On the Eve of The Norwegian Day of Liberation - a whole nation is gearing up to get drunk and disorderly. Sam and Amir, two 15 year-old boys, have decided their night is going to be an epic. The boys have known each other almost all their lives, and are closer than brothers. But the next 24 hours will test the bonds of brotherhood. Sam has fallen for Thea, Amir's ex-girlfriend. He knows he has to tell Amir, but doesn't know how. When Sam finally summons up the courage to confess, Amir's reaction is far worse than he could ever have imagined. The long night turns into chaos as Amir embarks on a revenge-fuelled journey of violence and destruction. Can Sam and Amir forgive each other or is this the end of their friendship?
On the Eve of The Norwegian Day of Liberation - a whole nation is gearing up to get drunk and disorderly. Sam and Amir, two 15 year-old boys, have decided their night is going to be an epic... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Sylvester K (nl) wrote: I think this is one truly amazing film, who could've thought of making a documentary on Irish dancing? I was engaged through out the whole film, the editing was amazing and the individual stories were great too. It's an inspiring film that makes you feel good inside and out.
Tawseef R (it) wrote: it was okay, couldn't hold on to the tension that well.
Donnie M (es) wrote: This was insightful but kind of a let down. I enjoyed it but it just felt like a lot was left out. I guess after the Elm Street Documentary nothing will live up to expectations.
Maggie L (ru) wrote: Not as fun as the previous 2.
Larry T (ag) wrote: Informative documentary about Estonia's fight for independence from the Soviet Union through singing forbidden nationalistic songs. What's amazing is what is achieved without any violence or guerilla warfare.
Nora R (gb) wrote: Ending is out of place and a little humorous.
Brandon C (ru) wrote: I SAW A PREVIEW NOT BAD!
Logan M (de) wrote: Too many dull moments, but Jim Carrey manages to save the movie a little bit.
Jukka O (nl) wrote: Oikein viihdyttava leffa. Tulipa tamakin viimein nahtya. Oli VHS ainakin 10 v hyllyssa ja katsomatta jai kun meni rakapiknikmusavisapalkinnoksi
Allen G (nl) wrote: A hidden (yet very bright) gem in the work of Stanley Kubrick. His most visually-appealing film (and one of the best-looking films that I've ever seen, frankly) and a fabulous period piece that tells a surprisingly rewarding story about, well, Barry Lyndon (go figure).It's a beautiful film with outstanding performances and, as both a drama, and a period piece, it lives up to all expectations. It is well over three and a half hours long, however, and it's certainly not action-packed to say the least. Nor is it even that eventful overall.The beautiful visuals and generally calming nature of the film carry you through its length though and, whilst there's no hugely dramatic payoff, you don't feel like your time was wasted with this story. A unique work in Kubrick's filmography but certainly not an inferior one.
Maru M (au) wrote: Good campy fun. Billed as "The First Electric Western"... probably the only, at that. Electric guitars, gunfights, guitar duels and the late 60s... that more or less sums up this odd all-but-forgotten piece of film history.
Edith N (ca) wrote: Not as Terrible as I Was Expecting This is the second Ronald Reagan movie I've watched more out of idle curiosity than any real interest in the qualities of the film; let's hope this review doesn't get deleted in the same ignominious way as that for [i]Knute Rockne, All American[/i]. I shall be shooing the cat away if he comes within two feet of the keyboard. The thing is, I think you could tell a great deal about a person's politics back in the '80s by which movie they thought of Reagan's starring in. Republicans thought of him as the Gipper. Democrats thought of him as his character here, the inept psychology professor raising a chimp. Though honestly, I didn't know the plot of this one until I took it out of the envelope from Netflix yesterday. "Huh," I said. "That's what that movie's about." Then again, [i]Knute Rockne[/i] was in my head under "You know, a football movie." And it's not as though any of us were evaluating the movies based on Reagan's skill as an actor. So, then. He is, as I said, an inept psychology professor, Peter Boyd. He wants to marry the lovely Valerie Tillinghast (Lucille Barkley). However, her father, the dean of that fine institution (Herbert Heyes), opposes the match because Boyd's father had been a criminal, and of course all of that is inherited, meaning that the dean's grandchildren would be criminals. In order to show the dean the folly of his assumptions, Boyd hijacks Bonzo the Chimp from the lab for a psychology experiment. If he is able to instill manners in Bonzo and make him suitable for basic human interaction, that will mean that criminal traits aren't inherited. Of course. And he ends up hiring the also lovely Jane Linden (Diana Lynn) as his housekeeper and Bonzo's nanny. They pretend for Bonzo's sake to be a loving couple, giving rise to belief in family values Republicans would espouse for decades to come. Really, it's hard not to be snarky about this movie, and Reagan's presence only makes it worse. This is because the psychology and biology shown here are simply terrible. After all, we've brought cats and dogs into our homes, but that doesn't mean their wild relatives are equally ready to move in with us. Bonzo is specifically stated to be about two or three (and the department would know, because it's relevant), and that's largely because older chimps are less cute. All the ones you see in movies are babies, really, or anyway very young, because full-grown chimpanzees, if they are roused, are not at home to Mr. Reasonable. A full-grown chimp can damage a human pretty seriously, if it has a mind. As it is, I wouldn't want to be around a riled Bonzo, because even as a juvenile, they're still awfully strong. In the movie, it is reduced to turning over his crib and other wackiness, but in real life, well, chimps have pretty vicious teeth and a heck of a lot of strength. Pretending to cry will avail you naught. Oh, and ye Gods, the psychology. There is, after all, that whole pretending to cry thing. In the wild, chimps find smiling a threat--you're baring your teeth, after all--and have no concept of tears. It's also hardly doing something because you want to or think it's right if you do it to make someone stop crying. What's more, in the universe of the movie, nature versus nurture is seen as either-or, and the idea that nurture has anything to do with anything is shocking and radical. In this one, the nature/nurture debate has lasted for a very, very long time, and the general consensus has begun to be that the answer is yes. I'm aware that the movie was made sixty years ago, but that doesn't mean any of what happens in it was particularly valid psychology then. The idea that someone would prevent a man's marrying that person's daughter because his father was a criminal is more Victorian than anything. Any educated man of the twentieth century would be able to point to plenty of counterexamples to the very idea. All in all, this movie would have been forgotten decades ago if it had starred someone else. My understanding is that it essentially was until Reagan became President. It's a pretty forgettable movie, really. It's wacky. Cary Grant did something similar in [i]Monkey Business[/i], though admittedly only similar, and that's only memorable for its cast. (Including a very young Marilyn Monroe!) Honestly, I don't think anyone at the time expected it to become a genuine classic. I think they probably expected it to be what it would have been--a movie which people went to, laughed at, and utterly failed to take seriously. Plenty of movies like that get made every year. Within ten years, the assumption would be that, if anyone watched it again, it would be on television, perhaps on a Sunday afternoon when nothing else is on. It would have been that way; it was that way for a lot of years. But Reagan became President, and he tried to teach the country the same values he tried to teach Bonzo.
Adam R (us) wrote: Cary Grant shows off his acrobatic skills, but aside from that it is a total snoozefest much like The Philadelphia Story. (First and only viewing - 12/31/2014)
Russ V (ag) wrote: The story of Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman I found to be kind of boring. I ended up spending most of the movie on my computer while the movie was playing in the background. Altough I wasn't that surprised, as Mystery of the Batwoman is generally one of the less popular animated Batman movies.
Charles P (au) wrote: The seemingly standard setup is rife with style, tension, doubt, exciting twists, and nail-biting confidence.
Scott W (ca) wrote: Average thriller. Nothing more, nothing less.
Jesse F (us) wrote: Meester and Kelly do their best but the plot is intentionally misleading as a sleazy fright-free thriller.
Brad S (nl) wrote: I had skipped this on its original release due to the poor reviews, but decided to finally give it a try due to the mostly solid cast. Chris O'Donnell stars and I'm not really a fan of his, with his performance serving as a suitable reminder as to why. I do like a lot of the supporting cast though, including Bill Paxton, Scott Glenn, Temuera Morrison, and in early roles Alexander Siddiq and Ben Mendelsohn. The film is directed by Martin Campbell who did "Goldeneye" with Brosnan and "Casino Royale" with Craig, so overall I thought perhaps it would e mindless entertainment. I was wrong. The effects and stunts are terrible, it appears to be mostly shot in a studio which kept pulling me out of the film. This movie really just doesn't work. Skip it.