Neil Young: Heart of Gold
In March 2005, Neil Young was diagnosed with a brain aneurysm. Four days before he was scheduled for a lifesaving operation, he headed to Nashville, where he wrote and recorded the country folk album PRAIRIE WIND with old friends and family members. After the successful operation and recovery period, he returned to Nashville that August to play at the famed Ryman Auditorium, once again gathering together friends and family for this special performance.
- Stars:Neil Young, Emmylou Harris, Ben Keith, Spooner Oldham, Rick Rosas, Karl T. Himmel, Chad Cromwell, Wayne Jackson, Pegi Young, Grant Boatwright, Diana DeWitt, Gary W. Pigg, Anthony Crawford, Tom McGinley, Jimmy Sharp,
- Director:Jonathan Demme,
A film shot over during a two-night performance by Neil Young at Nashville's Ryman Auditorium. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Neil Young: Heart of Gold torrent reviews
(es) wrote: Poorly acted, shoddy direction, flimsy story. Blech!
(fr) wrote: it's not too bad. But then I watched invasion of the pod people first and so just about anything is okay compared to that.
(kr) wrote: Full of effective scares and tense moments, Cloverfield is a skillfully crafted found-footage monster horror film, a heart-racing movie experience that takes your breath away. Although I didn't like any of the characters (pretty much everyone in the film makes poor decisions in such a life-threatening situation), I have to say that there are times in the film that I was genuinely scared. Kudos to the filmmakers. It's kind of brilliant in its own way.
(us) wrote: Some really good satire up in HERE!
(it) wrote: Wow, This is brutal, not so much a puppet master flick as it's a ripoff of 73' SSSSSSS with stock footage from the earlier movies .
(de) wrote: Future Cop, also known as Trancers is most countries, was not a film I had high expectations for. I simply wished for some cheap science fiction B movie fun. A clear attempt to capitalise on the success of Blade Runner, Trancers follows the same kind of story about a futuristic hunter of hostile beings who could potentially be killers. But the killers are a lot stranger. Although the story is about people able to travel through time into the body of an ancestor, it doesn't exactly explain that and therefore it is likely that viewers will be left with a lot of questions after watching Trancers. I was able to look it all up on Wikipedia, but I shouldn't have to. It didn't even explain how Trancers would somehow turn into zombies which was also a ridiculous idea. There are a lot of silly concepts in Trancers that aren't justified by its lacklustre storytelling which may disappoint some viewers.The visual and audio quality of Trancers is well. Due to the film being made on a clearly low budget, the quality of the camera is fairly blurry and the weird lighting manages to make everything seem very trippy. And that combined with the rough quality of the sound makes Trancers a very cheap experience. The sound is mostly composed of the same stock sound effects used repeatedly as well as a half-assed musical score made from a discount synthesiser. So you have to be able to look past the C-movie visual and audio quality of Trancers to appreciate its B-movie virtues. It was hard for me to do that though because I can usually enjoy cheap science fiction fun if I can see what is going on. But I struggled to see and hear it in Trancers, so the experience of the film is easily damaged by the lack of actual technical quality in the film. I would be able to ignore the cheap aspects of its filmmaking and it's cheesy visual effects if the quality f the camera and the microphone was better, but since it's not that proves to be the main source of negativity in Trancers. And it's a big one. With Trancers, it is annoying yet possible to look past the ridiculous nature of the story, but the technical weakness of the film proved too much for me, and it single handily made it simply impossible for me to enjoy the film for whatever it's worth. If I saw a remastered version then it's possible I could enjoy it, but as that is not the case I find myself disappointed with Trancers and able to enjoy merely few of its aspects.The few qualities of Trancers that I could enjoy were that although the film had a clearly low budget, it managed to create a decent production design for its futuristic setting. And it's action scenes were decent, and would have been better if the camera was of better visual quality. And the ideas that Trancers brings to the science fiction universe are interesting, such as the ability to slow a second to the rate of ten seconds for everyone but yourself. That was a cool idea.And the cast make a decent effort.Tim Thomerson's lead performance as Jack Deth is clearly a science fiction B movie parody of the famous action hero Dirty Harry, and there is even one moment reminiscent of Clint Eastwood's famous "do you feel lucky, punk?" speech. And for what it's worth, his performance is pretty much the best element of Trancers because he captures a great attitude for his character Jack Deth which fits the persona of a B-movie action hero really well. Tim Thomerson went on to become a popular cult movie figure because of Trancers, so at least some good does manage to come from it in the end. And his rough nature and firm line delivery makes him a convincing action hero, so he is a perfect choice for the lead in Trancers.And Helen Hunt makes a decent supporting effort. Years before she would go on to win the Academy Award for Best Actress for her performance in As Good as it Gets, Helen Hunt made an appearance in this low budget sci-fi flick in one of the key roles. And in a routine effort, she managed to do a good job by sharing an ideal chemistry with Tim Thomerson and not trying too hard. The role doesn't demand too much from her, and so she delivers pretty much just what it needs. And it proves to be a decent effort because her presence in Trancers is memorable.But despite a decent cast and some cool science fiction ideas, Trancers loses all of its credibility due to terrible visual and audio quality.
(gb) wrote: An interesting character study within a short rounded, yet over-long story that had to have two acts just to tell the story where barely any info is given at all. Juliette & Kristiin are dynamite on screen and the chemistry is shocking on how well they go together. This may the first movie Stewart has played where I can criticize to her and/or ridicule her. Because if I did for this movie, I'd have to be considered a judge mental monster. The story however did not play out with much thought as if the director was just focused on the scenery (which isn't bad at some cases) and everything else that I felt like not much emotion came into this as I expected there to be. I just felt like something was missing and in that it also felt too long of a movie too. If it were me, if have more on rehearsals of the play for act 2 but oh well. I guess it could if ended up as a more subtitle and human version of Black Swan or the laid back Birdman if it did. "C"