Schizophrenic tramp performs outrageous acts in the streets of Salvador, and in the end tries to fulfill his ultimate dream: to fly over the city, as a superhero would. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
You may also like
SuperOutro torrent reviews
david a (ag) wrote: I never seen the movie but I read the book and the was so cool
Mark L (kr) wrote: An interesting idea for a documentary (the history of modern Yugoslavia) its too cartoony in its presentation, and far too complimentary to the pre-breakup state.
Bryan M (br) wrote: Fascinating tale of a bizarre mystery and the obsession of those trying to solve it. Given very little clues to go on, Justin Duerr leads a small group of amateur detectives who try to figure out who created the Toynbee Tiles & left them all over the world. Seemingly off-topic biographical parts of the doc reveal that Duerr may have a surprising amount in common with the person he has been searching for and although the ending may be unsatisfying for some, it works for me. Duerr's understanding of and compassion for the Toynbee Tiler ultimately make the ending fulfilling and even incredible when you consider how appropriate it is that the two lives intersect.
Adam A (gb) wrote: There aren't supposed to be any rules in art, and yet Thierry Guetta seems to break all of them in this ambiguous documentary of a clothing salesman turned filmaker turned street artist.
Aaron C (fr) wrote: simple yet hilariously moving plot set in rural modern China
Joe (ca) wrote: More people should see this movie!
Robert H (es) wrote: Once you get past the backstory filler at the beginning of this film, Trancers 5 turns out to be a decent film. Following in the medievil footsteps of part 4, this film concentrates more on Jack Deth and less on the trancers which is nice. This film is essentially a quest film as Jack is trying to find a way back home. While the quest he goes on isn't original, it's still a fun watch. A worthwhile addition to the Trancers series and a must watch for Jack Deth fans.
Tiffany C (br) wrote: what a role for shields! interesting plot, seriously! touching.
Blake P (mx) wrote: If only I could wrap myself in movies like "Designing Woman". They exist in this ultrafizzy, Edward Hopper akin, CinemaScope universe in which the rich thrive and champagne flows freely. To look and act elegantly is a first priority. New York is a cocktail of newspaper headquarters, fashion shows, Broadway musicals, blondes, bottles, high-end restaurants where you may or may not see an Oscar winner. It's all artificial and it's about as deep as a 1960s era Palm Springs postcard; but despite my appreciation for films that take a trip down realism lane, "Designing Woman", along with its colorful, vintage, romantic comedy counterparts, hold a special place in my heart. I don't just watch these films: I want to live in them, explore the possibilities of non-problems, witty lines, and romantic misunderstandings. It's the best kind of entertainment: fluffy, agreeable, smart, visually stunning, and fast, with two mega stars leading and clearly having a lot of fun with their material. Gregory Peck portrays Mike Hagen, a sports reporter who meets and instantly falls in love with Marilla Brown (Lauren Bacall), a fashion designer, during a sunny vacation. They have nothing common -- he's a man's man, she a glamourpuss -- but they forge a natural bond that eventually leads to a hasty (but loving) union. The first few months consist only of simple bliss, with few incidents of disagreement or annoyance. Conversations run easy, affection even easier.But all comes to a head one weekday evening. Mike invites his poker mates for a few rounds; Marilla summons her theater friends to chat about an upcoming play. The apartment is crowded, loud, and clashing. Things don't end up turning out well. The night is disastrous, all chaos and no fun, leaving the newlyweds disconcerted by the fact that their social circles hardly match. Things get even worse when Marilla discovers a risqu photo of a Broadway star (Dolores Gray) in Mike's old apartment. That same starlet, coincidentally, is playing the lead in a musical that Marilla is designing costumes for. Mandatory misunderstandings follow; but love conquers all.For such a tired plot, "Designing Woman" is sure energetic: comedy is one thing, but portraying it well, along with a starry romance, is another. George Wells' screenplay keeps things going at a fashionable, quick-witted pace, throwing in clever voiceovers, fourth-wall breakings, and winningly comedic scenarios that work more often than not. Paired with Minnelli's attractive directional skills, loaded with style, the film is fun but not so fun that brains are left in the sun to fry. This is a movie of exquisite taste, requiring no effort to draw us in.Better are the performances, with a suitably straight-manned Peck and a comedically superb Bacall. They look great together, but special notice should be put toward Bacall's stupendous work. As an actress typecast into the roles of low-voiced, seductive females for much of her career, "Designing Woman" sees her in an entirely different light. Here, she sizzles, giving a terrific performance that seems miles away from her legendary parts in "To Have and Have Not" or "The Big Sleep". (Keep in mind that her husband, Humphrey Bogart, was at the end of his life during filming. Bacall is so good here that she makes us forget about that tragedy for just a moment.)I can't say that "Designing Woman" presents anything we haven't seen before, but it's hard to really care about familiarity here. Nostalgia for the past can sometimes be sickening, but a film like this makes one yearn for the 1950s, even if they were nothing like this.
Sarah N (it) wrote: If only Fred and Ginger could have been the focus of the movie instead of sharing the plot with Scott and Dunne... this would have been a much better movie. I always fast-fwd through the scenes they aren't in! Their dance numbers are amazing!
Martin R (de) wrote: In 1991, it was known that Steven Spielberg was going to direct a Peter Pan adaptation and, at a time when Spielberg was the hottest MC-I mean, director-in the game, audiences must have been asking: what could possibly go wrong? It's Steven flippin' Spielberg! This was the guy who gave us "E.T and "Indiana Jones;" Spielberg on fantasy mode was going to out of this world. And then the movie came out and the reaction was really mixed with some calling it Spielberg's worst film, but the question is, is it really his worst? Robin Williams stars as Peter Pan and while he does bring some energy to the role, he's not really given a whole lot to do as far as fleshing out his character goes. Same with Dustin Hoffman as Captain James Hook, who you can tell really had fun shooting some of his scenes, although, his character is too silly to be taken seriously. None of the characters really do anything to make you care about the film. And to keep things simple, the script is truly the film's most detrimental aspect of the production. It's hard to become emotionally invested in a film about Peter Pan having grown up and then having to rescue his kids when...his kids aren't in any real danger. They just get taken and, umm, yeah, then Peter takes them back. Movie's over. The stakes are never high. There's no 'meaty' conflict in "Hook" that makes you want to cheer for Pan, it kind of has the effect of 'hurry up and get this over with.' The ideas are there, but I think what held a lot back was Spielberg's tendencies to keep things family-oriented and reluctance to do anything dark [which I can understand since "The Temple of Doom" was criticized for that]. It would have been interesting not only IF Peter was a neglectful father but IF, also, his kids were spoiled as hell [that way, when James Hook decides to replace Peter as their father, they can undergo a bit character development]. Take the film's ending, what do we learn about Peter after all this Neverland stuff? He throws his cell phone out the window and hugs his kids, hey buddy, you probably just got fired for ditching that call and now you're going to be broke and on the streets. You didn't save your family. You literally just lost them. Enjoy the hug because you sure will never be able to do that again. I'm giving the film 3.5 out of 5 stars anyways. Even though Spielberg has since said that he didn't like "Hook" and were he to do it again that he wouldn't use live sets (all CGI, he said) or so I read. Personally, I like the overall look (all the sets they constructed and stuff) but even if he had used all CGI [with Spielberg behind the camera, who cares? It's still going to be shot in a way that's vastly superior than, say, "Pan"], the script would have been a major flaw. If anything, the CGI might have helped the sword fighting, which truly is lackluster here [just to be clear, the Lost Boys v. Pirates battle was fun but it could have been more...intense, sort of. More action-y? I don't know, I just think it's missing something]. The high point of "Hook" for me [and it's something that is HIGHLY respected] is John Williams' score. It is a textbook example of a not-so-good film having quality film music, and in many scenes, it's John Williams who provides, if not elevates, the muscle (and the emotion) for the picture. Peter Pan soaring through the sky wouldn't have the impact that it did without that score, I can tell you that. "The Ultimate War" (as in the track) is one of the most impressive action cues I've ever heard. I really like the scene where (it's after Hook has stolen Pan's kids) and Peter and the others are entering their house, they see the mark that Hook has left along the walls, and it is just so well done. It could almost pass for a horror film with those harrowing strings, talk about creating suspense, and it's one of those things that really make me think, 'man, what if Spielberg had done THAT for more scenes?' Another moment I think was great was when the Lost Boys meet Peter Pan (who, in that moment, doesn't know he's Peter Pan) and that one kid feels his face [I know that sounds weird out of context, shut up] and says, 'oh, there you are, Peter,' and that emotional choral track is heard. Again, the score is the saving grace of the film. The 'Food Fight' scene, still, amazes me with how magical those few seconds feel when Peter looks at his spoon. Magic, it's just a shame that "Hook" doesn't have too many of those feels. This is the first Peter Pan adaptation I've ever seen. Wait, I'm not even sure if that's true. I know I watched Disney's animated one on VHS once. Anyways, since "Hook," we've gotten "Peter Pan," "Finding Neverland," the critically panned and financial bomb "Pan," and "Peter and Wendy" (it's a TV show, I've never seen it). There's bound to be another Peter Pan adaptation through some medium in a few years and I'm wondering how many of those are going to fail to top "Hook" film quality-wise. That's a pretty sad, honestly, because "Hook" isn't even all that. Robin Williams' passing might sway a few people's opinions about "Hook" to the favorable side, for me, not so much (although, I think I'm on the favorable side just for 'technical' reasons), I think I preferred him in stuff like "Mrs. Doubfire," "Jumanji," and maybe even "Flubber" more. But I will say this, since I watched it for the first time last year, "Good Will Hunting," that is Robin Williams' arguably most impressive performance, well, if I don't count "Aladdin" because, oh damn it, I already said "Aladdin." "Hey, you ain' never had a friend like me!!!!"In short: I only did this review so I wouldn't have to do my essay. And no, I'm not joking. "Hook" is O-kay if you're not expecting much. It's a kid's film, can't be too harsh on a kid's film even though it is so underwhelming compared to Spielberg's previous stuff (and many of his later works).