Liberace: A Valentine Special

Liberace: A Valentine Special

N/A

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:60 minutes
  • Release:1979
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:Liberace: A Valentine Special 1979 full movies, Liberace: A Valentine Special torrents movie

. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Liberace: A Valentine Special torrent reviews

Keya A (kr) wrote: Worth watching over and over again. I was blessed enough to meet Miss Davis and have a long discussion about the state of black America. Awesome!

Lee H (gb) wrote: Kinda chilling in its own way

Ham W (gb) wrote: Muddled but elevated to a good film by Leonardo DiCaprio's superb performance

Edith N (ca) wrote: Marla Doesn't Have to Explain Her Art to You! According to Gwen, it's entirely possible that the reason abstract art does literally nothing for me has to do with how my brain is wired. This is also suggested by the fact that I am incapable of seeing Magic Eye images. There's something about how I see things that means that, instead of how Gwen sees a Jackson Pollock--"This line leads to this one, and they all blend, and it's like a story"--the thing it says to me, "Well, he certainly owned several colours of paint." So I literally did not understand how you could even tell a prodigy in abstract art (we'll get to that later), because while some of it was prettier masses of colour than others, it's all just colour. Roger has one of Marla Olmstead's paintings up on his review, and I thought, "My, that's a lovely blue she's using there." Whereas Gwen got horribly depressed at what she thought it was saying, reminded herself that she's not a child psychologist, and left the room. So. At any rate, when Marla was four, her father, Mark, saw her painting and decided that she was really good. You know, the way parents do. But he set Marla up with big canvases and complicated art tools, because he's also an artist and owns them himself, and started hanging her work on the wall. And then someone bought one, and then there were galleries interested, and then Marla became a Thing and was featured in the [i]New York Times[/i]. And then [i]60 Minutes[/i] did a story on Marla, suggesting that Mark at bare minimum helped Marla with her creations. This is not exactly made a difficult suggestion given some of what he's on camera saying to her. Suddenly, people who had been paying thousands, tens of thousands, of dollars for an original Marla creation had to decide if their paintings were worth as much if they weren't the sole work of an adorable four-year-old girl. Not that Mark and Laura Olmstead will acknowledge Mark coached her even a little. Which is frankly ridiculous. I mean, for one thing, I'm a little hesitant that Marla was physically capable of some of the things she supposedly does. She's supposedly painting 4' by 6' canvases. One of her canvases is divided in four almost exactly by heavy black lines. However, let's assume that every drop of paint on those canvases was put there by Marla, because I have no way of knowing for sure either way. We do have documentary evidence that Marla has at least gotten advice from her father. [i]60 Minutes[/i] hid a camera in her basement; the idea was that Marla paints differently on camera from how she does naturally, so if she didn't know the camera was there, it would capture the real Marla. Her parents knew it was there, but she did not. And we have, from that camera, her father telling her how to paint in fairly frustrated tones. He says it's the only time he did it and that he feels stupid about it, but I suspect what he felt stupid about was saying it where the camera could pick it up. You see, my biggest problem with the whole thing is not the truth of whether Marla painted every drop on her own or not--though she says at one point that her younger brother, Zane, painted something she's credited with. My problem is that Marla is a sweet, adorable, friendly four-year-old girl, and I don't like the idea of what all this could do to her even if she is the prodigy she's claimed to be. Perhaps especially if she's the prodigy she's claimed to be. She's a developing child, and there's this pressure on her to produce great art. She's important, because she's an artist. Marla Olmstead is twelve now, and while I don't follow the art scene, I can imagine what life would be like for a twelve-year-old abstract art prodigy. A quick Google search provides no current information about her; as far as the internet shows, this film is about the last thing to have happened to her. I hope this means that, after this, she was able to be a normal kid, but of course the website selling her paintings is still there. The reason Marla is considered a prodigy, apparently, is that she covers the whole canvas and uses layers of paint, which are supposedly things children don't usually do. To me, this frankly isn't enough. For one thing, Mike is an artist himself, which means Marla grew up exposed to art in the home. She knew that "grown-up pictures" cover the entire canvas, and doubtless she did it the same way Daddy did. Kids are like that. The other thing, though, is the claim that kids don't layer. This does not ring true to me. I remember doing that myself, and I was never much of a visual artist. I mean, isn't that pretty much what finger-painting is for all little kids? Teaching them how to layer their paints? I will say that, if Marla is directing her father as to what canvases she wants and selected the colour palettes for every painting I've seen herself, that's an eye few little kids have. On the other hand, the thing which freaked Gwen out was the frustration she thought was being shown by all those soothing blues and greys with stark red splashed on top of them. I suspect a tell-all book will reveal the truth someday one way or another.

San D (mx) wrote: Thought this was a good laugh. Some of the scenes were hilarious!

Candace D (nl) wrote: Very sweet and romantic movie

Corbin R (au) wrote: One of Scott's poorest films. The first two minutes are so promising that what follows is incredibly disappointing. I can't recommend this film. It's completely unsatisfying.

Charlie M (ca) wrote: English woman drives cattle away from Japanese militia in this slow drama that never finds its narrative.

Andreas R (it) wrote: This film is fantastic, and by that I am obviously not talking about Hitchcock or Welles type fantastic, but man-who-turns-in-to-poop-and-kills-people type fantastic. If you are disgusted by the premiss you're going to hate it, but if you think it sounds hillarious, you're going to love it -because this work of art is exactly what you think it will be.

Tom H (fr) wrote: I saw this when i was 5 over 20 years ago. So my rating is solely based on memory. i am sure if i saw it today, it would suck.

Private U (mx) wrote: the aftermath of once were warriors..

Cody C (de) wrote: Feels like an extra-long episode of Tales from the Crypt, but doesn't drag at all. If you like that sorta stuff, you'll love this. I can't believe I hadn't heard of this one before, should be a cult classic.

Greg C (mx) wrote: From what I can remember this was pretty bad.

Kristin L (it) wrote: Fantastisk stemningsfull film! Ganske interessant historie ogs, og passe mye grr. Nydelige klr og omgivelser.

Michael G (ag) wrote: Typical nicholas cage movie

Temyah W (es) wrote: It's a corny comedy! What's not to love?

Charlie M (ag) wrote: People often tell me that they don't like Woody Allen movies because they find him annoying, but what is often overlooked is his skill at making a dramatic film. While Interiors is weighty and overwrought Match Point is daringly reserved in-spite of it's dark and foreboding tone. This is a moral & philosophical thriller that accomplishes an operatic level of tension, which Crimes & Misdemeanors only skimmed the surface of. A film about class & luck, two social climbers try to make their way into a wealthy family, but only one has the grace and wit to succeed. Jonathan Rhys Meyers' Chris is well-mannered and modest but he's equally detached as he stealthily maneuvers his way into success. Scarlett Johansson's Nola on the other hand is blatantly rudderless with only her sensuality to keep her afloat. While the two have the same aims, their unbridled lust for one another could disrupt both their paths.The third act of this film is my favorite. It's a calmly sadistic in it's tension as every slight movement and choice of the character brings into question what will get these two caught in the act. Having seen this 3 times already I was surprised by how much anxiety I had, despite knowing the outcome. There are long moments of artful quietness but the tension comes from knowing that luck is the only determining factor.For a director who has made 50 movies over the past 48 years some of the best Woody Allen movies are the ones that have the least of his fingerprints. This is the first of his 2000's European career renaissance which includes Vicky Cristina Barcelona & Midnight In Paris. Both of those films are very Woody-esque, whereas Match Point has fewer recurring themes and is a half-hour longer than almost all of this movies. There is doomed adultery, unresolvable sins, nihilistic life views, henpecking mothers, the absence of sensuality within marriage and a moral dilemma. But what it doesn't have is monologizing or humor. Chris has dilemmas and judgements but he never discusses them. His greed and passions are private, and in the end he has to live with the darkness in his empty, albeit lucky world.