Last Tango In Paris

Last Tango In Paris

A young Parisian woman begins a sordid affair with a middle-aged American businessman whom lays out ground rules that their clandestine relationship will be based only on sex.

Distraught following his wife's suicide, American hotelier Paul (Marlon Brando) becomes transfixed by the beautiful younger Frenchwoman Jeanne (Maria Schneider) and demands their clandestine relationship be based only on sex. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Last Tango In Paris torrent reviews

Josh G (nl) wrote: You know, I've been wanting to see Where's Poppa? for quite some time now. It was the first page of a book about cult movies that sparked my interest. That fateful first page mentions that cult movies are often known by only a select few, then goes on to give as an example, "the comedy where George Segal's brother, dressed in a gorilla costume, is implicated in the gang rape of a policeman in drag". How could that not be fantastic?And, truth be told, it is pretty fantastic... just not consistently so. There are moments when the humor works in spectacular ways, although it is unlikely to make you bust your gut with laughter. Take, for instance, the moment where Gordon (Segal) leads his love to the bedroom. When trying to lay her down on the bed, she instead stands and in the passion of kissing, he ends up standing on the bed as well. She manages to mention that they are still wearing their shoes, and so while kissing voraciously and while standing on the bed, Gordon attempts to remove both his and her shoes. That's funny, real clever, but not gonna leave tears in your eyes.The plot is plenty wacky. Gordon promised his father on his deathbed that he would take care of his senile mother and not place her in a nursing home. That promise has caused him nothing but anguish, however, as his mother's condition has only worsened. She throws juvenile tantrums, embarasses Gordon by pulling his pants off when guests are in the apartment, and yells constantly. He's at his wit's end. Meanwhile, Gordon's brother Sidney is trying to make it across town to help cool the situation, but runs into a gang of troublemakers in the park who decide to steal his clothes when he has no money. Then later, he wears a gorilla suit and... well you know the rest.Does it make sense? No, and it's when the movie really allows itself to enjoy its own absurdity that it hits the mark. When Gordon's love tells him that she has bought a plane ticket and is going home, his first response is, "Where is home?" Which only leads to a protracted discussion about Waukegan, Illinois. That's the kind of stuff that makes the movie enjoyable. It's just too bad that a lot of the rest of the movie is slow and doesn't often hit in the same way.The cult movie book of mine admits that Where's Poppa? is "an acquired taste", and that may be the case. It's oddball happenings remind me of the work of Joe Minion and of the 1989 movie Twister. Those movies worked better, it seems to me, because there was more urgency to them. The plot (what plot there is) moves forward much more smoothly in those movies than this one, which works much like a play - there is no sense that one thing necessarily leads to the next here, so much as one thing just happens to precede the next. If the script had been allowed to go through one more draft, Where's Poppa? could have been close to perfect. As it stands, there's too little tying it together, really, to work as well as it ought to.

Hunter W (mx) wrote: Jake Gyllenhaal is so uncomfortably bone chilling and is largely the reason why Nightcrawler works so well, but do not underestimate its stylish direction and intense final 30 min.

Alex M (mx) wrote: This is most challenging film to due date in MCU! The story of this in the ground world is brilliant; praise the writers. An amazing origin story for both Thor and Loki.

Yusuf S (ag) wrote: Loved it! The story (even though it is an adaptation of Othello), the songs, the dialogues and the cinematography. All of the actors were brilliant at their roles but most of all, Saif Ali Khan really played his character devilishly well as Langda (Iago) the bad guy.

Emma r (fr) wrote: i used to live there!!!

Avone K (br) wrote: A solid UK martial arts indie action movie, shot & directed well with some great fight scenes although not enough of Zara! lol

Alonso A (jp) wrote: Expressionistic visuals, enthralling performances, excellent characters, an intimate and expansive story. Chungking is just plain beautiful, and the perfect gateway into Wong Kar-wai's filmography.

Brandon M (mx) wrote: There's a lot of ideas rattling around in Born in Flames but little precious plot to tack them to. This aggressively feminist, aggressively independent film isn't much of a "movie" it's a bunch of different scenes of women either fighting against some sort of revolution and protesting to keep their jobs and the death of one their leaders is shoddily covered up to look like a suicide leading them to resort to violence to get what they want. But that takes up about 15 minutes of the movie. My favorite aka the worst scenes of the movie are montages of women working at their various jobs while the god-awful titular song drones on in the background- if only this was entertaining enough to be campy.

Steve W (ag) wrote: A low budget nostalgia fest. A large radioactive mutated octopus terrorizes everything and everyone. Some of the shots are dated, but the chaos is present and the special effects try their hardest.

Grant S (br) wrote: Walter Neff is an insurance salesman for Pacific All Risk Insurance Company. He falls for Phyllis Dietrichson, the wife of a client of his, and is drawn into a plan to kill Mr. Dietrichson and pocket the insurance money. Between the two of them they come up with the perfect murder, so good it not only looks like an accident, but ensures that the insurance pays out double the usual sum insured - double indemnity. Between them and the money stands Barton Keyes, Pacific Insurance's Head of Claims. Experienced, wily and possessing a sixth sense for claims fraud he is a formidable adversary...Brilliant crime drama - a film-noir classic. Written by Raymond Chandler book and directed by master-director Billy Wilder, this is great on so many levels: the clever plot (especially the murder plan, which is so good you almost want them to succeed); the snappy, often funny, dialogue and the excellent, engaging performances. Moreover, there's a smoothness and coolness about this, a hallmark of film noir.Only things missing from making this one of the greatest movies of all times is a good twist and possibly less predictability. The use of flashbacks to tell the story sort of gives away the direction the plot is taking.Good work by Fred MacMurray as Neff, Barbara Stanwyck as Phyllis and Edward G Robinson as Keyes. In hindsight, Humphrey Bogart would have made a better Neff, but then you could say that about any 1940s role requiring a cool, tough, smooth-talking, wise-cracking male lead. Fred MacMurray does well and doesn't really put a foot wrong, but I kept thinking "Imagine Bogie in the role...".Barbara Stanwyck got a well-deserved Best Leading Actress Oscar nomination for playing Phyllis.The film itself garnered seven Oscar nominations but no wins, losing out on Best Picture to Going My Way, the so-so musical starring Bing Crosby. Billy Wilder got his first Best Director nomination and fourth writing nomination for Double Indemnity. He would have to wait for his next movie, The Lost Weekend, for his first win.

Blake P (de) wrote: "Cruel Intentions" is a marvelously devious teen film. Why, then, must it undermine what it has going for it during its last act, where malevolence turns into predictable, gooey trite, and where snappy sardonicism becomes sluggish and frustratingly moralizing? This is a movie that rides high on the fumes of manipulation, sex, and luring self-regard, and yet it closes itself off with an ending better suited for a teenage comedy. Villains, more or less, are the central characters of "Cruel Intentions," and I'd be lying if I said a part of me didn't want to see them be victims of petty revenge. But must it be done so artificially, so tactfully? I can't let the failure of its finale get the best of me, because most of the film works. A modernized rendition of classic French novel "Les Liaisons Dangereuses" (1782), it takes the sinful escapades of its source and successfully makes its erotic hoodwinks undeniably entertaining. We've seen its story many times before, brought to the screen five or so times with similar air. Unfamiliar with the most widely celebrated adaptation, the 1988 version, I'm perhaps the best sort of viewer for "Cruel Intentions," aware of the expectations of the plot but not so familiar with them that it inhibits my enjoyment. The adult, aristocratic characters of novel are traded in the film for an attractive teenage (played by twenty-somethings) ensemble well-suited for this kind of material (with the exception of Selma Blair, who takes coy to levels better fit for a child actress trying to make the transition into adult roles). It stars Ryan Phillippe as Sebastian Valmont, a poor little rich boy whose good looks and sly flirtations have made him an infamous womanizer. He savors his ability to seduce nearly any woman he wants, consequence slim because of his high familial status and because of the way he looks like an Abercrombie model on his day off. But his sexual conquests are only distractions from the girl he really wants. She is Kathryn Merteuil (Sarah Michelle Gellar), his provocative stepsister. Their respective parents have married only recently, and an animal attraction has existed ever since. But Kathryn is a twisted scoundrel of a woman, and, like Sebastian, uses the opposite sex like a dog chews up rawhide. But unlike Sebastian, Kathryn doesn't even seem to enjoy sex - she wallows in the process of temptation, but isn't so much enamored when the point of her being irresistible comes to a close. So while she likes Sebastian, and while Sebastian clearly likes her, she holds him off. Until a nefarious scheme pops up in his mind. He is planning to seduce Annette Hargrove (Reese Witherspoon), a girl-next-door of a blond who has achieved mini-fame from Seventeen magazine for an article in which she expressed her desire to remain a virgin until marriage. Since she's the daughter of Sebastian and Kathryn's new school headmaster, she'll be arriving shortly, Sebastian determined to put an end to her virtue almost as soon as she sets foot in the city. Kathryn, intrigued, makes a deal with her stepbrother. If he fails to entice Annette into a one-night-stand, she gets his enviable sports car. If he succeeds, he can have her all to himself for a night. Sebastian, wanting Kathryn more than anyone, takes the offer. Little does her know, however, that Annette is not the kind of girl you just seduce and destroy; she's the kind of girl you love and cherish, feelings he thought were only found in optimistic tall tales. "Cruel Intentions" is a classic instance of a film that begins with premier promise but invariably descends into bittersweet melodrama that doesn't suit it. For its first forty-five minutes, it is a terrific piece of teen soap opera, scenes written with pertinacious smash, the acting certifiably overblown in a good way. The evil of Sebastian and Kathryn is devilishly pleasurable to watch, their selfishness disconcertingly cerebral to watch. We, despite our best judgments, like watching them plot to destroy the lives of others. Compulsively fascinating villains are a difficult thing to write, and writer/director Roger Kumble brings the sinuous zest of his source to life with modern freshness. To transform Choderlos de Laclos's words into a teen movie is no easy feat, but Kumble does the impossible and makes a film depicting adolescent sex and malice with believability. For the most part. "Cruel Intentions" is a lot of fun until it isn't anymore, until its theatrics begin to lose their acidity in trade of unwanted sentimentalism. I despise the subplot involving Kathryn's ruining of Cecile (Blair), a virgin who stole a potential love interest, not necessarily because it isn't well-written but because Blair's performance so thoroughly destroys the careful camp Kumble so deliciously writes. Also despicable are the film's depiction of gay characters (one is seen throwing his Judy Garland CDs in the trash after a breakup, another a stereotype of misguided, stereotype enforcing femininity), and its usage of a black man as a token temptation rather than an actual person. But one can't expect a film of "Cruel Intentions's" tawdriness to be completely agreeable in its every move, and I suppose it is to be predicted that an elite piece of Hollywood popcorn might have a problem with authenticity. But there's also a lot to revel in in the film, from Gellar's fantastic performance (and her chemistry with Phillippe) to Kumble's savagely smart treatment of it all. If its final act weren't such an uneven mess, I might call it a guilty pleasure. But guilty pleasures should bring no pain, and the conclusion to this film does. It comes close to being adequate soap opera, but not quite.

Louise D (jp) wrote: While melodramatic and jingoistic in the extreme, the film still has value because of the extraordinary, stirring fighting scenes, made almost entirely without special effects, and the sparkle of Clara Bow.