Five young people are driven by primal human instincts - to escape, find thrill, seek revenge or wait for destiny. And one old wizened man is trying to touch upon their minds. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Not a Fairy Tale
Five young people are driven by primal human instincts - to escape, find thrill, seek revenge or wait for destiny. And one old wizened man is trying to touch upon their minds.
You may also like
Not a Fairy Tale torrent reviews
Niklas S (it) wrote: This movie really teaches you that you should watch out for rednecks living by themselves in the woods. Or just stay out of the woods in general.
Jeffrey H (ag) wrote: The structure of the movie is a bit fussy, if you are not paying too much attention, you will get lost. Overall the movie brought up a message about life and death.
Seraphic W (de) wrote: I have a fundamental problem with any sort of propaganda, no matter how tightly made or to what degree the veil weaved of good intentions and incredible talent weighs down on it with quality.
Mark D (us) wrote: I couldn't figure out what I thought of this as I watched it. I guess generally it's to do with how when you focus on something, and someone, on life that has been, it all gets somehow stylised and strangely made into something that often seems a shallow representation of what it is trying to show. Real life has a whole mass of peripheral reality that gives it a saturation and context, grit, whatever, and somehow this is missing here. Each scene is focusing on recreating some anecdote, and it becomes an unreal-seeming semi-parody of that event with everyone too limited to their 'role' in it, the event itself not having a broad enough context with life at large, and somehow the whole thing is missing something. Maybe it's a fundamental missing of a certain wisdom about film-making and forgetting to surround each thing with less controlled life, everything outside of the centre of each scene seems somehow very contrived and flat. I'd suggest some cardboard acting here and there contributes to it, but it's not all bad and that's not the main problem, but it's in the way it's made. At the beginning it really seems like a very shallow teen music channel reconstructed fake documentary biography of the making of a band (interviews, played by the actors, etc.). Later it gets more grit, substance and context, but somehow never really makes it, all the context being made up of simple little chunks of ideas about life (his dad died, he starts to cry a couple of times (out of the view of others), he takes drugs randomly and wantonly, etc.). And, of course, I didn't know the Germs or Darby Crash, only first heard and got into them about '84 or something, was never in the LA punk scene, etc., but somehow I imagine this film must come over to anyone who was actually there at the time as an ambiguous mid-point between portrayal and parody, and that's without the more obvious things, like events being far too simplistic and people far too one-dimensional (like Rodney Bingenheimer, or the scene with the Damned, or this woman 'Amber', and even how Don Bolles is sent up a little and stuff, or how the Screamers are made too look like a bunch of 'poncy' idiots prancing about with some new wave nonsense, when they were so much not that, so much more interesting, dangerous, no bullshit, etc. (I've heard enough and seen enough of their videos, etc. to know this, plus there's all the firsthand accounts)). So, I can't put my finger on it exactly, but it's all not sufficiently convincing. This is obviously a person and a life that provide a lot for us to think about, or should do at least, but we don't see deeply enough into the context and feelings of Darby Crash or his times or his own personal life, it all seems kind of packaged for simple digestion, despite not being 'polite' and 'clean', and not to have the subtleties of something more real, which I've no doubt would have been visible in Darby Crash and the people and happenings around him at the time. I can't express it properly, but, despite not shrinking from heavy things, coarse self-expression, hard drugs, confused sexuality, violence, indifference, hopelessness, suicide, etc., it all comes over as too narrow and too much still scratching the surface. Maybe this comes from the fact that Darby Crash is a mystery to everyone, that no-one really got what his situation was, and so it can't really be evoked here, and maybe it's a lot to do with the fact that his intense casting off of taboo and propriety touched people deeply and made him a hero to them, plus it seems he had a highly intelligent and charismatic way about him, but maybe ultimately he simply had normal, banal unresolved and powerful emotional issues lurking inside of him that pushed him to escape, to vent and ultimately to kill his own feelings. I don't know. I've meant for a few years to read the book about him, maybe it would give a better view and insight, but maybe the problem is that noone really could ever have or give that insight, that ultimately he was alone and messed up, and that's it. Though I still think this could have been made better. It's too much and too narrowly trying to simply convey certain events as told, and people as described, and does so much to communicate the central part of an event, or the more obvious or criticised (or praised) aspects of people, that those central parts become too much the whole, and life around it looks empty, and people don't come over as real (they just serve this event, they don't have a life outside of it), and the main aspects recalled by people become their only features, and they become unbelievable as human beings. Lorna Doom comes over the most believable, with Pat Smear coming second. Everone else seems too much to be enslaved to their 'role' here, even Darby Crash. Maybe he was trapped by a 'role' (like Sid Vicious), but I think the role he was squeezed into in this film has got to be narrower than the reality. Do you get me? It's a story well worth knowing and engaging with, but maybe no-one could really tell it properly. Again, I don't know. This is my impression, after having just watched this.
Eli P (jp) wrote: This was the directors first movie and they had five days to shoot it. All that considered it wasn't a bad movie at all.
Ryan E (de) wrote: A fun movie for kids.
Joseph R (ag) wrote: Great intill.... BOOM there went Jason's head
Nikolas G (de) wrote: Atom Egoyan have some better films
Raaj C (au) wrote: 1776 is an enchanting musical drama of on the founding of the United Stats of America based on the award-winning Broadway production. It pretty much leads everything up to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. It is the perfect way for ALL of us to get to know our history. The songs and music are downright wonderful and surprisingly helps bring up the tension in the film. The performances are highly stellar. The thing that REALLY brings this movie musical together is the dialogue and interaction. Every character, despite being based on actual persons, are really interesting to see when they move, talk, or sing. Ben Franklin is really likable and funny in this one. I think most people will like HIM the most. Overall, 1776 is a wonderful way to not only kick back and relax, but also to get to know our true history in a musical way. I am giving this film a 5/5 stars. Check it out! You will love it!
Kelly A (ag) wrote: Really liked this one a lot too. Paul Newman plays a guy who was raised by Native Americans and takes a coach ride with some people and some of them are so racist against Native Americans but don't know ^he was raised by them...they get held up and now depend on him to help them, lol. White people.
Cha t (gb) wrote: Little Joe hits sudden puberty and an overload wolfish testosterone.
Mitchell N (it) wrote: There's a decent film in here somewhere, but it's undone by the messy execution and scattershot storytelling.
Johnny L (ru) wrote: It pushed the envelope for its time, bringing to light an issue that was both difficult and difficult to understand when it was released.