believe what they saw in the movie is actually true, when in reality Hollywood either has twisted the truth or removed facts all together from the actual historic film. There was an excellent amount of creativity put into this movie. The naval warfare between the Greek and Persian fleets was phenomenal. The detail of the ships and the water makes one if they imagine, that they were actually there. The Fire Battle scene was by far the greatest naval fights due to the massive Persian burning tar ships that projected hot, molten tar onto the Greek ships and lit them ablaze. There was another scene where the human looking Xerxes undergoes a transformation into the God-King Xerxes. Stephen Whitty states, "Xerxes is transformed by enchantment into some bejeweled creature who calls himself a god-king, but looks as if he did lose round one on RuPaul's reality show" (Whitty). Another creative scene was where Themistokles and Artimisia meet aboard Artimisia's flag ship to discuss a peaceful solution to end the conflict, but in turns into and intense sex scene. That scene threw many off for sure. Scott Bowels commented, "And a scene in which Themistokles and Artimisia meet to broker peace but instead break into rough sex draws the necessary R rating- and unintentional laughs" (Bowels). Creativity makes a good movie. Not only creativity on the set but in the script as well. What's the purpose of all the creativity in the naval battles in the movie? Well to give the audience a good visual aspect of what naval warfare in ancient times the fil makers of empire went into extensive detail in recreating the Battle of Salamis and the rest of the naval engagements in Empire. The special effects of the blood in the water from all the dead soldiers and the bodies that wash up on shore really emphasize the aftermath of naval battles throughout history. It was truly some very gruesome creativity but creativity none the less. Of course, many will probably agree with the assertion that there was too much slow motion action in Empire. Some might even suggest that the amount of slow motion action in the movie was fine. This claim carries little weight, however, given Stephen Whitty's statement that Empire is both the prequel and the sequel to the original tale, only with more blood spilling, slow motion, and even less wit or truth. There was definitely more slow motion in Empire than there was in 300. The Battle of Marathon scene is a perfect example. That scene speed up and slowed down more than any other scene in the entire movie combined. The Fog Battle scene is another great example of too much slow motion. That scene started off slow just like the Marathon scene and that probably annoyed some viewers. Even though that scene had less of the speed up and slow down action it still had it none the less, which many movie critics pointed out right away. It got ridiculous at times during that one scene. It made you want to say, "Get on with it"! Some could counter argue that by saying the slow motion was necessary to be able to see the dismemberments and the blood splattering in good detail as well as the fighting. Both arguments are right to a certain point of view. Yes it was important for the camera speed to slow down to witness the blood splattering and dismemberment in greater detail, but was it necessary to slow the camera down that damn much. If the speed went any slower at times it would've come to a complete stop. The first 300 movie had enough of the slow motion as it is, why double it in the sequel? It made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Some readers may challenge the view that there were quite a few historical errors in this movie. After all, many viewers believe what they see in a historically based movie to be true. Indeed, this argument seems to ignore the fact that there were historical errors in this film which is supported by Paul Cartledge, a professor of Greek culture at Cambridge University, when he states that, "There were five things 300: Rise of an Empire gets wrong" (Cartledge). He was the one who pointed out the errors of Darius and Xerxes being at the Battle of Marathon and Darius dying there by the hand of Themistokles. As well as the fact that Artimisia wasn't a slave girl but actually a Queen of Halicarnassus and led part of the Persian forces during the Greco-Persian Wars and survived them and wasn't killed like the movie shows. Another fact he points out is that at the Battle of Salamis, Queen Gorgo of Sparta did arrive with reinforcements to help the other Greek ships fighting the Persian fleet but it wasn't an armada as Hollywood proclaims it to be. In historical records, Sparta only sent 16 ships to assist in the fight against Persia not an armada. Others along with Cartledge pointed these errors out. He said, "This is not in any useful sense a historical movie" (Cartledge). This movie takes place during a critical time in ancient history with actual historic characters, of course it does. But, Hollywood like in all historic films they make, they change everything up to fit with what they want to see. For historians like Paul Cartledge, this pisses them off greatly. They know the history of what actually happened during the times historical movies take place in, but when they see historic errors that Hollywood purposely puts into films in aggravates them to high heavens. Despite this movies flaws, overall it's an amazing movie. It's worth the time to go see if you're the type of person that enjoys war, historic, and action films. This movie is great despite its flaws and errors in it production. But, no movie is perfect.
(it) wrote: I really like this film for some reasons but I don't even know where to start with this. Derailed is one of those movies that people find the story so predictable and ludicrous, the book I think is much better for people cause for this movie has some twists and turns. Clive Owen is a good actor, Jennifer Aniston is good and Vincent Cassel is a great actor and he's good in it. He plays a good villian and on top of that the scene where he rapes Jennifer Aniston's character I just thought it was sex cause I can hear him say ''Hey Chuck, fuck her like that.'' Good God! What's wrong with people back then? It has many plot holes which I don't understand however I can't even find the plot holes in any movies that I've watched but please give me a break. Derailed is just a good thrilling film with plot twists and a twist ending, I won't spoil it for you. I can watch it over and over if I had the chance.
(nl) wrote: A great movie about the worst director in film history. A