Nick Swardson: Seriously, Who Farted?
Nick started stand up at the age of 18. In his first year of stand up he was chosen to perform at the U.S. Comedy Arts festival. In 2000, he hit a milestone in his career when he taped his Comedy Central half-hour special at the age of 22 (the youngest to do so). More recently, Nick wrote and starred in the Happy Madison-produced films Grandma's Boy and Benchwarmers.
The biggest names in stand-up. The wildest live audiences. The most outrageous, uncensored comedy. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Nick Swardson: Seriously, Who Farted? torrent reviews
(gb) wrote: Tyylitelty vheleinen leffa.
(br) wrote: This is an example of a sequel gone bad. I liked the first movie the best. This one lacked focus and seemed to drag on and on. And I hated Janet Jackson's story line and the ending. Tasha Smith's character was also too overdone! Sharon Leal and Tyler Perry's story was also bad. He keeps having to forgive her and moving on. No real drama once he found out she was cheating. And what was that scene with all the guys telling him it was ok if she promised to stop!!? Not realistic at all. Overall, I really didn't like this movie. It had some funny moments, so that's why it's not a 1-star.
(us) wrote: Bad. Just plain bad. I've not seen a worse horror movie in my entire life. Apart from like 20 seconds, there's not one scary scene in the movie. That being said, I think Ram Gopal Varma has lost his touch.
(it) wrote: Hands down the worst movie I have seen in my life. It was like they made the movie to try get a band noticed at times as there was music contantly playing in scenes where it was annoying. And it sounded like the same band throughout the whole movie. And I've never seen a more bland plot and acting. I wish I could give it less than half a star
(ru) wrote: You could probably consider this the Jewish version of "Facing the Giants," but this movie is much less cliche, features a lot more acting talent, and has an off-beat sense of humor. It may bore some, but it's interesting if you get into it.
(jp) wrote: una comedia italiana para nada cheesy que es romantica y con un tema muy discutido ,el amor :P desde diferentes fases y asi como e...muy chula,buena,para nada cansona...fresca,buena,graciosa y romantica...cine europeo..excelente
(au) wrote: Entertaining decent slasher. Could have used more gore and more nudity. The story is a bit stereotypical "I told you not to go up to that mountain!" and victims that annoy in the first ten minutes. The soundtrack is a bit too 90s melodic punkrock, could have used any other kind of music. You`d expect if a girl gets chased by an axe murderer she put some pants instead of just underpants with a puma motive.
(us) wrote: Jerry, Jerry ...oh no.
(fr) wrote: The visuals in "Little Nemo" are terrific but the english vocals, sound effects and music are awful. The story follows Nemo, a young boy who is brought to slumberland to become the heir of King Morpheus. Slumberland is the land of good dreams and a place where nearly anything can happen. It is populated by happy citizens and ruled by a benevolent king and his daughter, Princess Camille. Nemo's job as heir is to guard Slumberland against the Nightmare King, the terrifying demon-like ruler of Nightmare Land. Thankfully, the only bridge between the two worlds is blocked off by a great door and Nemo is given the only key. When Nemo is distracted from his royal duties by Flip, the most notorious and mischievous outlaw of Slumberland they accidentally unleash the Nightmare King. Now Nemo, along with his new-found friends must save the kingdom.The visuals of the film are truly dazzling. There's a lot of imagination in the different setting of the film and a nice contrast between the real world (which is New york in 1905), Slumberland and Nightmare land, who all look unique and distinct. There's also a wide variety of different characters, with mostly humans populating Slumberland but a variety of animals in that realm too (ranging from dinosaurs to flying ostriches) and in Nightmare land, the frightening goblins that plague our heroes range from bat-winged creatures that resembles flying monkeys to aquatic fish monsters. The crowning achievement in the creature design is the Nightmare King, who looks genuinely frightening and takes on a couple of forms that are a real sight to see. At first, he creeps through the doorway between the worlds as a black mist with red and orange lights crackling through the curves, oozing around the floor. The scenes where he attacks Slumberland in this form as spectacular and the movie is worth seeing just for the wonderful effects used to create these images. When he is seen in his true form, he's just as imposing and does look like a genuinely frightening villain for our heroes. Although this character is the one you'll likely remember best of all, all of the other characters are distinct from each other and well designed. They range from Nemo, who is just a small child in his pajamas, to Professor Genius, an older gentleman that's tall and thin to Flip, who's short and stubby and looks like a cross between a hobo and a clown. The models for the main characters are consistently drawn and their movements fluid so the quality is great throughout. The film is also peppered with visual gags that really work (my personal favourite being the montage where Nemo is trained in the ways of being royalty, including fencing, dancing, horseback riding and reading all at once). The animators really need to be praised for their work on the film.What really hinders the movie is the vocals and the music. It's not that the voice actors are particularly bad, but often they're just not given anything to do. For long stretches of the film Nemo's dialogue consists only of "Wowee!" "Woah!" "Oh No!" and "Woohoo!". You never really feel like you get to know him because despite being the main character he really doesn't have that much to say. Nemo's sidekick Icarus suffers similarly. Icarus is a flying squirrel so you don't really expect him to talk but he doesn't make animal noises either. He talk in a high-pitched distorted voice that you can't understand except for here and there when you'll hear a word or two. As for the Nightmare King, the voice he is given doesn't match the power of the visuals and just feels underwhelming. Looking at the film itself you're very impressed but then you're instantly let down the second the characters open their mouths to talk because most of the characters just aren't given any interesting dialogue. The one character who shows the real potential the film could have had is Princess Camille. Despite her limited screen time, her dialogue is sharp, funny and really builds up her character. You'll wish the story focussed more on her. Similar to the voice acting, the sound effects (particularly when there are large crowds) feel muted and underwhelming. The songs are not particularly well written or memorable either. It feels like the English version of the film was incredibly rushed and unfinished. With a story that's not particularly complex, this flaw really cripples the film at times.So here's what you've got ultimately: a movie that looks fantastic but has terrible sound. Not having seen the film in its original language I can only assume that nearly all of the problems would be fixed by seeing this story with the original Japanese track (which isn't available on all of the film's releases on Dvd unfortunately). For this English version though, it's still worth a watch, particularly if you're a fan of animation. For little children it will be particularly enjoyable because they won't be able to catch the flaws in the script, they'll just be impressed with what they see on the screen (that's not to say that children are stupid, it's just that they have less of an ear for dialogue than adults and are therefore less discriminating). If you find the dialogue that bad, just put it on mute and play your favourite music while reading the subtitles, it might actually improve the film. So yes, "Little Nemo" is worth a watch despite the major flaws because the animation is so good. Unfortunately what could have been a great animated film is made just ok by the music, dialogue and sound effects but it's really a personal matter wether or not this will make the film enjoyable or not for you. (Original Cut with English Dub on Dvd, August 2, 2013)
(ag) wrote: unreal.......long live the theatre
(ag) wrote: I understood the whole idea in this film about government not taking care of the people in our country, but after watching all these crazy antics Jimmy does in the movie it doesn't seem as important as him becoming a folk hero. So I think this movie was starting out good, but kinda got lost, so it's not the best.
(us) wrote: Cool film, especially since I have visited "the rock" myself, and then it is sort of a dokumentary of how the three prisoners in fact did escape from alcatraz.
(ag) wrote: Most of you think you'd know after watching Monty Python but you have no idea how funny this movie is. I'm surprised this film never made it big especially since it was released before all of Mel Brooks films. Gene Wilder and Donald Sutherland are hilarious together and the entire film is nonstop laughs from beginning to end. Its Blazing Saddles meets A tale of two cities and I dare say better than Monty Python why it didn't become a classic is beyond me.
(au) wrote: An amusing parody of the Elizabeth Taylor epic 'Cleopatra' (1963) that doesn't quite live up to expectations. Some gags work, others down't in this rewriting of history which, despite the title, focuses more on Julius Caesar and Mark Antony than the ditzy Queen of the Nile. Watch out for Kenneth Williams in top form.
(es) wrote: Aside from ptsd, most of the other aspects of the movie are far from believable.