Simonal - Ninguém Sabe o Duro que Dei

Simonal - Ninguém Sabe o Duro que Dei


The story of one of Brazil's greatest singers of all time. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Simonal - Ninguém Sabe o Duro que Dei torrent reviews

Laura P (jp) wrote: I'm not sure who thought they needed to totally and completely alter a beloved story that is even more of a departure than "The Continuing Story". This one is completely unnecessary. Audiences loved Meagan Follows and Jonathan Crombie, so to introduce new actors and a completely invented story is a blow to all avid Anne fans. The books are fantastic and contain a lot more content about which to base a movie. It would be much better to make "Anne of Ingleside", "Rainbow Valley", and "Rilla of Ingleside" using the same actors who are likely old enough now to be believable in the roles. The idea of this film disgusts me, and I refuse to see it.

David C (au) wrote: For some reason, I like this movie... Maybe because I fell in love with the main character, Kristel...Horror movie? Not really... It's more like a... Gory/survival/thriller movie.

Brian Daniel L (it) wrote: with a young anna tsuchiya, this movie has a good elements of art and photography, Its great when the movie has some manga/anime elements on the plot the story is about the mening of the life, is beautiful

Michael D (au) wrote: Crazy made me eat less fast food. Spurlock is bold.

Ranny L (ag) wrote: Camp Nowhere is a very funny film that will keep you wondering what is going to happen next.Morris Mud? Himmel (Jonathan Jackson) has the same problem as his friends. He is getting sent to a boring summer camp. They hate going, and would do anything not to go. Together with his friends, he creates a plan to trick all the parents into sending them to a camp that he designs which would be a parent free world. Blackmailing former drama teacher, Dennis Van Welker (Christopher Lloyd) into persuading their parents into believing that the camp is the real deal and they are not allowed to visit.I love the film Camp Nowhere because you are always wondering if they get caught. I also like how the phrase no parents, no counselors, and no rules? basically describes the whole film. The background music fits perfectly with the scenes. I love the acting and think it is very believable. It feels so real. My favorite part in this film is when Dennis acts like all the different camp counselors. It is so funny when he has different hair styles and different clothes. When Dennis is acting like the camp counselors, it(TM)s funny to see that the parents actually believe him.Jonathan Prince is doing a great job in directing this fun and exciting film. The writers for this film are Andrew Kurtzman and Eliot Wald. It also stars the actors and actresses of Andrew Keegan playing the role of Zack Dell, Marnette Patterson playing Trish Prescott, and Melody Kay playing Gaby Nowicki.One really good message that I found in the film Camp Nowhere is that when you have a problem do something to get rid of the problem. Morris has a problem and he is doing everything he can to fix it. I recommend this film for ages 10 to 15. I also think that this is a good film for the adults to see as well.Overall, I give the film Camp Nowhere 5 out of 5 stars because it is very funny to watch and will have you laughing a lot. In my opinion it has good acting, it(TM)s great for kids and teenagers, and you are always wondering if they get caught.Reviewed by Brianna Hope Beaton, KIDS FIRST! Film Critic

Wayne F (de) wrote: Not the worst movie i've seen but pretty terrible. Lets take 3 different movies (1 of them pretty good) and make a joint sequel. This is only good in an amusement factor type way. I wouldnt have bothered if i hadnt enjoyed Dollman so much or wanted the background to Puppet Master vs Demonic Toys

Charles P (gb) wrote: Any atmosphere or ideas that could have been derived from Candyman's intriguing setup is forfeited for the sake of bloody violence.

jeremy w (de) wrote: wendigo is an absurd jumbled mess sad storyline poor acting with illogical dialogue and the camera work was like blair witch for no reason. A crazy kid, a redneck with a gun, and a needless sex scene. It was boring and would not keep my interest but I really tried. Don't bother it is not worth it this is the third movie I've seen today and the worst so far.

Daniel M (us) wrote: In 1972 Mike Hodges was faced with a question: how do you follow Get Carter? Having cut his teeth on TV in the 1960s, his debut feature was iconic in its time and ours, bringing out a darker side of Michael Caine (in his finest performance) and helping to shift the goalposts of what British film was capable of doing.While Hodges cannot have foreseen the film's eventual reputation, its acclaim led to a clamour for more work in the same vein. Retaining most of the crew from Carter, he and Caine attempted to repeat the recipe with Pulp the very next year. The results fall well short of their first collaboration (as almost anything would), but it still retains a certain rough-edged charm.One of the most popular maxims for success is "stick to what you know", and on that basis, we appear to be in safe hands. Both Get Carter and Pulp, as the latter makes clear, have their roots in pulpy crime fiction. Get Carter is based on Jack's Return Home, a novel by Ted Lewis which was inspired by the 'One-Armed Bandit murder' in Newcastle in the mid-1960s. Pulp has its roots spread more broadly, drawing in the legacies of Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett, but both are essentially borne from sources which exploit contemporary attitudes towards violence, sex and criminality.The problem with Pulp, however, lies in these broader roots, which distance it from both Carter's appeal and Hodges' sensibility. Carter was very much about the plight and malaise of the North-East, seeking to blow away the bright colours of the Swinging Sixties to reveal a grim and nasty underbelly. Its pulpy trappings (death, sex, violence etc.) were used as a springboard into a much deeper, weightier study of self-destructive violence, conspiracy and revenge.While Carter constantly sought to carve out its own identity, Pulp is content to be a much more general celebration of the genre. There are many more conscious nods to key figures within the pulp genre and the iconography they created - there's even a massive name-drop to The Maltese Falcon. It's not quite as though anyone could have made this film - there are nice little touches here and there - but it's not as strongly identifiable towards Hodges as Carter, or Flash Gordon, or Croupier many years later.Of course, celebrating or paying homage to a genre is no bad thing in and of itself, and there are a number of nice visual touches which make Pulp somewhat memorable. The opening montage is very appealing; it features a typing pool hammering out Caine's novel, with Hodges cutting between the cacophonous thunder of typewriters and the reactions of individual girls to the saucy content coming through their headphones.Another nice touch can be found in the cinematography. The colour scheme is very faded and washed out, emphasising dreary browns and yellows - the same dreary browns and yellows of the pulp paperbacks in which Mickey King's work is rooted. Italian thriller novels were often called giallos in relation to the low-quality paper they were printed on - 'giallo' being the Italian word for yellow. The film uses its low budget to celebrate the low quality of the works on which it draws; it's sitting pretty in the gutter and is beckoning you to join it.The script for Pulp is full of witty dialogue, and like Carter there are a number of juicy lines with which Michael Caine can go to town. Unlike Carter, however, more than half of Caine's lines are in voiceover, reflecting the noir trope of the unreliable narrator. The dialogue is much fruitier than Carter's, with all Caine's best lines being overly poetic or cheeky metaphors that would make John Osborne's gang leader blush. It's hard not to raise a laugh or grin at titles like My Gun Is Long or King's comments about having better use for his fingers.Unfortunately, the emphasis or reliance on voiceover often prevents the film from having the unpredictability that it needs to move from the serviceable to the remarkable. Take the film's violence as an example. Being a pulpy crime thriller there's a lot of it, with numerous murders taking place over the short running time and our lead often being placed in mortal danger. But Pulp's narration leads us to expect it, knowing that our protagonist must come through it in order to tell the tale. Carter, by contrast, was incredibly unpredictable, so that when the violence arrived it was always shocking.Another bad consequence of the voiceover is that the film doesn't dive deeply into its ideas when it really needs to. This isn't always the case in noir or other genres that use or rely on narration, and it is possible for a thriller to balance substance and pacing - just look at Headhunters. But Pulp is so concerned with celebrating the format that it often skirts over a lot of the ideas it tried to raise.To put it a little more generously, Pulp can be seen as the embryonic state of several interesting ideas which would be explored in greater depth in subsequent thrillers. The idea of a writer being taken into a family's confidence and uncovering a great crime or scandal would subsequently be done justice in Roman Polanski's The Ghost Writer.Likewise, the idea of a writer leaving clues towards a great crime in a commissioned work would later be handled brilliantly in Peter Greenaway's debut The Draughtsman's Contract (albeit with paintings, not novels). Had Hodges shown more of King's writing process, the film could have made a better fist of these ideas; as it is they are very much there but not allowed to develop to the most satisfying degree. We do however get a nice closing line regarding King's decision to publish the story of the crime: having spun a merry yarn with imagery and innuendo, all he can muster is four simple words: "I'll get those bastards."If you wanted to be glib, you could say that all the problems with Pulp only reinforce just how great Get Carter really is. This doesn't make Pulp a bad film, but against its predecessor it is a poor relation in almost every way. The musical score is still minimal, but it's designed to create a general mood rather than give a film any kind of signature. The characters are more consciously archetypal, adhering so close to our generic expectations that they don't leave an enormous impression. And the story is more ramshackle and has less by way of dramatic stakes; it is drawing a dozen stories into one narrative rather than expanding from one story into a dozen themes.Within these character archetypes (the groupie, the playboy, the femme fatale etc.), there are a number of decent performances from actors making the best of the material. Dennis Price, of Kind Hearts and Coronets fame, is great fun as the crusty English eccentric, endlessly spouting Lewis Carroll to entice our hero and infuriate the Americans. There's good support from Nadia Cassini as the siren-esque Liz and from Hollywood veteran Lizabeth Scott in her final performance. Caine also does a good job as Mickey King (no relation to Stephen), reflecting the sleaze of his profession while looking as cool as ever.The most interesting piece of casting, however, is Mickey Rooney as Preston Gilbert. Rooney was once the biggest star in the world, and here he is playing a washed-up film star living on past glories and needing money from the book to sustain his lifestyle. It's an inspired piece of casting, not just as an exercise in self-deprecation, but because the character reflects Rooney's own past. Gilbert's tendency to play gangsters is tied to his possible mob connections, reflecting the rumours surrounding Frank Sinatra and the Rat Pack, with whom Rooney worked in the late-1950s.Pulp is a pleasantly diverting work which falls short of Hodges' incredible debut but passes the time quite nicely. Its adherence to the conventions of pulp is such that it doesn't entirely carve out its own identity, but the performances and several nice touches in the script and visuals just about compensate for this. In the end it's as disposable and engaging as the yellowing paperbacks that inspired it. It's no Get Carter, but it's still good fun.

Whit w (kr) wrote: There were some decent mannequin related frights and the 'click-click' of Howard's cane was a little spooky but there were no sustained or lasting scares. I did like the cast. The recurring theme music, while annoying at first, actually enhanced the movie later. The wrap-up of this whodunit was okay in a Scooby-Doo kind of way.

Amanda G (ru) wrote: Entertaining. A thoughtful look back to help realize how much society has changed (and not necessarily for the better). Ginger Rogers is a single sales girl who happens upon a baby on a doorstep and is mistaken for its mother. David Niven plays her boss who tries to help this single mother raise her baby by giving her a raise, a stable job and parenting advice. He ends up falling in love with her, marrying her, and making an "honest" woman out of her in the end. Ginger Rogers is just cute in this movie and it is good if you like nostalgic movies. How are they going to live with this huge lie between them for the rest of their lives? Best not to over-think this one.

Algitya P (jp) wrote: O.K.L.A.H.O.M.A = Awesome !!