Throw Away Your Books, Rally in the Streets

Throw Away Your Books, Rally in the Streets

Conditions have been better for the nameless protagonist: his grandmother is a shoplifter and his war criminal father and sister have an unhealthy, intimate relationship with the family rabbit.

Conditions have been better for the nameless protagonist: his grandmother is a shoplifter and his war criminal father and sister have an unhealthy, intimate relationship with the family rabbit. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Throw Away Your Books, Rally in the Streets torrent reviews

Bengel W (kr) wrote: Considering the national importance of this mans ministry this film lacks the true depth and star studded cast to carry the story. The music is wimpy and lacks any true conveyance of the act upon the screen. The photography and the lighting are bland and fail to add any life to the actors, who are trying their best in an awful layout. This needs to be redone by a superior studio. Nibbles: Pancakes and Maple Syrup.

Tim B (es) wrote: This is the worst movie I have seen all year. Billy Bob is not a salesman, no way, and Tea Leoni is uninteresting. You can only hear so many poop jokes.

Tom P (ru) wrote: Rather like Eastenders, I'm not quite sure what the message is within Import / Export. It's basically a celebration of how shit other peoples' lives can be, and serves as a reminder of how comfortable our own lives are. Sure the delivery man may not come when he says, but at least you don't have to stick things up your bum for EUR 50 per hour for the sexual gratification of zee Germans.We have two stories running simultaneously of poeple escaping their own country for a brighter future: a Ukrainian Putzfrau heading to Austria and a jobless Austrian fella heading in the other direction. And you know what? Irrespective of their efforts, their lives are bloody bleak and miserable. And at 2h15, the director REALLY labours this point home. Very miserable indeed.Yet to it's credit Import / Export seeks to blur the distinction between narrative and documentary. For example, it looks to me that almost all the acting is performed by non-actors: the hookers, the street workers, the senile bed-ridden elderly, the whole Gypsy community.... not to mention the fight scenes and the sex scenes (they definitely weren't acting). The unrehearsed, overly long scenes add to the documentary feel. Presumably this is to shock us softies and give us some 'social realism'.You may want to share Olga and Pauli's journies, but ultimately I'd rather stretch myself out on expensive Scandinavian furniture, cold drink in hand complaining about the price I have to pay to make people stick things up their bottoms.

Valerie P (fr) wrote: I adore this book and this made for tv movie didn't do too bad of a job with it, though the cheesy background music and camera styles gave its low-budget caps away. I know I saw an older movie based on the book a long time ago and at the time I thought that was really well done. I believe it was just called Charlie. For those who aren't familiar with this story, think of a modern day Frankenstein theme, where a professor finds a cure for mental retardation and turns his subject, Charlie, into a genius.

Frdric B (us) wrote: J'ai pas tout compris...

Angelica L (au) wrote: Shadow is SO cool :D

Maximiliano G (fr) wrote: It has a lot of flaws, like Michael Myers costume and the script, but, it will entertain you a lot too. This is where the Halloween movies started to fall down and down, but it's hell of entertainment.

Cameron J (br) wrote: "Let's take a ride, and run with the dogs tonight, in Sub[u]U[/u]rbia!". Yes, Pet Shop Boys, it's "Sub[u]U[/u]rbia", not "Sub[u]u[/u]rbia"; there's enough of a difference for Wikipedia to not bother specifying the year differences in the article titles. Shoot, you're more likely to think that this is "Clerks 2" or something, because it's mostly about a bunch of bums hanging out around a convenience store. Speaking of years differences to distinguish titles, they ended up having a "Clerks 2", so this is more like "Dazed and Confused 2", or, if you want to go by the full title, "Dazed and Confused 2 Hours Later". Yeah, I can't help but notice that after this film, Richard Linklater tried to put a little more dynamicity into his narratives, or rather, put in some narratives to begin with, probably because he realized that two hours of aimless chatter might be a little too much, even though it's certainly better than an hour-and-a-half of "It's Impossible to Learn to Plow by Reading Books". Yeah, Dick, I understand that it was your first film, and you made perfectly decent films after... "Slacker" (Come to think of it, you didn't really start out at that well for me), but I'm not letting that go. This film might help, because it is indeed quite decent, but you know how sequels can be, so, as you can imagine, "Dazed and Confused 2 Hours Later" here goes held back, and isn't even all that refreshing as a sequel. Yeah, yeah, I've done all my joking about how this is sort of like "Dazed and Confused 2", or "Clerks 2", and what have you, but the fact of the matter is that even a film of this offbeat of a nature has been done time and again, largely by Richard Linklater, hitting more than a few tropes as a very 1990s, dialogue-driven dramedy, complete with flawed characters who, well, might be a little too flawed. Written and portrayed well enough, the characters are reasonably compelling, but whether it be young intellectual pretense, or simply, of all things, immaturity, there are a number of defining characterization traits that get to be a little obnoxious after a while, partly because you have only so much time to get used to certain characters before focus switches a little too swiftly for consistency's comfort. As a layered ensemble study, the film gets to be uneven in focus, as surely as it gets to be uneven in its realism as a brutally honest character portrait, meeting many a grounded dramatic layer with a pinch of melodrama that, while not recurrent, is hard to ignore, as it breaks believability, and has plenty of time to hit those beats. I joked about it earlier, but quite frankly, while this film has more meat than one might fear it would when looking at some of Linklater's other early, super-minimalist efforts, at two hours, its runtime is simply way too long, being well-handled enough for you to be adequately entertained through all the slow spells, but nonetheless repetitious in its being driven by ramblings, and not much outside of that. The film's story concept is plenty compelling, make no mistake, enough so for the final product to rise to the brink of rewarding on the back of dramatic inspiration, which was always to find trouble getting the dramedy much further than that, - seeing as how the narrative, as a talkative character story that is generally too grounded to be all that interestingly distinguished - and doesn't exactly make the natural shortcomings easier to get past with the aforementioned consequential shortcomings. I suppose it's the natural shortcomings that most subdue the engagement value of this affair of limited consequence, but that's something that could have been said about some of Linklater's other, more compelling minimalist dramedies, which don't see quite as many of the problems that just barely, but surely hold the final product back as barely consequential. The film could have been a little more, and yet, at the same time, it also could have been so much less, and it would have been if it didn't have some inspiration to the interpretation of a worthy, if, as I said, subdued story concept. An ostensibly faithful adaptation of a dialogue play, this film's story concept is minimalist and talkative, and not even all that unique, although it still has a certain meat to it, with intrigue to its sheer humanity as a drama, sold by subtle inspiration off of the screen and, of course, on the screen. A classic Richard Linklater type of cast that mixes recognizable names, then-up-and-coming names and unknowns, this film's collection of talent delivers on individually commendable performances, with Steve Zahn stealing the comedy side of the show with his over-the-top commitment to an eccentric roles, while dramatic depth proves to be rich within such performances as those by Jayce Bartok, Dina Spybey, Amie Carey, a particularly devastating Nicky Katt, and leading man Giovanni Ribisi, whose trademark quiet range that encompasses anything from a sense of awkwardness to a sense of aggression as a repressed ambitious. Just about everyone delivers as best he or she can with individual charisma and dramatic layering, and that, combined with dynamite chemistry, drives a lot of the depth of this ensemble dramedy, although, in all fairness, the performers have pretty solid roles to work with. Flawed to the point of being distancing at times, and not even consistently as grounded as they're supposed to be, the characters remain compellingly well-drawn, staying effective as reflections on themes of personal struggles on the road to fulfilling ambition, but still being distinguished enough to be memorable by their own rights. Characterization is pretty solid, but the strengths in screenwriter Eric Bogosian's adaptation of his own play don't end there, because as surely as it thrives on its characters, the film thrives on razor-sharp dialogue whose humor and audacious extensiveness holds a fair deal of your intrigue throughout the course of this overly, but entertainingly talkative dramedy. Of course, it's Linklater's direction that really sells things, even if it's only to a certain extent, for although Linklater cannot overcome the natural shortcomings and other missteps in Bogosian's writing, his plays on the scripted flare keeps entertainment value surprisingly consistent, no matter how much the film drags, and when more thoughtful slow spots come into play, dramatic weight bites, flowed into organically enough to give the final product a sense of dynamicity that beefs up a minimalist narrative which gradually gets a little meatier. The film gets a little more heavy as it goes along, until you're presented with thoroughly compelling latter acts that reflect what could have been, and while those glimpses aren't enough to get the film to a rewarding point on the whole, on top of further reflecting Linklater's potential as a filmmaker, the final product endears enough to entertain and often compel, even though it could have gone further. Overall, a lack of originality and an inconsistency in character engagement value, focus and buyable drama, all behind the dragging telling of a narrative which is too minimalist for its own good drive the final product just short of rewarding, yet the value of a humanly worthy story concept is ultimately done enough justice by solid acting, memorable characterization, clever dialogue and thoughtfully well-layered direction that gradually grows more endearing to make Richard Linklater's "SubUrbia" a generally improvable, but consistently entertaining and often compelling portrait on flaws and potential within young adults. 2.75/5 - Decent

Omar M (fr) wrote: ?... ... (R) ....:))))

Ahmed J (jp) wrote: I kept on laughing and laughing till I realized the real meaning behind the jokes and I stopped laughing. Brilliant. This man is brilliant and I obviously realize that way too late.

Val S (nl) wrote: "You're NOT going to the convention, you're going to the mountains with ME!"

Owen B (ag) wrote: First off, let me explain my main problem with the film: Betelgeuse himself. While Michael Keaton plays the character very well, and his upbeat and wild attitude makes for a funny experience, he only appears for about 15% of the movie, if that. I truly think that as the title character, he should have way more to do and play a way more integral role in the story than he does. In fact, I think that the whole movie could've been done without him. Burton could've just created a film about two ghosts trying to scare the owners of their house, with hilarious results.

Aaron S (gb) wrote: Gritty, dark, violent, and great. I'm genuinely disappointed I never got to see it in 3D.

Joanna C (br) wrote: started off rough at first, but then it got entertaining with the game of "Football".

Jairo A (us) wrote: One of my favorite comedy/raunchy type movies! The characters is what makes this movie work nicely. Stifler, stiffler's mom, Jim, Jim's dad, shitbreak, the Shermanator, etc...awesome!!!