Scandal Sheet

Scandal Sheet

A tabloid editor assigns a young reporter to solve a murder the editor committed himself.

The editor of a New York exploitation newspaper meets the wife he had abandoned years ago, while using another name, at a LonelyHearts ball sponsored by his newspaper. She threatens to ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Scandal Sheet torrent reviews

Alan W (nl) wrote: Two observations I'd make after watching this film: one is I am so impressed with the generally high quality of films in this year's Oscars; and the other is that Annette Bening was robbed of at least a nomination, if not the statue, for Best Actress as she gave a heartfelt, subtle and truly amazing performance in this film. Revolving around the sexually liberated and often unconventional characters writer-director Mike Mills grew up with as a 15 years old, in particular the special relationship with his struggling single mother which Bening plays, the film is a fascinating characters studies - note the plural - and what the film lacks in a substantial story, it more than made up for in the witty and thought provoking observations the film make about growing up in the 70s. Wes Anderson, Woody Allen and even Armistead Maupin all appear to have influenced the writing and visual stylings of this often humorous and heart-warming film. And while sometimes that sense of nostalgia can be overwhelming and its use of stock footage could have been a bit more restrained, this is nonetheless a beautifully composed, delicate and often understating film that's well worth looking out for as it seems to have got lost in the particularly good Oscar season this year.

Brian D (nl) wrote: Not as bad has the title given for this movie.A slow build up to a reasonable middle to a good ending, nothing special but its doesn't make you feel that you wasted your time. Acting is above avenge with a couple of faces iv seen before. The deaths are pretty boring and could of been gorier but over haul apart from the shittiest titles its a o.k. horror flick.

Andrew W (es) wrote: Entertaining, a good movie!

Aodhan R (jp) wrote: This is one of the movies in which Steven Seagal starred in near the beginning of his film career. He's cast in 'Under Siege' as Casey Ryback, an ex-Navy SEAL and current chef who comes out of retirement to encounter a team of terrorists who have hijacked the battleship, in which he works on. It's packed with thrills and amazing shootout moments and martial arts mayhem performed brilliantly by Seagal. It's a worth watch and is a well remembered action flick. And with the casting of Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Busey as the main villains brings entertainment to the movie, due to the great acting. It's probably Seagal's best action flick!

Anthony M (it) wrote: Disturbing on so many levels.

Peter P (au) wrote: Oh George Burns! You dead guy,

JC S (us) wrote: True Confessions, theoretically sounds great. A period crime film based on the Black Dahlia starring Robert Deniro and Robert Duvall. Sounds like it's gonna be good, but it was really a disappointment. It seemed very dated. It just seemed to drag on and on. It was very slow. The performances were good but other than that, I didn't like it. The film is about two brothers, a cop and a priest, who are both somehow involved in a crime case which is not called the Black Dahlia in the movie but you can tell it's the same. It was very loosely based on the actual case because in the film it says the woman was kind of a whore going from man to man and making numerous sex tapes which is odd because I never thought there were sex tapes in the 40's when really the real woman Elizabeth Short, dated for dinner so she could eat. I don't think she cared to much about sex. It was boring and not that great. FOUR STARS!

Kevin J (us) wrote: Just no. I went in expecting a gritty prison/courtroom drama and instead I got a twisted, sadistic film that was not at all enjoyable to suffer through. On top of this, its portrayal of the Turkish people as absolutely barbaric and evil. However, even if I did buy that the Turks were this evil, I was unable to root for the protagonist, who I can only assume was intended to be sympathetic, due to his own barbaric and crazed actions, in addition to the fact that he should have been in jail anyways. It is not like he did not commit a crime. It almost felt as if the film was trying to convince us that the Turks were barbaric and evil and were out hunting for innocent Americans to jail. But, no, they were just looking for people smuggling drugs out of the country like Billy Hayes was.On the positive side of things, the acting from Brad Davis was very good. While I did not enjoy the film, I did enjoy his performance. His performance really elevated this film from being complete and utter trash to just complete trash.

Jordan K (kr) wrote: Maybe it's the hard vocabulary- or maybe it's just the fact that I don't really like musicals very much. I don't want to seem like a weirdo or anything, but I didn't like this one much. I don't really have a plot for this one, because it's just old colonial heroes singing ballads of all the Declaration stuff and eh, you know what I mean. I don't think that George Washington ever sang a tune about himself, same thing with John Adams or Ben Franklin. If you're that kind of person who doesn't like musicals like I do, then you won't like 1776. After all, John Adams never sung his anger. Is 1776 really like 1776? You answer that, fair reader.

Yuping L (it) wrote: we always love fairytales

Jeff B (ru) wrote: I wasn't sure I would be able to handle Rex Harrison as the King of Siam, but he manages to pull it off nicely. Very entertaining version of the classic story and a nice peformance from Irene Dunne as Anna. The sets and costumes are excellent and the score is nice as well. I also really liked Gale Sondergaard as the mother of the King's eldest son. A lot of nice and funny moments between Dunne and Harrison, I especially liked the scene where they write to Lincoln, as well as the dinner with the Europeans. I felt it lost a lot of its charm after Anna's son left the picture, but it's still a very fun movie.

Ola G (br) wrote: In 479 BC, one year after the famed Battle of Thermopylae, Dilios, a hoplite in the Spartan Army, begins his story by depicting the life of Leonidas (Gerard Butler) I from childhood to kingship via Spartan doctrine. Dilios's story continues and Persian messengers arrive at the gates of Sparta demanding "earth and water" as a token of submission to King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro); the Spartans reply by killing and kicking the messengers into a well. Leonidas then visits the Ephors, proposing a strategy to drive back the numerically superior Persians through the Hot Gates; his plan involves building a wall in order to funnel the Persians into a narrow pass between the rocks and the sea. The Ephors consult the Oracle, who decrees that Sparta will not go to war during the Carneia. As Leonidas angrily departs, a messenger from Xerxes appears, rewarding the Ephors for their covert support. Although the Ephors have denied him permission to mobilize Sparta's army, Leonidas gathers three hundred of his best soldiers in the guise of his personal bodyguard; they are joined along the way by Arcadians. At Thermopylae, they construct the wall made up of stones and slain Persian scouts as mortar, angering the Persian Emissary. Stelios, an elite Spartan soldier, orders him to go back to the Persian lines and warn Xerxes after cutting off his whipping arm. Meanwhile, Leonidas encounters Ephialtes, a deformed Spartan whose parents fled Sparta to spare him certain infanticide. Ephialtes asks to redeem his father's name by joining Leonidas' army, warning him of a secret (goat) path the Persians could use to outflank and surround the Spartans. Though sympathetic, Leonidas rejects him since his deformity physically prevents him from holding his shield high enough; potentially compromising the phalanx formation, and Ephialtes is enraged. The battle begins soon after the Spartans' refusal to lay down their weapons. Using the Hot Gates to their advantage, plus their superior fighting skills, the Spartans repel wave upon wave of the advancing Persian army. During a lull in the battle, Xerxes personally approaches Leonidas to persuade him to surrender, offering him wealth and power in exchange for his allegiance; Leonidas declines and mocks Xerxes for the inferior quality of his fanatical warriors. In response, Xerxes sends in his elite guard, the Immortals, later that night. Despite some Spartans being killed, they heroically defeat the Immortals (with slight help from the Arcadians). On the second day, Xerxes sends in new waves of armies from Asia and other Persian city-states, including war elephants, to crush the Spartans once and for all, but to no avail. Meanwhile, Ephialtes defects to Xerxes to whom he reveals the secret path in exchange for wealth, luxury, and (especially) a uniform. The Arcadians retreat upon learning of Ephialtes' betrayal, but the Spartans stay. Leonidas orders an injured but reluctant Dilios to return to Sparta and tell them of what has happened, a "tale of victory"...Since its world premiere at the Berlin International Film Festival on February 14, 2007, in front of 1,700 audience members, 300 has received generally mixed reviews. While it received a standing ovation at the public premiere, it was panned at a press screening hours earlier, where many attendees left during the showing and those who remained booed at the end. Some of the most unfavorable reviews came from major American newspapers. A.O. Scott of The New York Times describes 300 as "about as violent as Apocalypto and twice as stupid," while criticizing its color scheme and suggesting that its plot includes racist undertones; Scott also poked fun at the buffed bodies of the actors portraying the Spartans, declaring that the Persian characters are "pioneers in the art of face-piercing", but that the Spartans had access to "superior health clubs and electrolysis facilities". Kenneth Turan writes in the Los Angeles Times that "unless you love violence as much as a Spartan, Quentin Tarantino or a video-game-playing teenage boy, you will not be endlessly fascinated." Roger Ebert, in his review, gave the film a two-star rating, writing, "300 has one-dimensional caricatures who talk like professional wrestlers plugging their next feud." Some critics employed at Greek newspapers have been particularly critical, such as film critic Robby Eksiel, who said that moviegoers would be dazzled by the "digital action" but irritated by the "pompous interpretations and one-dimensional characters." Variety's Todd McCarthy describes the film as "visually arresting" although "bombastic" while Kirk Honeycutt, writing in The Hollywood Reporter, praises the "beauty of its topography, colors and forms." Writing in the Chicago Sun Times, Richard Roeper acclaims 300 as "the Citizen Kane of cinematic graphic novels." Empire gave the film 3/5 having a verdict of "Visually stunning, thoroughly belligerent and as shallow as a pygmy's paddling pool, this is a whole heap of style tinged with just a smidgen of substance." 300 was also warmly received by websites focusing on comics and video games. Comic Book Resources' Mark Cronan found the film compelling, leaving him "with a feeling of power, from having been witness to something grand." IGN's Todd Gilchrist acclaimed Zack Snyder as a cinematic visionary and "a possible redeemer of modern moviemaking." With "300" Zack Snyder began his journey into visionary filmmaking where he used green screens and effects in a very efficient and stunning ways. In some cases if really works ("Watchmen", "Man of Steel", "Batman vs Superman") while in other cases it doesnt ("300", "Sucker Punch"). "300" was built from Frank Millers graphic novel with historic events as the base and Zack Snyder has tried to put you as a viewer literally into the cartoon frames within the graphic novel and visually it works for the most. But, when Snyder has a less fleshed out script with very one-dimensional caricatures and characters he simply cant manage to engage you and everything becomes pompous, over acted with ridiculous and silly clich phrases as the red thread throughout the movie. You cringe when Gerard Butler screams "This is Sparta!"... Yes, it is based on something cartoony, but as Snyder showed in his adaptation of the fantastic graphic novel "Watchmen" if he has a solid storyline with depth he can succeed into making a graphic novel into something truly enjoyable and fantastic. "300" is a visual feast with great art direction and cinematography, but as said with such a bland script and development this can only be a disappointment. Trivia: The movie never claims to be historically correct, something which is addressed at length in the documentary The 300: Fact or Fiction? (2007) on the 2-Disc Special Edition DVD. The movie is based heavily on Frank Miller's 1998 comic book mini-series, also entitled "300". In the documentary Miller openly admits that he made many radical changes to the history and director Zack Snyder admits to making further changes. Snyder states that he was more concerned with making a film which would appeal to a wider audience, and creating an exciting and visually stunning action movie rather than a typical historical epic. Indeed, he further points out that the film is a subjective narration by Dillios (David Wenham) in an effort to spur his men, and as such, the narrative cannot be trusted as historically accurate or wholly objective. Snyder acknowledges that Dillios is not a man to allow truth get in the way of a good story, and that the point of the depiction is that it is specifically the Spartan perspective of the battle. In particular, Snyder cites the depiction of the Immortals. The Immortals were a real battalion, but they weren't demons, they were just ordinary men. However, in Dillios' narration, it is much more dramatic and heroic if the 300 fought off the attack of 10,000 demons rather than 10,000 men. As both Miller and Snyder argue, the film is not a realist piece. In an effort to get the studio executives to commit to making the movie, Zack Snyder and his team scanned every image from Frank Miller's graphic novel into a computer. They then removed all of the dialogue and descriptive prose, and added simple animation to each frame (such as burning fire, moving clouds, sparkling eyes etc.). They then edited these shots together into what amounted to an animated comic strip, and Snyder hired his friend Scott Glenn to record a voice-over narration for the piece. Snyder brought the film to Warner Bros., but they said they needed more to convince them that the movie could work. As such, he decided to shoot a live-action 'test' - a 90-second 360-degree continuous shot featuring a single Spartan killing several Persians. The combination of the animated comic images and the test convinced Warner Bros. that Snyder and his team were capable of making the movie. An extract from the animation as well as the entire test can be found as an Easter egg on disc 1 of the 2-Disc special edition DVD of the film.

Christopher H (au) wrote: Silly but enjoyable escapist sci-fi action and by far Roland Emmerich's best film. The big highlights are the awesome special effects and set designs, but I also find the world-building and imaginative genre-mashing (science fiction + action + biblical epic = Stargate) just as compelling. Plus I love the off-kilter chemistry between James Spader and Kurt Russell. I can't help but smile when Kurt Russell utters "Give my regards to King Tut asshole!!" It's a shame Roland Emmerich never returned to the Stargate universe, this film was supposed to be the first in a planned trilogy but Emmerich abandoned it in favor of making "Independence Day", but at least we got the long-running TV show.