When Did You Last See Your Father?

When Did You Last See Your Father?

The story of a son's conflicting memories of his dying father.

The story of a son's conflicting memories of his dying father. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

When Did You Last See Your Father? torrent reviews

Scott S (nl) wrote: there have been many movies on john osbourne or ozzy as we all know him as this movie really gives you a better view of his life and its nice to see how far he has come since the black sabbath days. if your a fan of his music you should watch it. i know its not a blockbuster but its the best movie i`ve seen this year so far. do yourself a favour and watch this film

Thomas P (mx) wrote: This cool indie isn't at all what it seems. "House of Last Things" presents a wholly original spin on fantastic cinema. All the copycat and predictable clichs of gore and yuk have been thrown our in favor of a more cerebral and emotionally dramatic approach, and very performance driven. No doubt all this will alienate splatter fans looking for their nightly transfusion. But it really shouldn't. (All that fast food will catch up with you someday.) Blake Berris is terrific in a role that seems written for him, that's how good he is. But it only works because the rest of the cast are believable too, especially Lindsey Haun who I hadn't really seen all grown up since "Village of the Damned", and RJ Mitte, who in a departure from "Breaking Bad", debuts here in his first feature film. A very attractive trio they make in a house full of twist and turns. Discoveries like this keep me snooping through Indies and waiting in line at festivals hoping for more gems. This is one of them.

david g (ru) wrote: i want to see this movie and i want to see it now!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Luke R (es) wrote: This movie was not without its moments (most, if not all, featuring Greg Kinnear and Morgan Freeman) - but it also had some scenes and storytelling in general that were outright terrible. Why they felt the need to include the nudity is beyond me, as it didn't add anything to the movie and would not have suffered in any way without those particular scenes. I believe Greg Kinnear is a genuinely outstanding actor and a personal favourite of mine (see 'Little Miss Sunshine'). If you make it through the first half, you might as well watch the rest - but this film doesn't do credit to it's cast.

Henry M (us) wrote: This was a great movie... until I realized it wasn't a joke.

Ziyad E (it) wrote: This movie is a great reflection of real life and relations between brothers beside all this its one of the funniest man. Extremely underrated work.

Senor C (fr) wrote: Ron Mann (Grass, Know Your Mushrooms) brings us another fine documentary looking @ the comix book world from the 30s until the 80s w/ a large portion of it being spent on the underground movements. It's good but it has a couple of flaws. For one the comix book universal is far too expansive to be covered in an hour & a half film. Some of these artists deserve their own film which is why Robert Cumb got a movie of his own. Stan Lee is such an icon that you could spend hours on his alone. As well a large portion of the running time is spent reading panels. I think you can get a pretty good representation of the talent involved on the art work alone. Still interesting I just found it could have spent more of it's running time on the artists themselves & more detail spent on those who truly had an influence on the market..like Stan Lee (although I would fucking kill to have his Spiderman pinball machine)

Paul J (es) wrote: An epic tale on the story of man and mother nature. Kurosawa's Russian journey through the wilderness of friendship and old age. It's filmed with an ancient visual palette and at times it feels as if it's in real time. Very slow-paced but endlessly rewarding. By the end, you feel as if you've been in the wilderness. Most refreshing is how Kurosawa resists close-ups. Everything is matter-of-fact and neutral (just like in nature). There is no sentimentality yet the film is very touching. The scenes of intensity are gripping and extremely realistic and believable. The film is steeped in authenticity and it's not without its humor. It's fitting that Kurosawa made this unique film considering his most inspirational authors were all Russian.

Edith N (ca) wrote: Probably More Integrated Than Most of the Theatres It Played In For some reason, we don't much get comedy teams anymore. I'm vaguely disappointed by this. Oh, we get people who work together a lot, but that's different. In the Old Days, you had the East Side Boys, featuring actors who had been Dead End Kids and Little Tough Guys (plus a member or two of Our Gang) and who would go on to be Bowery Boys. There were the Marx Brothers and the Ritz Brothers. Abbott and Costello, Laurel and Hardy, and even Martin and Lewis, toward the end of the phenomenon. They all had a shtick of some kind, roles they played every time, and it was safe to say that if you liked the humour of one movie, you'd like the others, too. If you've been on the [i]Road to Singapore[/i], why not continue and take the [i]Road to Rio[/i]? It was Bing Crosby and Bob Hope bickering over Dorothy Lamour every time. It seems funny to lament some of the most formulaic movies ever made, but a lot of them were still good! This one . . . well. Glimpy (Huntz Hall) is to be the best man when his sister, Betty (Ava Gardner), marries Jack (Rick Vallin). Jack has even managed to buy a house in the suburbs, but there's something odd about it. He is told, in fact, that it is haunted and that no decent man would bring his new bride back to a haunted house! So okay, he agrees with that, and maybe a quick trip to Niagara Falls is in order while he arranges to sell the house and buy a new one. But Glimpy and his friends, led by Mugs (Leo Gorcey), don't know about the whole "haunted" thing and decide that Jack must somehow be ashamed of the house, which he says needs fixing up. So the guys agree to fix it up as a surprise to the newlyweds. Only for wacky reasons, they end up in the wrong house, because it's apparently the wrong house which is said to be haunted. Or something. Anyway, there are wacky hijinks. Let's be honest. These are familiar wacky hijinks. Probably half the people I named up there have encountered them. Someone, in this case Bela Lugosi, is faking the haunting of a house so no one will go near it, allowing in this case Bela Lugosi to perpetrate a crime, in this case printing illicit Nazi propaganda, without anyone's being the wiser. It's worth noting that, in these movies, everyone believes in ghosts except the characters you're supposed to be laughing at for their stuffiness. As odd as it is to think that Jack is bringing his new bride back to the house sight unseen, it's even weirder to think that he can be talked into selling it by a claim that it's haunted. He isn't even a little suspicious about the motivations of the person making the claim, which you'd think he would be. But no, we have to have things appearing and disappearing, and we have to have secret passages. And so forth. We have a pattern here, and there's no getting around that by the simple application of logic. This is actually the second movie I've watched today from the same year--I don't have much to say about [i]Destination Tokyo[/i] other than "look, that's Cary Grant in a submarine"--and it rather shows the limitations the studios were working under at the time. They were limited in resources, and most of their leading men were off at war. (Cary Grant was considered too old and too valuable to the war effort because he was raising money and morale.) Ava Gardner is, here, in her first credited role, and while Rick Vallin worked steadily for twenty years, it wasn't much in things anyone has heard of. To the extent that one of his "known for" movies on IMDB doesn't even have the poster displayed. Bela Lugosi ([i]way[/i] too old to fight) was working steadily, but his presence had long been the sign of a B-picture. This, however, was not an era for A-pictures, because the world was otherwise occupied. Though this movie is only explicitly about the war as a cheap plot device, the war was still important behind the scenes. I would imagine that most people have their favourite East End Kids pictures, of those who have watched more than one, but there are fewer and fewer people who have watched more than one as time goes by. Yesterday, I was reading someone's ridiculous list of "the 499 Greatest Actors of All Time" (thereby stretching "great" like Silly Putty), and the thing which surprised me most about it was how many of those actors were people even I had to look up--and there were a lot that I had to identify for Graham. I take a certain amount of smug pleasure in the fact that most of my favourite actors are dead, more than a few dead before I was born. At the same time, though, there's something a bit lonely about it. I can't really discuss whether Paul Muni belongs on such a list or not with most people, because most people have no idea who he was. (The original Scarface.) That being said, I must confess you aren't missing much if you've never heard of the East Side Kids.

Steve S (it) wrote: ***1/2 (out of four) Though not quite up there with "Duck Soup" or "Horse Feathers", "Animal Crackers" is still an early gem from the four Marx Brothers. The plot centers around art dealers as they gather at an estate in hopes of obtaining a valuable painting. The plot is simple, but the jokes are fast and furious with such great lines as when Groucho says; "I shot an elephant in my pajamas. What he was doing in my pajamas, I don't know."

Lacy A (fr) wrote: technically its not a musical, but the music in it is worth it!

DJ J (ca) wrote: Wasnt too bad... I rather enjoyed it!