Schimb valutar

Schimb valutar

. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Schimb valutar torrent reviews

Patrick C (kr) wrote: Gregg Araki is back. The indie director hasn't made a film of any significance since 2004's Mysterious Skin which launched the film career of Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Mysterious Skin probably stands as his best work, and it's still almost impossible to recommend it as the lead characters recall the child abuse they suffered in graphic detail. In his early exploration of gay cinema (The Living End; The Doom Generation; Nowhere), Araki was never afraid to leer at the most taboo subject matter while usually throwing copious amounts of blood at the screen in the form of shotgun beheadings and Nazi castrations. Mysterious Skin showed a departure from the gore, and White Bird in a Blizzard is certainly now his most accessible work to date. When her mother played by the always fascinating Eva Green disappears, Kat Connor (Woodley) recalls her past troubles with her family's unhappy matriarch, consoles her depressed father, and explores sex with local hotties and the older police detective working the missing person's case (Thomas Jane). Shailene Woodley is all the rage right now as the star of YA blockbusters like Divergent and The Fault in Our Stars. Here she gets a more adult role - like the one in Alexander Payne's Oscar-nominated The Descendants - which suits her better as an actress. She also gets naked! Risky business for young starlets but it worked wonders for Anne Hathaway's career (Brokeback Mountain). It's all typical Araki though with some scenes working better than others, uneven acting, and a few perv-y moments thrown in just to remind us this is indie cinema. But it's a shame this filmmaker will probably never be given a chance to work mainstream. The potential has always been there.

Walter M (ru) wrote: Even after graduating primary school with all sorts of honors and awards, young John McGill(Greg Forrest) finds moving on to the next level no easy task, what with Canta(Gary Milligan) threatening him with bodily harm. Well, that's what big brothers are for, especially one as feared as John's brother Benny(Joe Szula) who takes care of the problem very efficiently. Sadly, John's headmaster thinks he will follow in his brother's footsteps, deciding not to place him in the top class like he feels he deserves. In any case, it takes John just a few months to prove him wrong. As a teenager, John(Conor McCarron) continues to get good grades on the way to university. And then... With his latest film, "Neds," Peter Mullan(he also has a small role as John's abusive father) takes his fimmaking to another level visually to complement the power of his words, with an ending that is more metaphorical than anything else. In fact, there are no speeches in this exploration of the working class teen culture of 1970's Glasgow. The central question is if somebody as smart as John cannot escape, then is there any hope for anybody else?(In an early scene, I get the feeling that his Aunt Beth(Marianna Palka) was wondering if she could smuggle him in her suitcase back to America.) As somebody who is vulnerable, John is corrupted by the allure of violence and power when hanging out with other kids in his neighborhood, without measuring the consequences. At the same time, the teachers here show little interest except keeping order.(To be honest, they teach Latin which I've never gotten close to learning.) There are signs of change over time, but none come close to challenging the local class order.

Eric V (mx) wrote: This movie didn't really tie together well or develop characters too deeply. Sure, the premise was interesting, but overall this movie didn't bring any new point of view or have anything really meaningful to say. Damaged war vets are people too! A little girl brings people together? yep.Not a bad film, but for all it's gravitas it doesn't deliver anything revelatory.

Marcia C (it) wrote: what was the last scene about?

Mohammed B (jp) wrote: "The best things in life are free.""- We will steal a car.- We can't steal a car!- Why not?- We are the good guys. Good guys don't steal cars.- Then we can steal a bad guy's car."such a beautiful one!!

HungYa L (ag) wrote: A twisted romantic relationship between an assassin and a 12-year-old. So very well made action movie with a clever script.

Hannah D (es) wrote: I really like Doris Day as a singer, and quite enjoyed this. Unfortunately I missed bits of it towards the end when I went to sleep, but that wasn't because I found it boring.

James B (de) wrote: 9 years late but now I see it. Works on many levels. Great movie.

Hayden L (au) wrote: Though it isn't the best sci-fi film that I've seen it certainly isn't the worst. The action is great, and the story is good (and original) so I can't really complain.

Lena V (ag) wrote: Twisted fact telling to accomplish some sort of political agenda is not fact-based. The acting is superb. But the unnecessary drama creating - NO! Really I expected more for something so praised and talked about...

Jesse O (ru) wrote: Meh. Doesn't really feel like its own unique film, rather it's a collection of a variety of different styles from other filmmakers. By and large, stylistically, in the way Peter Glanz frames his shots, I'm reminded of Wes Anderson. Thematically it almost seems like a bit of Woody Allen and Noah Baumbach. In short, it's a film that does not have its own identity. It's the very definition of derivative. That's not much of a problem if you tell a good story with the pieces that you have. Clearly, if you haven't noticed yet, this was not a good story. The film makes some reference, through one of its supporting characters in one conversation, to its own narcissistic lead characters and how that makes it hard to relate to any of them or to care about any of their 'struggles' since they never face consequences for any of their actions. Partly, this conversation is in there to make Peter Glanz look like he's a clever writer, in that he's aware this conversation I'm referring to could very easily be describing his own lead characters. And that sort of self-indulgent wankery, felt the need to be redundant, is counter-productive to the story that you would like to tell. The fact of the matter is that Peter Glanz, at least as of now, is not Wes Anderson, Woody Allen OR Noah Baumbach. He's likely never to be any of those three, so why even bother trying to imitate those three? It could be possible that Glanz thought he was making a film that was unequivocally him but it doesn't come across that way in execution. The film isn't even that bad, it's got some interesting pieces, such as the cast, which is probably the best thing about the film, and some insight into the mind of someone that is as affluent as Conrad and his thought-process. But it doesn't do nearly that I found interesting or that I found was actually good. It's not that the lead was unlikable. As long as a character is well-written, or interesting, then it doesn't matter if they're the biggest asshole in the world, at least they're telling a story that I would enjoy. Tying it back to Jason Bateman, Arrested Development has some of the most narcissistic, selfish, racist and unlikable characters in the history of any television series. But the fact that the show was so expertly written, and hilarious to boot, made it work. You don't have to like a character as a 'person' in order to enjoy what they're going through. I just don't think Conrad's arc as a character is something that I really wanted to invest in. Not that it's poorly written, it's just that, by and large, it really has nothing to say. It doesn't change my views on anything. The acting is pretty good, all around, so nothing to complain about on that front. That's, easily, the best part about this film. It's not like it's an all-time great cast, but they do their best with a script that almost cripples them from the start. That's the only reason, and Glanz's technical prowess, this gets two stars. With that said, I do look forward to Glanz's next effort. I think that if he focuses more on being himself, as opposed to be Woody Allen, Wes Anderson or Noah Baumbach, or any other independent filmmaker he may admire, then I think he could make a truly great film. With that said, this isn't terrible, but I wouldn't exactly go out of my way to watch it. You won't be missing absolutely anything of note if you skip this.

Shan C (es) wrote: 82%tomato lol?????bad movie