Lang leve de koningin
A fairytale about a young girl who learns to play chess and at the same time finds her father.
You may also like
Lang leve de koningin torrent reviews
Harry W (jp) wrote: Any film featuring Craig Robinson in the lead role is one I wouldn't miss, so Rapture-Palooza was a sure viewing for me.At most, I hoped for maybe a couple of cheap laughs out of Rapture-Palooza. Hoping for so little proved to be hoping for too much because there was not a single moment where I laughed during this lame attempt at a comedy.Coming from approximately the same time as the other rapture themed comedy of 2013 This is the End. Both films feature Craig Robinson in prominent roles, but there are many differences. In This is the End, there is a lot more energy and dedication from the cast as well as genuine humour and a higher budget. In Rapture-Palooza, everything is so lazy and cheaply assembled that it just seemed genuinely pointless. Despite having a high concept plot, Rapture-Palooza focuses on the most minimal aspect of being in the rapture without giving it enough of an appearance to feel genuine in any way whatsoever. This is the End had the concept and the budget as well as the passion, while Rapture-Palooza had a series of jokes that we have seen hundreds of times before in films ranging from legitimate comedies to satirical films and even spoofs. Despite the intended nature of the film, Rapture-Palooza ends up taking itself way too seriously without being entertaining in any sort of consistent manner. Rapture-Palooza seems to be a film shot by a talented cast of actors on their day off. It genuinely feels like a Mockbuster of This is the End the entire time with elements of Zombieland as well. It feels like such a forced and shoddy film shot clearly on a low budget with some incredibly low quality humour. Everything in Rapture-Palooza is just pathetic because the script is so lazily assembled and full of the most derivative gags, and under Paul Middleditch's role as director it fails to be any more entertaining. He does give the film a stylish look due to a lot of nice scenery and production design, but he is a massively inexperienced director. There is a reason you've never heard of him before. There was a lot of potential with many of the gags in Rapture-Palooza in terms of both writing and visual gags, but Chris Matheson's screenplay is such a tame one full of derivative jokes that it fails to stand out from the crowd. The script in Rapture-Palooza gives is seriously little to build off of and so there is nowhere it can really go from there, turning into a boring story about thin characters which has the least bit of relevance to its rapture themed concept in the slightest. Rapture-Palooza is a film that starts out boring with an intended satirical edge which in actual fact does nothing but makes the comedy seem lazy. There is no denying how poorly assembled the film is because the script is so crummy and the direction is generic, and it all just falls into the path of an unimpressive formula very fast which it never succeeds in transcending.The cast in the film have some level of charm though.Craig Robinson's charisma makes him a genial presence in Rapture-Palooza. The role really fails to do him justice, but as a fan of his I can say that his performance was still a decent one. It wasn't as over the top as it should have been due to the lame nature of the gags, but his natural spirit is great. Craig Robinson says every word with the best intentions and interacts with the other cast members with confident charisma which means that he brings a few good moments to Rapture-Palooza. He stands out as the film's finest element, so it does serves as another look into his comic talents even if they require his most minimal efforts.Anna Kendrick is a likable lead due to her natural charm. She isn't really that funny or even all that compelling, but her naturally likable spirit shows her bringing her usual archetype to the role and leading the film easily enough. Rapture-Palooza fails to illuminate her best skills as an actress or a woman of comedy, but considering the low standard of all the other aspects surrounding her she manages to stand out as one of the superior aspects of Rapture-Palooza. Anna Kendrick's performance is a half-decent one.Ken Jeong is always a welcome comic presence, and him in the role of God sounds hilarious on the surface. While his role is way too diminutive, he puts his natural over the top archetype into the role and makes a positive impact on the film. He gives the film a decent edge during his few scenes because of the nature of his interaction with Craig Robinson.But despite the presence of decent cast members, Rapture-Palooza is a pathetically lazily assembled film which feels cheap and derivative while wasting its high concept plot on a consistently unfunny script.
Rosendo D (ag) wrote: Simple but exhilarating NYC-based film that'll make you want to buy a bicycle.
Ricky T (nl) wrote: Not completely bad but not very good. Leprechaun 3 brings the leprechaun in Las Vegas and I have to say it's fun and entertaining. I give a mild recommendation for those who enjoy silly horror films and want a good laugh. I'm giving it 2.5 stars for it 's laughs and joy of entertainment.
Ke H (nl) wrote: While I have not read Shilts' book, I thought that the TV movie stood on its own. I especially liked how the filmmakers made the science part of AIDS so accessible. What I didn't like about the movie was Modine's casting as the main character. I couldn't believe he was a government employee and not a Hollywood star.
Kate M (ag) wrote: Why do all critics hate this movie? I would understand if it does have certain problems for a theatrical animated feature that's based on a cartoon, but I think it's still nicely stunning with a new catchy theme song.
Alec B (ru) wrote: Even if the domestic problems plaguing Hackman's character seem a bit forced, all the stuff about him trying desperately to inhabit the role of a hard boiled Private Eye and failing is fascinating. Also, its got one hell of an ending.
Hugo G (ag) wrote: I was intrigued about this movie and it's premise, but also because it starred Julianne Moore and it was going to be released on the Criterion Collection. But I had to admit that it was a very odd and ambiguous movie that left me not with that many questions but perplexed as to what had happened on the movie. Because it was all so inexplicable and strange but at the same time very helpless to watch Moore's character without any type of identity nor with any sign of what was really going on with her. Furthermore, the movie itself was very slow paced and it therefore affected it, but just to follow her character and go through everything with her was a fine experience and a very unique one. Therefore, I feel like the movie could've been better if it wasn't too ambiguous without compromising any of its value but also if it had developed more Moore's character and what was going on inside her head to kind of understand her more and her life. But overall, I feel like I should watch the movie again just to try and understand it more but also to see if I missed anything else of the movie itself. However, it did have a very good performance from Julianne Moore and the movie was good too, but it was maybe too pretentious or not enough, and I'm just thinking it too much but still it was hard to understand and to get my head around it. ~September 20, 2014~
Kevin F (au) wrote: I don't care what people say I like this movie a lot
Steve S (ru) wrote: One of Sylvester Stallone's better cinematic moments. He plays n underdog here which suits him.
jeannie l (fr) wrote: goooood great wonderful