A documentary of insect life in meadows and ponds, using incredible close-ups, slow motion, and time-lapse photography. It includes bees collecting nectar, ladybugs eating mites, snails mating, spiders wrapping their catch, a scarab beetle relentlessly pushing its ball of dung uphill, endless lines of caterpillars, an underwater spider creating an air bubble to live in, and a mosquito hatching.
A documentary of insect life in meadows and ponds, using incredible close-ups, slow motion, and time-lapse photography. It includes bees collecting nectar, ladybugs eating mites, snails ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Microcosmos torrent reviews
(ca) wrote: Like its Superman/Batman predessesor it feels little more than a series of animated action sequences. The attempt to make it a coming of age story for Supergirl could have been good but Supergirl is never made an interesting character. Its a remake of an episode from Superman the animated series and other than better animation offers nothing over its episode version
(nl) wrote: this movie is awesome
(ag) wrote: I have seen quite a few European animated features over the years and most of which, have been just about watchable.So when A Monster In Paris arrived, I was a pretty much in the same boat even before viewing... Regardless, I took our 2 kids along and was pleasantly surprised!Yes a few jokes fall flat, but hey - the attention to detail and musical numbers quickly take that away and leave you with a huge smile on your face. That noted, we watched it again last night and the kids are still singing the songs this morning...A Monster In Paris is a delightful family film, void of the over powering Disney Pixar and even Dreamworks moral crap that is thrust in our faces. This is just genuine fun and beautiful to watch!Enjoy!!
(jp) wrote: a real combination of talented actors and director. whatever the showed are right. Certainly this is not like other bollywood movies.Like. . i real life no one sings and dances(duets). In here songs are only in the film they are working on and the title music. But one scene is matching with the movie August Rush. No minus mark. And in the starting... when they are showing the credits, they are showing it actually. Like... when the showed the costume designer's name..they showed the real costume designings and when they showed the director's name...they showed the theater. Really a different idea... never saw something like that.
(br) wrote: i loved the first hallff
(kr) wrote: EdTV is a frustrating film for me to think about, let alone watch. It begs comparison to 1998's vastly superior The Truman Show (my favourite film, if you're interested), but it can't hold a candle to that classic. It invites it's audience to ponder the questions raised by the (at the time) burgeoning popularity of Reality TV, mostly because it refuses to engage them itself. And worst of all , it wastes the considerable talent of Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson, among others. And to top this infuriating film off, the director whose name signs the whole thing off is Ron Howard, who is capable of so much more. *Sigh* Average joe Ed Pekurny is selected by True TV executives as their new money-maker, as star of 'EdTV', a 24-hour broadcast of this one man's life. Immediately, the film opens up a world of possibilities for itself. There's the strain put on Ed's relationship with his family (particularly his brother Ray), the reaction to Ed's fame by strangers and friends alike, and obviously the development of Ed's own character when he's broadcast to the world all day, every day. The film is even studious enough to delve into the character of the show's creator (played by Ellen DeGeneres), whose mistreatment by True TV executives (in particular, Rob Reiner's arrogant True TV President) fuels her desire to see the show succeed. Yet, with such promise comes great capacity for failure, and EdTV is a failure. It never truly explores the interesting plot lines it sets up, and doesn't even try to be the kind of interesting or dramatically enriching film that The Truman Show is. Instead, it wastes the talents of it's cast, refuses to ask the kind of questions you'd expect, and doesn't even capitalise on the escalation that most films of this variety do. No resolution is provided for the interesting plotline involving Ed and Ray's absentee father, nor is the gradual face turn of Ellen DeGeneres' character met with any satisfying act of goodwill. That's a problem that I feel lies with director Ron Howard. The writing is cliche, sure, but the the cast never quite phone it in (even if nobody really gives it their all). Instead, scenes are completely tonally inconsistent, and it's maddening. There's a scene early on in the film where Ed discusses the TV deal with his family around the dinner table. This should have been a light, mildly inspirational scene (you know, where the protagonist promises his dependents the sun, moon and stars), but it was played with too much of a satirical, borderline cruel tinge, and came across as more condescending than uplifting. Then there's the supporting characters. Characters like Ed and Ray's sister come in and out of the film, mostly when there's a joke to be made. No resolution is provided for the sister character, or her seemingly self-destructve relationship with the terrible frontman of a local band. The worst example of the film's dispensable peripheral characters is Elizabeth Hurley's femme fatale character. She is set up as something of an antagonist, the popular attractive obstacle for Ed to overcome, before his inevitable reconciliation with love interest Shari (Jenna Elfman). Unfortunately, Hurley's character is given a modicum of characterisation before she shuffles off into the sunset. It's maddening. That's not to say the film doesn't have it's redeeming elements. As I said, the cast is strong (McConaughey, Harrelson, DeGeneres and Reiner are all memorable and committed), but poor writing and inconsistent direction really detract from that. And the film does have some great ideas. Even if it hadn't asked the philosophical questions The Truman Show had, it could have been a seriously compelling look at the skeletons that emerge when a family is scrutinised by millions. Yet again however, it's a totally underwritten idea that amounts to naught by the film's run time. The film's visual style is similarly fatiguing. It's not bad, necessarily, but it's aiming for that in-your-face, highly-colourful, look typical of ads or music videos, presumably in an attempt to keep with the film's themes of voyeurism and media control. Unfortunately, as the film descends further into the pit of bad comedy, the film's style becomes more and more grating, until it gets tiring to watch. EdTV is the kind of film that I would simply suggest you avoid. It's not as bad as say, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, but I would recommend that monstrosity over EdTV for morbid curiosity, the pretty visuals, or even the acting. EdTV, while a better film, is the kind of forgettable, pointless film that should never have come to fruition, especially after The Truman Show. EdTV gets a 4/10.
(kr) wrote: 109th Movie of 2010! A highly unusual, sort-of mess of a movie. But still very well made, and it's eccentricities help it become perhaps the best movie Romero ever made that doesn't include rotting flesh.
(es) wrote: Notoriously blocked from official release, "Cocksucker Blues" follows the matured Rolling Stones at the peak of their onstage powers: the expansive 1972 tour, supporting the landmark "Exile on Main Street" album.Presumably inspired by the guerrilla style of D.A. Pennebaker's "Don't Look Back," "Cocksucker Blues" has choppy editing, erratic sound and lots of handheld camera work, and treats live performance as a mere sidelight to the group's backstage antics. Musically, the footage includes exciting chunks of a few classic songs (particularly "Midnight Rambler," "Happy," "Street Fighting Man" and a chaotic "Uptight/Satisfaction" medley with guest Stevie Wonder), but the prime focus is on depraved action away from the spotlight. Such scenes feel like re-edited home movies, with no direct interviews and plenty of trivial chat which provides little character insight. Given this casually voyeuristic tone, the film's highlights can be ticked off like a frat party's code violations. We see shooting up. Cocaine. Naked girls. Roadies gone wild. Mick Jagger's ass. Keith Richards throwing a TV out a window. A getaway trip to a pool hall. A woozy room-service call which botches the simple act of ordering fruit. Glimpses of Truman Capote, Andy Warhol, Tina Turner, Dick Cavett, Terry Southern, Bianca Jagger and Ahmet Ertegun. There's also a charming snatch of impromptu, New Orleans-style piano from Richards.Surprisingly, what we don't see are the other three Stones. Charlie Watts and Mick Taylor are just occasional shadows flashing into view, and the ever-mysterious Bill Wyman scarcely appears at all."Cocksucker Blues" easily deserves a public release, but the depiction of heroin use was presumably the dealbreaker. It doesn't transcend its genre in the way "A Hard Day's Night" and "Don't Look Back" do, but it's a treasure for the classic-rock set.
(it) wrote: Suspenseful thriller with the unlikely pairing of Peck and Loren. Worth checking out.
(br) wrote: No it isn't Mean Girls or even Easy A for that matter, but The DUFF won me over due to Mae Whitman and Robbie Amell's considerable charms. Not a classic, and the ending is a bit too clich, but given the supremely low standards I had upon viewing, I was pleasantly surprised. Rating: 68
(kr) wrote: Mall Cop is cheesy, predictable, and simple but Kevin James is likable in this movie and does some laughs. I did enjoy Mall Cop because when i saw it as a kid it brought a fun exciting plot that caught my attention. The supporting cast is OK but has some dumb characters like the banker and red head that don't do a very good job. As I watch it today it still has some elements of the plot to make me enjoy this film. Its an adventure that brings laughs and amusement that many kids will enjoy and find very amusing.