In the Pacific during World War 2, the officers live a comfortable life with good food, good drink and good quarters. To them, war is a game which they know they will win and the common ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
The Naked and the Dead
Fighting men in World War II learn the value of courage and quickness at the risk of losing their lives.
You may also like
The Naked and the Dead torrent reviews
Calum B (au) wrote: All comedy stems from tragedy. Comedy cannot exist with a dramatic premise because drama forms the situations of reality from which a narrative can exist and develop. What is said within these situations becomes the punchline. The stronger the situations and the more involving the drama of the story, the funnier the film should be. Modern comedies though often fail to acknowledge the dramatic value of a situation, hoping the jokes will support themselves. I Give it a Year didn't draw a single laugh from me. It forgoes the crucial rule of humour: comedy must exist in reality. This is an anomaly for the British studio Working Title Films whose films, including Love Actually and Notting Hill, have grounded themselves in both quiet observation and dry wit. With a script by first time director Dan Mazer, the plot and the characters here are both underdeveloped and the jokes misfire from unrealistic situations and dialogue. Mazer is a long-time collaborator of Sacha Baron Cohen. He wrote and produced all three of Cohen's feature films, including Borat, which were American-UK productions. Similarly, this film is crassly written as though Working Title Films had a broader demographic in mind, to whom the subject of sex might still seem like the high point of comedy. The concept is not as subversive as Mazer claims it is either. Josh (Rafe Spall) and Nat (Rose Byrne) are a couple who have decided to marry after seven months. None of their friends, including Nat's sister (Minnie Driver), believe that they will last. Two months later and they are already in counselling. Josh has written one book but has failed to grasp the second. Nat is working in an office and frustrated by Josh's complacency and his annoying best friend Danny (Stephen Merchant). Josh becomes reacquainted with his ex-girlfriend Chloe (Anna Faris) and Nat is attracted to the smooth talking and successful Guy (Simon Baker), an American client who likes her but doesn't know that she is married. The familiar premise of two people already spoken for attaches itself to a gimmick where we are meant to realise that Josh and Nat don't belong to each other and are better suited to other partners. The film postures as being about the aftermath of commitment, including the consequences of rushing into a marriage. However, this concept is not treated with any dramatic weight or seriousness for the situations to hold any trace of drama or tragedy. Instead, we're reminded frequently of why the couple is unsuited but the point is obvious and laboured: we're meant to laugh at a failing relationship that was never promising to begin with.Mazer also diminishes the comedy by reducing scenes into disconnected skits, determined to embarrass characters, even the ones that we're meant to be rooting for. The characters are so thinly drawn that it disperses the likelihood of seeing them growing and having an emotional attachment. Being made a slacker, Josh is the target for a lot of juvenile humiliations including: his in-laws seeing naked photos of him! Or dancing drunkenly like Beyonc at Nat's work function!The potential partners aren't free from this degradation either. Anna Faris has a terribly unfunny scene where she is squashed under a would- be threesome with her partner and another girl. Simon Baker, whose performance overloads on unctuousness, has his romantic credibility strained in a stupid scene where he brings a violinist and doves to a private board meeting with Nat. Would it spoil the gag to mention there is a fan in the room? Stephan Merchant is a hugely talented comedian but his role is singular: to be as obnoxious as possible, reminding us how even Josh's friends repulsive to Nat. He echoes Spike from Notting Hill, but minus anything resembling a character arc. He exists to say unlikely things, like a wedding speech where he talks about having sex with bridesmaids. It's unbearably grating and not funny. Much of the dialogue in I Give it a Year resides in this level of smuttiness to hold the audience's attention in the absence of drama and conflict. But comedy that retains dramatic purpose is always preferable to comedy for comedy's sake. The tragedy that should uphold the dramatic framework of the story must be relative to the characters, not the film itself.
Jordon J (fr) wrote: A couple twists short of a good comedy; this film seems like more of a TV prime time test spin for the cast and crew than a fully developed film. I say SKIP IT!!!
Andr D (gb) wrote: Robert Duvall es ms que excelente interpretando a un hermitao con un oscuro secreto que decide hacer una fiesta para su funeral, sin haber fallecido todava. Bill Murray marca un contrapunto perfecto interpretando al dueo de la funeraria y Lucas Black es genial como el joven asistente. El debut como director de Aaron Schneider se preocupa por los personajes y la cmara de David Boyd logra capturar el ritmo y la atmsfera de la Gran Depresin norteamericana.
Sabrina D (es) wrote: nope... nicht mein ding.
Jacob B (jp) wrote: The Adventures of Tintin honours its source material thanks to the assured direction of Steven Spielberg and the fact that the film was under the production of Peter Jackson. The film boasts stunning visuals with animation that's actually better made than other motion-capture movies since there doesn't seem to be as much criticism surrounding the uncanny valley as The Polar Express and A Christmas Carol, the film has funny moments, the set pieces are thrilling and the performances from the cast are great. Jamie Bell shines as Tintin, Andy Serkis seems to be having fun portraying the mostly drunk Captain Haddock, Daniel Craig serves as a villain with a voice that suits someone who's evil pretty well and Nick Frost & Simon Pegg are near pitch-perfect choices as the bumbling inspectors Thomson and Thompson. I can't really praise it for the way it derives from Indiana Jones having never seen any one of the films but I still enjoy this film for what it is: a thrilling, beautifully crafted adventure that remains faithful to the Herg comic albums by even putting in some clever nods (I'm pretty sure that I saw the Crab with the Golden Claws once or twice in this movie).
Stephen P (ag) wrote: Fun movie. It's amazing the lengths some Republicans went to try to prevent Moore from speaking. Too bad Moore's (and many others') crusade failed. They have to try harder for 2012.
jason a (it) wrote: Love the ryhming of this short and how you cant have a frowny face watching it.
Mike H (jp) wrote: This film started out good... but the ending left me enraged and upset. The bulk of the story was interesting enough and overall the movie was actually pretty smart. However, the main protagonist has no redeeming qualities and I feel no sympathy for her. In fact, I outright hate this girl. Kimberly would have been a great character if there was more insight, but she just comes off as another spoiled, manipulative, cold, heartless bitch who would stab her best friend in the back over her own personal issues with self-loathing. The fact is, when I watched this movie, at the end I wanted some kind of retribution for everything she had done... but never got it. There just isn't anyone you can cheer for in this movie. Any other character in the movie is just so underdeveloped and, well, stupid that you have no other choice but to think everyone got what they deserved....EXCEPT THE MANIPULATIVE KIMBERLY! Actually, I would have overlooked all the film's flaws if the movie had just at least given the audience what they wanted: Kimberly to pay. But instead you get this tearful self-absorbed, self-conscience, empty "I got what I wanted but it wasn't worth it" type crap. Like I said earlier, this isn't a bad movie... at least not until the very end. You are lead to believe that maybe - just MAYBE - she'll get her just desserts only to have those expectations dashed. Maybe that was the point of the film, but if it was, it's a bad one. James Woods stands out as the main attraction only because he seems to have fleshed out his character the most. Well, actually the cast and the acting was pretty good all around. The problem is with the ending! I HATED HOW IT ENDED!
Kyle M (fr) wrote: The quintessential movie to distract the kids and get a little work done on the computer... and mildly enjoyable, minus Whoopi.
madonna l (mx) wrote: Add a review (optional)...
Seo O (br) wrote: Absolut inget att brja med fr den som aldrig sett en Andy Sidaris-film. Silikonlkarna och den korkade dialogen tillhr behllningen ven hr, men filmen r seg och p tok fr lng. Det r ingen klass p smrjan helt enkelt.