A humorless and pompous businessman goes wild when he falls in love. Now if only his domineering mother could understand his new lease on life.
You may also like
Junglee torrent reviews
Daniel K (jp) wrote: 1992 was a great year for Tim Robbins, he starred in and directed Bob Roberts - one of the greatest political satires of all time - as well as finding time to star in Robert Altman's The Player, probably the greatest satire of Hollywood ever made. Robbins is excellent as a slimy Hollywood bigshot, who fears he's about to be replaced by an even slimier young rival. Indeed, the cast is generally excellent, with Richard E Grant and Dean Stockwell standing out as particularly funny. In addition to the main cast there are a lot of cameos by Hollywood celebs playing themselves. This sort of thing can feel a little self-indulgent and forced in some films, although it makes a lot of sense in the context of The Player, and some of the cameos are actually fairly integral to the story. There is the usual Altman quirk of characters talking over each other, so it's impossible to hear everything they're saying. This bugs the hell out of some people. I can live with it, although I've never really seen that it adds much to his films. There are also a lot of reference to classic movies from Sunset Boulevard, to The Bicycle Thief, to Touch of Evil - with The Player's opening tracking shot being an explicit homage to Well's famous tracking shot in that last film. The movie is funny, cynical, and unsparing of its criticism of the artifice and phoniness of Hollywood. Unsurprisingly, everyone in Hollywood seems to love it.
Timm S (mx) wrote: Gawd...What Was This?? It Has Some Super-Sillious Moments..Bits That Give You A Good Laugh..But At About 1hr-15 Where She Sells Her Soul..Yeah, It Just Dies..Completely Lost. Goes No Where &Has No Soul Of It's Own.
Frederic C (it) wrote: Le seul mauvais souvenir que Paris m'ait laiss, trop bizarre ce film
Brittany R (fr) wrote: I don't think I'd ever have watched this if it wasn't for Nathan Fillion, that extra 1/2 star is for him. It was kinda slow but honestly told. It had a good point from what I could see, my dog distracted me an awful lot. And I'm beginning to think I'm a sucker for movies the involve kids dealing with loss or dysfunctional parents. God that little kid is cute!
Robert D (kr) wrote: i found it to better then there first one, good characters and a good story.
Japes (mx) wrote: I had to watch this movie twice because I was like WTF? after the first time. [SPOILERS] The movie was about a bunch of unlikable characters called the "crazy eights" (not sure why they're called that). They grew up in a mental institution or facility of some kind (it was very vague) when they were children. They escaped and put some kid in a trunk because she was weak or would slow them down on their escape or something. Then they forgot to get the kid, and she died. Years later they go back to the place where she died, and they enter a condemned building (the mental facility) where they are now trapped. It's a pretty stupid story line, and a confusing one. There were random flashbacks that were both irrelevant and unnecessary. Plus they were so fast I was like "wait, what was that?" The entire plot was so unstable, and it seemed like the movie didn't know what to do with it. I think they tried to add a twist, depth or something at the end with the doctor scene, but I'm still not entirely sure. In the scene, the doctor talks to one of the children and says "One box will lead you to more tests, and the other will lead you to redemption" or something. Then he was like " Guilt or redemption. Choose." It doesn't make sense as I type it, and it didn't make sense when I watched it. That scene was a complete fail. They should've just cut it out. All it did was add confusion to the already complicated movie. I watched the scene three times to try to understand, but I couldn't put it together. It was such a mess of a movie. The plot was the main problem....and the video editing. I nearly got a seizure from that shit yo.
Jacob C (fr) wrote: 69/100 - There's a lot of formula in Real Steel as far as "sports" dramas go. It also has a pretty silly and seemingly weightless premise. However, when you get down to the nitty-gritty of this film, it has a few solid performances from its leads and some well-rendered CGI. There's enough thrills and exciting action to overcome Real Steel's formula to make it worth your time.
Stephen S (ag) wrote: I value what I learned from viewing this movie. I have recommended this viewing to several of my cadre for their viewing and insights. Of course there's the Hollywood side but the facts are as they are Bravo 2 ZERO was a real mission and the people in these movie where portraying the real people of Bravo 2 Zero both the living and the KIA
Paul F (kr) wrote: I'm used to having discrepencies on the year of release of a film between the imdb and the rt database, but [i]Still Life[/i] is a bit of a stretch. RT lists it as 1993, when the video was released, but the IMDb shows 1988 as the production date, which means either the IMDb is way off or this thing sat on the shelf for five years before getting dumped to video. Always a good sign. It's possible that the rights holders of the film were simply waiting for the triumphant return to fame of star Jason Gedrick. You remember Jason Gedrick, don't you? The kid from [i]Iron Eagle[/i] and [i]The Heavenly Kid[/i]? For a second in the mid-'80s, Gedrick looked like he was going to be another Tom Cruise, or at least another Jason Patric. Unfortunately for him, the movies he kept showing up in got less and less attention--only someone as film-crazed as I am remembers [i]Power 98[/i], [i]The Force[/i] or [i]Crossing the Bridge[/i]. And then there's [i]Still Life[/i], which stars Gedrick as a bohemian New York musician who makes fourth-rate Art of Nosie knock-offs in his huge loft apartment. [i]Still Life[/i] has an idea that's been used before, but seems to work well--the homicidal artist. It seems someone calling himself the "Art Killer" (or A.K.) has been bumping off homeless people and turnign their corpses into macabre works of non-performance art. Gedrick and his girlfriend Nellie (Jessica Ambrose) are at the center of it, and the killer seems to be framing him. There's a few different ways to go about a film involving a serial killer. You could make it into a police procedural, as the cops (or whoever) track down the killer, a la [i]Silence of the Lambs[/i]. You could focus on the killer themself, which allows for lots of acting on the part of the actor playing the murderer, a la [i]Badlands[/i]. Or you could show how one person is being harassed and surrounded by the killer in a psychological freak-out, a la [i]Apartment Zero[/i]. The problem with this last option is that you need to have solid, interesting characters and a fair share of people that could logically be suspects. Still Life has exactly one developed character outside of the main couple, so the identity of the Art Killer is obvious about ten minutes in. In fact, for much of the film, the Art Killer's presence is barely a factor at all, as it all focusses on Gedrick and Ambrose's relationship (yawn) and how depressed he is about his music career. For those who love scenes were musicians look determined and create music at a keyboard, [i]Still Life[/i] is your movie. Of course, you'll still have to put up with the crappy mid-'80s mediocre electronica. There's so many interesting ideas in [i]Still Life[/i] that it becomes frustrating to see none of them developed fully. First-time director Graeme Campbell doesn't bother with caring about sub-plots like the public's obsession with the Art Killer that views him as an artistic hero, or the killer's sending Gedrick videotapes that verge on being avant-garde performance pieces demanding that he compose him a theme song or else he'll kill his girlfriend. No, Campbell's direction is hopelessly bland for a movie about the New York art scene, and the flatlining performances don't help either. There's a couple of bright spots, like Stephen Shellen's supporting role as Gedrick's best friend, but it's really just a bunch of missed opportunities. I'd been holding on to this screener for a long time (since 1993, apparently) under the impression that it might be some sort of unseen gem, but it's sadly just the dullest movie based around an artistically inclined serial killer I've ever seen. Gary Farmer appears briefly as an Art Killer fan, but if you blink, you'll miss him. Gedrick and Steen are reunited (!) this year for the upcoming TV movie [i]Rapid Fire[/i]. Woo. (The cover of [i]Still Life[/i] pictures an apparently nude woman as the victim of the killer. The film itself contains only old, homeless victims, and no nudity whatsoever. Classy.)
Terri H (ag) wrote: No thankyou - Not interested
Arup B (gb) wrote: Worst than the Original Version -_-
Zoran S (fr) wrote: An intriguing mess. Frankly, I'm not sure if I liked it very much. It's wonderfully shot especially in the basketball scenes, but it's too formless in the wrong way. It feels like it's been edited every which way rather than planned and designed.
Christine D (it) wrote: A fabulous actress! Great comedy in parts. I loved the storyline and the spontaneity of an individual who just decided on a whim to start over.