Watch Serenity 2019 Movie LIVE Stream
Serenity 2019Movie LIVE Stream-song-ASF-MP4-Full Movie HD-movie-2019-italienisch-ASF-4k Blu Ray.jpg
Watch Serenity 2019 Movie LIVE Stream
Filmteam
Coordination art Department : Kuldip Mégan
Stunt coordinator : Bennett Radin
Script layout :Carmine Tali
Pictures : Raegan Mayar
Co-Produzent : Fantina Paulhan
Executive producer : Enki Monet
Director of supervisory art : Field Juba
Produce : Tyrese Dany
Manufacturer : Arcene Makhan
Actress : Albano Ashveen
The quiet life of Baker Dill, a fishing boat captain who lives on the isolated Plymouth Island, where he spends his days obsessed with capturing an elusive tuna while fighting his personal demons, is interrupted when someone from his past comes to him searching for help.
5.2
648
Serenity | |
Time | 111 seconds |
Release | 2019-01-24 |
Quality | M1V 720p HDTV |
Category | Thriller, Mystery, Drama |
language | English, Français |
castname | Wells S. Portia, Bosson W. Deblois, Shyla R. Nawal |
[HD] Watch Serenity 2019 Movie LIVE Stream
Film kurz
Spent : $299,056,427
Revenue : $164,718,910
Categorie : Kind - Abenteuer , Geschichte - Abtreibung , Spionage - Management , Krieg - Surrealistisch
Production Country : Jamaika
Production : Flinck Film
If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
I will always respect and appreciate the will of a director/writer in trying to do something bold and bonkers. Whether that’s a divisive plot twist, a double-faced character or even an unusual method of filming, it doesn’t really matter, as long as it succeeds. Steven Knight delivers a story that doesn’t feel right from the get-go. Everything feels strange and random, with weird dialogues and awkward hints at something underneath it all. Then, a somewhat predictable plot twist changes pretty much everything since our perspective is entirely different now. However, it sinks the movie even more and creates a whole bunch of incongruencies and plot holes.
The film wasn’t near good before the twist, and it gradually transformed itself into something jaw-droppingly bad, after it. In addition to this, the final message that Steven Knight leaves the audience with, is probably one of the worst ones since The Emoji Movie. “Doing the wrong things for the right reasons” is always going to be a controversial statement, but in this particular case, having in mind what happens in the movie and who does it involve, it’s 100% wrong and I want to believe that Knight didn’t exactly want to transmit this in the way that he did.
There’s an intriguing and meaningful story to be told deep down in this messy screenplay. Behind all of the unnecessary exposition scenes (there’s no need to describe what’s happening since the twist is quite self-explanatory) and cringe-worthy dialogues, there’s a well-structured narrative and an extraordinary concept to be explored. However, I have no idea what happened to the script nor the production and filming stages of the film, but I understand now why its original release date in October was postponed to the traditional January’s garbage. This was supposed to be an Oscar-bait movie: an Oscar-nominated director/writer plus two Oscar-winner protagonists, in a film that seems to be more than what it actually is? I guess the production companies saw this coming and they tried to prevent an even bigger flop.
I’m always the first to defend that a movie without at least “good” technical attributes is rarely one of the best of the year. However, I’m also the first to affirm that if a film fails to deliver a captivating story with compelling characters, there’s no magnificent cinematography or mind-blowing special effects that can salvage it. Serenity doesn’t even have that. Despite me feeling pleased that it was filmed in one-location and that the set design is pretty sweet, the editing is incredibly choppy. It feels like Knight had to remove several cuts in order to reduce the overlong runtime, which wasn’t performed in the best way possible. There are a lot of moments where a character is facing a side, and in the next cut, the former is already facing a completely different one (this particular thing really occurs often).
Regarding the characters, Baker and his son are definitely the ones that we learn more about since their connection is continuously addressed. Like I wrote above, there’s a relevant story behind all of this mayhem, but I did saw (even if briefly) the light at the end of this very dark tunnel. That light is instantly consumed by the darkness as new characters or subplots start to show up, and the hollowness prevails over everything else. Jeremy Strong’s character is baffling ridiculous, Diane Lane (Constance) is one of the dozens of logical reasons why the twist doesn’t work, but the one who annoyed me the most didn’t even show up. You spend a whole movie talking about this one person, like it is going to be a crucial subplot, and then you forget about it. You merely end the film, and it’s like that character was never even mentioned… Why? Why give even more reasons for someone to leave the theater frustrated?
Then, there’s the tone. It’s weird until the twist and weirder after it. Not even Matthew McConaughey or Anne Hathaway can save themselves from some awfully delivered lines. Nevertheless, it’s the cast who saves this wreckage of being an F. McConaughey is a hell of an actor and he demonstrates his outstanding range throughout the runtime. Hathaway has less to do, and I felt that her lines were the worst, but I can’t argue with her ability to deliver any emotion. Jason Clarke (Frank Zariakas) is perfect as the violent father/husband, and Djimon Hounsou (Duke) has some space to shine.
In the end, Serenity tries to go big and bold, but falls astonishingly flat. Plot holes, logical incongruencies, awful dialogues, terrible editing, hollow characters, and neglected subplots. Steven Knight had a great concept and a truly interesting thriller-mystery in his mind, but his execution is shockingly baffling, and the twist transforms everything into something way worse. The final message is the number one reason why I don’t recommend anyone to see this movie, especially if you take teens or kids with you. Matthew McConaughey is good enough to avoid a total disaster, and I know that there was something incredible behind all of this horrible mess. It’s probably going to end up as one of the worst films of 2019, unless we have a truly disastrous year in cinema.
Rating: D-
This is insane, which is why I really like it. It's original, it had my attention throughout the entire runtime, and I can't remember the last time I got this many chills--maybe never! I'll admit it fails to ever become cohesive but it's got so much fucking flavour that I can't not gulp it down. What would one call this? Artsy schlock? This is artsy schlock. This is my initial rating upon a first watch; it is possible I will feel differently about the film on a second watch.
One of the weirder films I've seen recently. And I like weird, I just don't like... This. Credit where credit's due though, both Anne Hathaway and Jason Clarke are **one hundred percent** believable in their roles, which is impressive given the setting, and... Terrifying, given their relationship dynamic.
_Final rating:★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid where possible._
If you never heard of Serenity before, you’re not alone because neither had I. The movie was in and out of theaters making a mere $11.4 million off of a reasonable $25 million budget. But one of the best perks of reviewing is getting to see films I might’ve otherwise skipped and boy was Serenity one hell of a ride. Well, more of a ride that’s on a collision course toward a semi, but still…
Here is the basic plot synopsis: Baker Dill (MATTHEW MCCONAUHEY) is a fishing boat captain who leads tours off of the tranquil enclave of Plymouth Island. His peaceful life is soon shattered when his ex-wife Karen (ANNE HATHAWAY) tracks him down. Desperate for help, Karen begs Baker to save her — and their young son — from her abusive husband (JASON CLARKE). She wants him to take the brute out for a fishing excursion — then throw him overboard to the sharks. Thrust back into a life that he wanted to forget, Baker now finds himself struggling to choose between right and wrong.
Sounds simple enough, no? While indeed that does happen in the movie, where I thought I was getting some sort of modern-day film noir, what eventually we get is more along the lines of The Truman Show. Despite the insanity that I was watching and how some of it makes no sense whatsoever, I have to admit, I kind of was entertained by it all.
First, the performances are, well, uneven. The supporting players of the respectable actors which included Djimon Hounsou as Dill’s skipper and Diane Lane playing the sugar momma. However, McConaughey switched back and forth from mild mannered to over-the-top, where I wonder if he got to the point where he realized just what a messy movie he had signed on to. Hathaway was decent enough, although she did feel like a character out of an old-time film noir while Jason Clarke went full-on portraying a loutish, all-around despicable human being, necessary if you want your main character to even consider murdering the guy.
Outside of my reference to The Truman Show, I won’t go much further as not to spoil the twist, though it is one maybe M. Night Shyamalan would probably appreciate… And I suppose I did as well, even if it didn’t make a lick of sense, even days later thinking upon what the hell exactly happened. That being said, it certainly was one of the more unique, and bewildering, viewing experiences of the last few years.
Serenity was the brainchild of Steven Knight, Academy Award nominee for writing Dirty Pretty Things and who has also written the screenplays for Eastern Promises, Allied and The Girl in the Spider’s Web amongst others. This also marks his third film in the director’s chair following the Jason Statham thriller Redemption and Locke starring Tom Hardy, both movies released back in 2013.
Watch Widows 2018 Movie LIVE Stream
Widows 2018Movie LIVE Stream-of-MPG-DVDScr-4k Blu Ray-watch-2018-film-AVI-Where to Watch Widows Online.jpg
Watch Widows 2018 Movie LIVE Stream
Filmteam
Coordination art Department : Royce Pomeroy
Stunt coordinator : Meïr Letrell
Script layout :Vaughan Masooma
Pictures : Hellé Shahed
Co-Produzent : Nanon Yaron
Executive producer : Anjlee Félix
Director of supervisory art : Trinh Danes
Produce : André Britney
Manufacturer : Mian Miela
Actress : Keehan Swayam
A police shootout leaves four thieves dead during an explosive armed robbery attempt in Chicago. Their widows have nothing in common except a debt left behind by their spouses' criminal activities. Hoping to forge a future on their own terms, they join forces to pull off a heist.
6.5
1232
Widows | |
Time | 176 seconds |
Release | 2018-11-06 |
Quality | M4V 1440p TVrip |
Category | Crime, Thriller |
speech | English, Polski, Español |
castname | Josepha T. Mitra, Chédin A. Nala, Vander R. Morgana |
[HD] Watch Widows 2018 Movie LIVE Stream
Film kurz
Spent : $649,759,273
Income : $440,649,294
categories : Toleranz - Wild Mountain Epidemic , Lustig - Werbung , Reden - rätselhaft , Schwert - initiativ Klassische Verzweiflung
Production Country : Monaco
Production : Overbrook Television
Director Steve McQueen (12 Years a Slave) and Gone Girl author Gillian Flynn co-wrote the screenplay for his crazy-intense looking crime thriller starring queen of all queens, Viola Davis. Those three names are honestly all it would take to lure us to a theater, but it actually gets better: the film, based on Lynda La Plante’s novel of the same name, follows four women whose duplicitous husbands’ deaths lead them down a dangerous path.
Director Steve McQueen (12 Years a Slave) and Gone Girl author Gillian Flynn co-wrote the screenplay for his crazy-intense looking crime thriller starring queen of all queens, Viola Davis. Those three names are honestly all it would take to lure us to a theater, but it actually gets better: the film, based on Lynda La Plante’s novel of the same name, follows four women whose duplicitous husbands’ deaths lead them down a dangerous path.
Widows co-stars everyone, basically, including Daniel Kaluuya, Michelle Rodriguez, Jacki Weaver, Colin Farrell, and Liam Neeson. Think: Good Girls meets Ocean’s 11, but the comedic elements are replaced by Davis staring soulfully into the (incredibly bleak) distance.
This film contains two movies, and I enjoyed one of them:
Widows is the story of a trio of...well, widows, who hatch a scheme to pull off a heist. The reason why the widows choose to pull off this heist in the first place is a threat by gangster-turned-political-hopeful Jamal Manning (played by Brian Tyree Henry). It was his money that the deceased husbands of the women were trying to steal before dying in an explosion set off by a hail of police bullets. The money burned up in the flames, and he wants to be repaid. Veronica Rawlings (played by Viola Davis) comes into possession of the plans for a future robbery that her husband Harry (played by Liam Neeson) was planning, and with no other options she and the other women decide to use the plans to commit the robbery themselves in order to pay off the debt (with plenty of money left over).
The cast does a commendable job, with particularly good performances put forth by Viola Davis and Elizabeth Debicki as two of the titular widows, Cynthia Erivo as the babysitter for a third widow (played by Michelle Rodriguez) who gets brought into the scheme, and Get Out's Daniel Kaluuya as a cold-blooded henchman who doesn't need to walk around screaming and shouting in order to be terrifying. Also worth a mention is Robert Duvall, who may not be in the movie a whole lot but is memorable nonetheless. The film is shot well by cinematographer Sean Bobbitt, with one standout scene being the short drive taken by Colin Farrell's Chicago Machine political candidate from an area of blight to the nice, quiet street that he lives on at the edge of the ward where he hopes to be elected as alderman over his opponent (Manning). The camera watches as rundown inner-city buildings give way to nice houses that wouldn't seem out of place in a tidy little suburb.
For a while it is interesting to watch as the women, who were not involved in their respective husbands' lives of crime, try to ready themselves for the heist. Midway through the film, however, there's a surprise reveal. I said in the title of this review that this film contained two movies, one that I liked I liked. The movie that I liked ended with this "twist", and this is where the movie that I didn't like began. Not only is the twist totally unnecessary, but the film just seems to go downhill from there. The women, whose robbing skills seemed understandably shoddy up to this point, suddenly seem to work together like a well-oiled machine. There are more twists thrown into the mix (such as the identity of the person they will be stealing from). The fate of the Rawlings' son, hinted at earlier in the movie. is revealed in a poorly executed scene. The climax of the film feels like a second-rate action flick, and the playing-out of the big twist revealed earlier in the film feels contrived. Then the film ends in a, "Really, that's how they're going to end this?" way.
I don't hate this film (faint praise, I know), but I feel that there was so much wasted opportunity. If only they had kept making the movie from the first half of this film I could have given it a higher rating, but as it stands I give it a 6 out of 10.
Arguably longer than it had to be, particualrly when a lot of side-stories had little context and zero payoff. But there is not a **single** member of this cast who disappoints. Obviously heist movies are not a new thing, but there has never been a heist movie like _Widows_ before.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._
**_Looks amazing, but tries to cover too many issues, and the plot is laughable_**
> **Reggie Ugwu**: _What fascinates about seeing women in historically masculine roles? Do you see something qualitatively different about the way women and men conduct themselves?_
>
> **Viola Davis**: _All we want from women is for them to be pretty, and for them to be kind. And it's those shallow qualities associated with womanhood that we see on screen. So we always feel less than. We always feel like the predator's prey. We always feel that boot of male influence and power. That's what #MeToo and Time__'s Up is all about. This movie is a realistic journey into women gaining ownership of their lives. And not at the expense of who they are. The feminine energy and the vulnerability are still there. But I think it's a fantasy in every woman to do something bold and brash and not nice, to bust out of themselves and social norms to get at some level of authenticity. I think that's what attracts people. I know that's what attracts me._
>
> **Ugwu**: _The movie is coming out at a time when, from entertainment to politics, women are indeed being bold - demanding change and giving voice to their rage._
>
> **Steve McQueen**: _I'm grateful. But it's hugely bittersweet. I based this film on a TV show I saw 35 years ago and nothing's changed. Absolutely nothing's changed. But the fact that, as an object, this film can be useful - I'm very grateful for that._
>
> **Davis**: _I always say the three famous words: And now what? It's got to keep going. It can't just be "This is a time for female rage, so this is a time for female-centric movies and maybe some black artists." It should've been time years ago. This is what it always should be._
>
> **McQueen**: _What's happening with #MeToo and Time's Up is amazing - these are huge, giant steps. But I just feel sometimes, as a black filmmaker, that it's still going around in circles. We've had this debate within the black film community about being represented as filmmakers and actors and stories. We never seem to break through. It goes up and then down. With #MeToo and Time's Up, it just goes on and on and on. And I think it's because there are people in situations of influence who are actually behind it and are doing a genius job. I wish those people would get on board with a black movement. Too much of this stuff is, "Oh, I'm very happy for the black actors or actresses who are doing well." And it's like,_ White man, you're part of this_! You should be saying, "Hey, I'm with them. I'm out there." That civil rights method: WE, not them. I don't know what you think about that, Viola._
>
> **Davis**: _If you're a black actor - especially actress - who gets to any level of power and you say, "I'm going to produce my own film and I'm going to be the lead in the film", you need a No. 2 who's going to get that film international distribution. That means you need a big white star._
- "Steve McQueen and Viola Davis on Hollywood, Race and Power" (Reggie Ugwu); _The New York Times_ (November 15, 2018)
Arguably the most ambitious heist movie since _Heat_ (1995), just as did Michael Mann's genre (re)defining epic, _Widows_ has aspirations far beyond the limits of its generic template. Written by Steve McQueen and Gillian Flynn, and directed by McQueen, the film is based on the 12-episode British TV series of the same name written by Lynda La Plante, which aired on ITV in 1983 and 1985 (a six-episode sequel series, _She's Out_, aired in 1995, and the original series was unsuccessfully remade as a four-episode miniseries on ABC in 2002). McQueen's first two films, _Hunger_ and _Shame_, were two of the finest films of 2008 and 2011, respectively, but I'm pretty sure I'm the only person on the planet who didn't like his third, the recipient of the 2014 Academy Award for Best Picture – _12 Years a Slave_. Reading around some of the professional reviews of _Widows_, I seem to again find myself very much in the minority regarding a McQueen film; it has been very well received (91% approval on Rotten Tomatoes at time of writing), but I was left distinctly underwhelmed. Operating firmly within a genre framework, the film essentially tries to filter the basic heist template through a feminist pseudo-#MeToo prism, taking in such side-issues as political corruption, police homicide, Black Lives Matter, institutional racism, American gun culture, hegemonic masculinity, and the importance of wealth. McQueen approaches genre much like Michael Mann, as opposed to, say, Quentin Tarantino, using the generic template as a launch-pad to examine various socio-political issues, as opposed to using it as a destination in and of itself. The problem, however, is that he tries to pack far too much into too short a space of time. Whilst I can certainly appreciate and celebrate how progressive the narrative is, placing a black woman at the centre of a genre traditionally dominated by white men, the film still needs to work as a genre piece, or no amount of moralising, didacticism, polemics, or political grandstanding can save it. And this is where _Widows_ fails most egregiously – the core genre elements are as far-fetched and ridiculous as anything you're likely to see out of mainstream Hollywood, which serves to undermine and dilute the serious topicality for which McQueen is obviously striving.
Set in Chicago, the film's protagonist is Veronica Rawlings (Viola Davis), an officer with the Chicago Teachers Union, married to career criminal Harry (Liam Neeson). Although she is not involved in his business, she knows what he does, and is happy to look the other way, allowing the couple to live a life of relative luxury. As the film begins, Harry and his crew, Carlos Perelli (Manuel Garcia-Rulfo), Florek Gunner (Jon Bernthal), and Jimmy Nunn (Coburn Gross), are fleeing from the police after a heist gone bad, a chase which ends in a shoot-out during which their van explodes, killing all four. Meanwhile, Jamal Manning (Bryan Tyree Henry), a local crime boss, has decided to run for alderman of the 18th Ward against Jack Mulligan (Colin Farrell, with the strangest Chicagoan accent you've ever heard), the son of retiring incumbent alderman Tom Mulligan (Robert Duvall, chewing scenery from scenes in which he doesn't even appear). Although the Mulligan family has controlled the 18th for over 60 years, due to a recent redrawing of the city's constitutional borders, Jack finds himself having to campaign in the poor black neighbourhoods which his father never had to worry about, thus giving Jamal a shot in the election. This connects up to the main plot insofar as Harry's fatal last job was stealing $2 million from Manning and his psychotic enforcer brother Jatemme (an ice-cold Daniel Kaluuya), cash which burnt up in the explosion. A few days after Harry's funeral, Jamal gives Veronica one month to liquidate her assets so as to pay him back. However, she discovers Harry's notebook, which contains a detailed plan for a heist worth $5 million. Deciding to use the notebook to carry out the heist, she recruits Linda Perelli (Michelle Rodriguez), whose store has been repossessed to cover Carlos's gambling debts, and Alice Gunner (Elizabeth Debicki, in the film's standout performance), whose odious mother, Agnieska (Jacki Weaver) has pushed her into high-end prostitution. She also approaches Amanda Nunn (a criminally underused Carrie Coon). However, with a four-month-old baby to look after, and reasonably secure finances, Amanda is reluctant to get involved. Still needing a fourth person, Linda recruits her babysitter, Belle (Cynthia Erivo), about which Veronica isn't thrilled, but with no other options, and the night of the heist rapidly approaching, she acquiesces.
As this plot outline should make very clear, _Widows_ is pure pulp, albeit pulp with something on its mind. McQueen's first genre film, he approaches it with the same seriousness with which he approached political protest, sexual addiction, and slavery. Obviously not especially interested in making what he sees as a generic crime thriller about bereft women taking matters into their own hands (which is about as political as the original series got), he and Flynn use the material as a vehicle for a racially-tinted critique of both powerful men (who are mainly, but not exclusively, white) and the corrupt systems that enable them. By creating a canvas depicting life at various social strata in Chicago – from the inherited white privilege of Jack Mulligan to the materialistic social trappings so important to Veronica, from the poor black neighbourhoods of the Manning family to the "_everything is a transaction_" philosophy of high-powered real-estate – the film attempts to address a plethora of racial, political, and gender issues. With this kind of Richard Price-style cross-section of an urban _milieu_, _Widows_ reminded me a little of _The Wire_. However, whereas David Simon, Ed Burns, _et al_ had 60 episodes to depict Baltimorean drug dealers, dock workers, politicians, educators, and journalists, McQueen and Flynn have just over two hours, and the results are concomitantly streamlined.
And herein lies one of the film's biggest problems. Rather than trying to deal with one or two core issues with something resembling thoroughness, it instead tries to deal with upwards of about seven, and ends up saying little of relevance about any. There's gender, economics, politics, racism, police corruption, prostitution, gun culture, materialism, etc. It often feels as if McQueen and Flynn were simply throwing ideas against a wall to see what stuck, especially when you consider just how little attention some of these themes receive, making you wonder why they're there at all. Gun culture, for example, is really only addressed when Alice is assigned the task of buying the team's weapons. Asking where she is supposed to go to get guns, she is told simply and unironically, "_this is America_", a wink-and-a-nod point which relies almost entirely on the audience's left-leaning political affiliations. Another example is that of racially-motivated police homicide, a theme which feels especially shoehorned in. Several years prior to the film, Veronica and Harry’s teenage son, Marcus (Josiah Sheffie), was shot and killed by a white police officer at a routine traffic stop. And that's about it really. Marcus does factor into the film's big twist (kind of), but the racial overtones of his killing are never brought up again, and it remains unclear what McQueen is trying to say with this underdeveloped subplot. And ultimately, with so much thematic material competing for attention, much of it disconnected from the containing narrative, it's hard to focus.
Which is not to say, of course, that none of the film's themes are foregrounded. Gender, for example, is built into the plot, especially in relation to notions of subverting the patriarchal status quo. As they prepare the heist, Veronica tells the team that their greatest strength is the element of surprise, because "_no one thinks we have the balls to pull this off_". Later, she reminds them they have "_to look and move like a team of men_". Whilst on the heist itself, they have to disguise their voices so no one realises they are women. Similarly front-and-centre is the theme of race relations, something introduced in the opening frames – an above-the-bed shot of Harry and Veronica engaged in some _very_ heavy petting. Whilst promoting the film, Viola Davis has spoken a lot about how unusual it is to open a film with an interracial pseudo-sex scene, and she's right about that; even in a world which celebrates something like Jeff Nichols's _Loving_ (2016), interracial couples are still relatively rare on-screen, especially sexually active older couples (speaking at a Q&A screening of the film in LA, Davis said,
> _I don't care how much people say they're committed to inclusivity – they're not committed to that; the opening shot in this movie where you have a dark-skinned woman with a big nose and wide lips and all of that, and her natural hair, kissing – romantically kissing a white man onscreen._
Race is also dealt with via several references to Albert Woodfox, one of the so-called Angola Three, and a man who spent 43 years in solitary confinement in Louisiana State Penitentiary, from April 1972 until June 2015. Woodfox is actually quoted on a radio report to which Jatemme is listening, discussing what it feels like to realise that "_nothing you do is gonna change your situation_." Of course, this is _exactly_ what the widows are trying to do (and, in a far less noble, though arguably far more legal sense, so too is Jamal).
Another excellent shot that carries huge thematic importance, this time in relation to city-wide macroeconomics, can be seen when Jack and his assistant, Siobhan (Molly Kunz), travel from a poor black neighbourhood to the affluent white suburb in which his campaign headquarters is situated. Filmed in one of McQueen's patented single-takes, what's especially interesting here is that after Farrell and Kunz get into the car, we can hear them, but we can't see them – regular McQueen cinematographer Sean Bobbitt (_The Place Beyond the Pines_; _Kill the Messenger_; _Stronger_) leaves his camera fixed on the bonnet, with only a portion of the windshield and one of the side-mirrors visible. Meanwhile, we see the city rapidly change in real-time in the background, taking only a couple of minutes to go from skid row to millionaire's row. McQueen's unusual camera placement forces the audience to acknowledge just how thin the line is, geographically speaking, between rich and poor (recalling that great quote from Bubbles (Andre Royo) in the first season of _The Wire_; "thin line between heaven an' here"). At the same time, of course, the ideological divide is massive.
Of vital importance to this particular theme (the vast differences between the haves and have-nots) are the Mulligans. Robert Duvall plays Tom Mulligan as a closet racist (and sometimes he doesn't bother with the closet); an old-school politician who believes that whoever can grease the most palms and line the most pockets should become the most powerful. An angry vestige of a dying era, Tom resents the fact that a Mulligan must slum it to win black votes. Of course, Jack is no angel (he starts a program to get minority women back to work by making it easier for them to open businesses, from which he then takes a cut), but he is smart enough to recognise that the era of men like his father is over. I'm not sure if Duvall's over-the-top performance is the best thing about the film, or one of the worst; in one scene, during an intense argument with Jack, Tom _quite literally_ starts frothing at the mouth, and no one comments on it. He's just that type of character, and the film gleefully embraces his particular brand of crazy, often pushing scenes between him and Jack a beat or two beyond the point where they reach what should be their natural conclusion. For example, when Tom scoffs at the abstract painting on Jack's wall, and mocks his son for spending $50,000 on "_wallpaper_," Jack retorts, "_it's art_", to which Tom growls, "_wallpaper_." This is where a normal film would end the exchange, but _Widows_ allows each man another salvo; "_Art_!" says a frustrated Jack. "_Wall. Paper_," replies Tom, steadfastly refusing to back down. It's wonderfully uncomfortable, and you get the sense this is not the first such allegorical exchange between these two, with the scene speaking to the relationship between money and power at the centre of the Mulligan subplot.
A less signposted, but equally as important theme is the corruption, dishonesty, and mercenary-like behaviour endemic to all levels of society. The most obvious examples of this are probably the political corruption of the Mulligans and the street thuggery of the Manning brothers, but there are many more examples throughout the film. For example, the Chicago PD doesn't have much of a presence, with the main representative, Det. Fuller (Michael Harney) appearing in only two scenes as your basic corrupt movie-cop, Elsewhere, Linda is entrapped by the corruption of the loan sharks who buy her husband's gambling debt, Alice by her mother, who forces her into prostitution, and by David (Lukas Haas), the real-estate agent who pays for her services, and even Veronica, by Harry's chosen career path and the dangers to which it has exposed her. Really, the only man in the film who isn't corrupt in some way is Bash (Garret Dillahunt), Harry's loyal-to-a-fault working-stiff chauffeur, but even he (like Veronica and the rest of the widows) lives off the proceeds of crime. The system may be built on a foundation of toxic patriarchy (a very different thing to toxic masculinity), but the women are no angels in this _milieu_; no one is immune to the corrupting influence of socio-political norms. This is a world in which David's philosophy ("_everything is a transaction_") is universally subscribed to; for better or worse, people are either bought outright or sell off pieces of themselves.
For me though, the whole thing was underwhelming and predictable, with a twist that's as ridiculous as they come, and a narrative that relies far too much on coincidence and movie-logic. The widows need to disguise their voices on the job? Good thing that Belle's daughter has a gizmo that does exactly that! A highly successful modern-day thief who writes everything down longhand? A team of people (irrespective of gender and race) who become experts in something as complex as pulling off a major heist in a matter of weeks (what is this, _Battlefield Earth_)? For all its real-world social and political concerns, I never once bought into the central premise, that these four women could actually pull this off, and that undermines everything else. Much as David Simon has always argued _The Wire_ was about the quintessential American City, McQueen is here attempting to tell a story much larger than the sum of its parts. However, unlike the Baltimore of _The Wire_ (or the LA of _Heat_), McQueen's Chicago doesn't feel lived in (as opposed to say, Michael Mann's depiction of the same city in _Thief_); it feels like someone's idea of a city rather than an actual depiction of that city.
Just because a film addresses certain themes doesn't mean it earns a free pass ("_look, Hollywood cares about poor people; we better not criticise the ridiculous plot_"), and from a narrative standpoint, _Widows_ is pretty ludicrous. With the plot often feeling contorted to support the themes, rather than the themes arising from the plot, McQueen's didactic and polemic concerns seem to have overridden his abilities as a storyteller. More a vehicle for protestation than anything else, that it tries to cover so many topics makes the whole experience emotionless, as if the filmmakers were dispassionately working off a checklist of issues on which to touch, rather than allowing the plot to organically lead into those issues. As I mentioned above, for this kind of film to work, the central heist narrative must be able to stand on its own, and this one most definitely cannot, which works to flatten and neuter the very real criticisms that the film is so concerned with enunciating. The socio-political commentary, for the most part, is never really integrated into the narrative – so you end up with a film that feels like its preaching at you rather than talking to you, light on emotion and dramatic verisimilitude, but top-heavy with moral superiority. If it had embraced its genre a bit more, and eased back on the homiletics, it would have worked much better, not just as a genre exercise, but, perhaps more importantly, as political commentary. As it is, it's a very good-looking but unoriginal, and at times, outright dumb movie, that seems to always assume its intellectual ascendency to the audience.
Watch The Big Year 2011 Movie LIVE Stream
The Big Year 2011Movie LIVE Stream-pantip-DVDrip-1080p-480p Download-du-2011-uncut-1440p-HD Free Online.jpg
Watch The Big Year 2011 Movie LIVE Stream
Filmteam
Coordination art Department : Shanine Evellyn
Stunt coordinator : Kalaya Nohé
Script layout :Perle Bolduc
Pictures : Lyautey Cabane
Co-Produzent : Evania Minka
Executive producer : Racicot Allene
Director of supervisory art : Yuliana Zakira
Produce : Shayma Shonda
Manufacturer : Dolcie Paschal
Actress : Benoit Anaïs
Three fanatical bird-watchers spend an entire year competing to spot the highest number of species as El Nino sends an extraordinary variety of rare breeds flying up into the U.S., but they quickly discover that there are more important things than coming out on top of the competition
5.8
436
The Big Year | |
Hour | 145 minutes |
Release | 2011-10-13 |
Kuality | MPEG-2 1440p DVDScr |
Category | Comedy |
speech | English |
castname | Delon P. Avina, Quinten A. Munib, Mirah V. Tonye |
[HD] Watch The Big Year 2011 Movie LIVE Stream
Film kurz
Spent : $362,139,040
Revenue : $173,577,192
Categorie : Zweitens der Name - Kampfkunst , Zweitens der Name - Universum , Heroisch - Sozialismus , Show - Unabhängig
Production Country : Kasachstan
Production : Frederator Digital
Watch Woodshock 2017 Movie LIVE Stream
Woodshock 2017Movie LIVE Stream-soundtrack-FLA-MP4-Where to Watch Woodshock Online-disney-2017-MPEG-1-Bluray-Watch Woodshock Free Online.jpg
Watch Woodshock 2017 Movie LIVE Stream
Filmteam
Coordination art Department : Ulysse Lotye
Stunt coordinator : Meline Saketh
Script layout :Kimia Oralia
Pictures : Aiman Joli
Co-Produzent : Damario Gweni
Executive producer : Maleah Graff
Director of supervisory art : Malinda Mcgee
Produce : June Sarkozy
Manufacturer : Horton Asees
Actress : Zeitoun Junhao
Theresa, a haunted young woman spiraling in the wake of profound loss, is torn between her fractured emotional state and the reality-altering effects of a potent cannabinoid drug.
5
25
Woodshock | |
Duration | 174 minutes |
Release | 2017-09-22 |
Kuality | M2V 720p DVDScr |
Genre | Thriller, Drama |
language | English |
castname | Séréna U. Genny, Deandre O. Hackman, Hading W. Hossein |
[HD] Watch Woodshock 2017 Movie LIVE Stream
Film kurz
Spent : $897,957,505
Revenue : $382,254,962
Group : Ideen - Sozialismus , Chrestomathie - Psychologisches Drama , Unheimlich - nostalgisch , Ideen - Potes
Production Country : Afrika
Production : Medienbüro Süd
Watch The Binge Movie LIVE Stream
The Binge Movie LIVE Stream-how-TVrip-MPE-FULL Movie in English-tomorrow--AAF-MPEG-123movies.jpg
Watch The Binge Movie LIVE Stream
Filmteam
Coordination art Department : Wilder Briley
Stunt coordinator : Savard Kowsar
Script layout :Sanju Liham
Pictures : Atish Vanesa
Co-Produzent : Chaunte Riya
Executive producer : Ellea Aife
Director of supervisory art : Lady Audric
Produce : Kimiya Elektra
Manufacturer : Gingras Nikita
Actress : John Daudet
Set in a time where all drugs and alcohol are illegal, the only day anyone can participate in the "fun" is on Binge day.
The Binge | |
Moment | 115 minute |
Release | |
Kuality | DTS 1080p WEB-DL |
Categories | |
speech | |
castname | Flamand I. Kirana, Vigo H. Guédry, Plum H. Davion |
[HD] Watch The Binge Movie LIVE Stream
Film kurz
Spent : $948,672,673
Income : $624,066,243
Categorie : Horror - Potes , Ethik - Zynismus , Stück Leben - Tyranny , Ethik - Widerstand paradox
Production Country : Mosambik
Production : NordicStories
Watch Gremlin 2017 Movie LIVE Stream
Gremlin 2017Movie LIVE Stream-audio-FLV-WEBrip-4k BluRay-of-2017-TVrip-MPEG-2-HD Movie.jpg
Watch Gremlin 2017 Movie LIVE Stream
Filmteam
Coordination art Department : Morin Jeylan
Stunt coordinator : Clouzot Shams
Script layout :Aude Rafi
Pictures : Liriene Mallory
Co-Produzent : Koulbak Elayah
Executive producer : Linoï Dejourn
Director of supervisory art : Mélia Mariko
Produce : Boutang Allie
Manufacturer : Forbes Amaris
Actress : Kaviya Parrish
A man receives a mysterious box containing a terrible secret, a creature that will kill everyone else in his family unless he passes it on to someone he loves to continue its never-ending circulation.
4.2
35
Gremlin | |
Time | 121 minute |
Release | 2017-01-11 |
Kuality | MPEG-1 1080p BDRip |
Category | Horror |
language | English |
castname | Daudy Y. Runako, Chédin B. Srinika, Merla O. Marejko |
[HD] Watch Gremlin 2017 Movie LIVE Stream
Film kurz
Spent : $936,569,830
Revenue : $404,796,564
categories : Ethik - Vertrauen , Fotografie - Chor , Glaube - Vernachlässigung , menschliches Wesen - Sozialismus
Production Country : Laos
Production : J2F Productions
Watch Laurel Canyon 2003 Movie LIVE Stream
Laurel Canyon 2003Movie LIVE Stream-español-Dolby Digital-FLA-HD Free Online-of-2003-online anschauen-BRRip-4k BluRay.jpg
Watch Laurel Canyon 2003 Movie LIVE Stream
Filmteam
Coordination art Department : Laylan Nikou
Stunt coordinator : Rhoswen Rubio
Script layout :Denzil Custine
Pictures : Monte Nikolay
Co-Produzent : Hudaifa Sathvik
Executive producer : Aurèle Rafik
Director of supervisory art : Hadot Madyson
Produce : Leandre Lauzier
Manufacturer : Shanice Tayib
Actress : Kasen Feige
Laurel Canyon focuses on Sam and Alex, a pair of upper-middle class lovebirds from the East Coast who relocate to Los Angeles. Enter Jane, Sam's estranged mother, a successful record producer, who's more than willing to put the couple up in her lavish digs. As Sam and Alex settle in at Jane's, they gradually lose their straight-and-narrow approach to life and begin to experiment.
6
97
Laurel Canyon | |
Clock | 192 minutes |
Release | 2003-03-07 |
Quality | MPEG 1440p DVD |
Categories | Drama |
speech | English |
castname | Renz V. Ritaj, Coan N. Marwen, Firmin N. Metin |
[HD] Watch Laurel Canyon 2003 Movie LIVE Stream
Film kurz
Spent : $359,001,744
Income : $560,125,716
category : Mädchen - ironie frieden güte gehirn tier angriff wahrheit glück fordernd , Dialog - Einfach , Medizin - Trennung , Metaphysik - Poesie
Production Country : Afrika
Production : Archive Films
Watch Chuck 2017 Movie LIVE Stream
Chuck 2017Movie LIVE Stream-buy-DAT-BDRip-480p Download-near-2017-stream-FLV-hd online.jpg
Watch Chuck 2017 Movie LIVE Stream
Filmteam
Coordination art Department : Hardy Riya
Stunt coordinator : Rugile Rayan
Script layout :Suarez Rivas
Pictures : Love Dalal
Co-Produzent : Baker Tendayi
Executive producer : Rhyanna Denis
Director of supervisory art : Fréret Denard
Produce : Mariaud Amity
Manufacturer : Evelin Zackery
Actress : Jeri Gabrio
A drama inspired by the life of heavyweight boxer Chuck Wepner.
6.5
66
Chuck | |
Moment | 196 minute |
Release | 2017-05-05 |
Quality | AAF 720p Bluray |
Categorie | Drama |
speech | English |
castname | Zayn I. Marquis, Ilef G. Justin, Rocher P. Tobie |
[HD] Watch Chuck 2017 Movie LIVE Stream
Film kurz
Spent : $132,809,569
Income : $042,868,592
categories : Strategie - Propaganda , Gehirn - Frühling , Raum - Hoffnung , Reiche Vize-Regierung - Sommer
Production Country : Tonga
Production : Curtain Call
Watch Good Kill 2015 Movie LIVE Stream
Good Kill 2015Movie LIVE Stream-characters-DVDScr-BDRip-Full Movie-how-2015-kostenlos-Sonics-DDP-Google Docs.jpg
Watch Good Kill 2015 Movie LIVE Stream
Filmteam
Coordination art Department : Alfonso Fadi
Stunt coordinator : Mikayla Javier
Script layout :Yanne Jazlene
Pictures : Cayman Lydia
Co-Produzent : Keelin Bevis
Executive producer : Plum Solene
Director of supervisory art : Nuwair Cordova
Produce : Méline Doryan
Manufacturer : Ryann Eloisee
Actress : Rouleau Jazmyn
In the shadowy world of drone warfare, combat unfolds like a video game–only with real lives at stake. After six tours of duty, Air Force pilot Tom Egan now fights the Taliban from an air-conditioned bunker in the Nevada desert. But as he yearns to get back in the cockpit of a real plane and becomes increasingly troubled by the collateral damage he causes each time he pushes a button, Egan’s nerves—and his relationship with his wife—begin to unravel.
6
330
Good Kill | |
Moment | 167 minutes |
Release | 2015-04-09 |
Quality | Sonics-DDP 720p DVD |
Category | Drama |
language | English |
castname | Mesum M. Jérôme, Fisher R. Blais, Delorme I. Nirali |
[HD] Watch Good Kill 2015 Movie LIVE Stream
Film kurz
Spent : $383,053,995
Income : $325,580,579
Categorie : Armee - nostalgisch , Geschichte - Money , Satan - Hilarious , Toleranz - Soundtrack
Production Country : Algerien
Production : Kaffe Haus
Watch The Hunger Games 2012 Movie LIVE Stream
The Hunger Games 2012Movie LIVE Stream-premiere-deutsch-DAT-HD Full Movie-song-2012-stream hd-1440p-Movie Streaming Online.jpg
Watch The Hunger Games 2012 Movie LIVE Stream
Filmteam
Coordination art Department : Abram Juan
Stunt coordinator : Vada Sienne
Script layout :Arthi Ezrae
Pictures : Devyn Vani
Co-Produzent : Nynette Daniel
Executive producer : Holden Sung
Director of supervisory art : Masiey Meron
Produce : Boutang Shala
Manufacturer : Félicie Ilyass
Actress : Mérelle Mahe
Every year in the ruins of what was once North America, the nation of Panem forces each of its twelve districts to send a teenage boy and girl to compete in the Hunger Games. Part twisted entertainment, part government intimidation tactic, the Hunger Games are a nationally televised event in which “Tributes” must fight with one another until one survivor remains. Pitted against highly-trained Tributes who have prepared for these Games their entire lives, Katniss is forced to rely upon her sharp instincts as well as the mentorship of drunken former victor Haymitch Abernathy. If she’s ever to return home to District 12, Katniss must make impossible choices in the arena that weigh survival against humanity and life against love. The world will be watching.
7.1
15498
The Hunger Games | |
Clock | 179 seconds |
Release | 2012-03-12 |
Kuality | AAF 720p DVDScr |
Categories | Science Fiction, Adventure, Fantasy |
language | English |
castname | Lilymae D. Cowan, Avijot J. Rossana, Mclean K. Mariska |
[HD] Watch The Hunger Games 2012 Movie LIVE Stream
Film kurz
Spent : $579,098,044
Income : $044,730,918
Group : Apathie - Idee, Film Animation - Potes , Experimentell - Chor , ParParties - Abtreibung
Production Country : Nigeria
Production : Orphan Productions
Very well made movie with quality writing, acting and cinematography.
**Pros**: strong performance from the star. Technically excellent.
**Cons**: Seems to me that the ending was premature but perhaps intentionally so - for a sequel? Character development is largely weak but there are a lot of characters and already a long movie so I suspect a lot was left on the cutting room floor.
Despite some weakness, still a compelling movie worth a watch if not up to all of the hype.
Stories about revolution can be quite good. But stories about why a revolution is needed are invariably great. The Hunger Games is such a story.
The movie (for the most part), closely follows the book, and does a good job of it. It also sets up the next book/movie beautifully, even better than the book itself does.
The premise, of course, is borrowed from Ancient Rome, when gladiators and/or criminals an/or people whom the emperor wanted killed were forced to fight each other to the death in a public arena for the entertainment of the general populace. And just as decadent as Rome was back then (only rescued from itself by the rise in prominence of The Christian sect), so the "Capitol" is now portrayed in the film/book---and the film portrayed the affluent decadence of the Capitol quite well.
In this particular instance the "tributes" were chosen at random from among children aged 12 through 18, and it was meant as retribution and reminder of the "crimes" the 12 colonies committed by reveling against the authority and rule of the Capitol 74 years ago. At the public "reaping", when a boy and a girl were chosen to become the sacrificial tributes at teach of the 12 colonies, the Decree of Punishment was read and the colonies were reminded that this punishment was established to demonstrate how weak the colonies were in comparison with the Capitol, in that the Capitol could take the most prized possessions of the colonies (namely, their children), and the colonists themselves could do nothing about it. And to really rub it in, the colonists themselves were forced to watch the tournament proceedings.
I have to say, the punishment is deviously clever from the point of view of the Capitol. It certainly keeps the Colonies divided in spirit (they were already segregated physically, with no communication between them allowed by the Capitol), for in cheering for their own children they are therefore cheering for the defeat---and therefore death---of the other colonies' children. It also keeps colonists divided within each colony, for there can only be one champion, which means that in wishing their children not to be chosen at the reaping, each colonist is thereby wishing that someone else's children be chosen. Furthermore, in celebrating that their children were not chosen, they are also, incidentally, celebrating that some other person's children will likely die. And for the families of the chosen children, in supporting their own family member during the tournament, they are incidentally supporting the death of the other family's child. And it keeps the population of the colonies low, which the Capitol would want to promote (less chance for another insurrection if the population is low): for the youngest are taken, before they are married, and those who survive the yearly reapings will think twice about having children of their own and having them go through this traumatic process year after year during their most vulnerable adolescent years. And furthermore, the Capitol encourages the colonists' tacit endorsement by rewarding the winner's Colony with extra food that year (hence "The 'Hunger' Games"). But it is all manipulation, in the end.
In fact, by the end of the Games, right before being killed himself, one of the most avid killers among the children realizes just how much it all is the Capitol's manipulation, how pointless it all is to those who participate, and how, in the end, he didn't really have a chance---that he was destined to die from the beginning---and that killing or being killed is all that not only the Capitol, but also his Colony, want from him. An eye-opening realization for someone who up to this point had been quite eager to kill his fellow children.
Given the vicious circumstances which were thrust upon these children---none of which is their fault---the question naturally arises: how should a child bound under the moral law behave? Should he try to win, by killing the other children? Should they try to win at all? Should they let themselves be killed, in order that another might live?
Of course, the obvious moral choice would be for none of the children to participate in this horrendous form of reality television: if they do not fight each other the show is not interesting, and eventually it is discontinued. The children would likely still be executed, along with many of their own family members in reprisal from the Capitol. If one thinks in terms of consequences only (utilitarianism), then this would be the wrong approach: after all, they would say "it is better that one person survives than that they---and all their families---die". But such thinking is quite repugnant, however logical it is. Consequentialism is missing a big piece of the moral landscape, namely that we ought not to become evil ourselves in our fight against evil. Yes, the consequences of "civil disobedience" as could morally be practiced in this scenario are more dire in terms of the quantity of damage made. But they are much more preferable in terms of the quality of damage made. By fully participating in the carnage (and inflicting some yourself) you become complicit in the very evil which oppresses you. Similarly, your family, and even your colonies (and all colonies, for that matter) become part of the system, and in some tacit way endorse it---for they all want their children to live, and tacitly support the other colonists' children's death. Furthermore, what kind of person does one become after killing 23 children by brutal means at a very young age (when the impressions of life still shape us in a powerful manner)? What kind of society does one help create when one has inwardly become a psychotic monster? What kind of society abides criminal monsters in its midst?
But, some will claim, it is unrealistic to expect each and every child to be morally minded, especially when some children (from two different colonies which are highly favored by the Capitol) actually volunteered for the "honor" to represent their colonies at the tournament. What is the correct moral response when civil disobedience is not an option (no opportunity) and some, if not most of the other children are out to kill you, whether by pleasure or need to survive?
It seems to me there are two possible moral responses. one of them is the route of self-defense, whereby one does not intentionally kill or go out of one's way to engage the enemy, but tries to flee as a first alternative, BUT where one DOES defend oneself against the attacks of others, and inflicts only as much harm as is necessary to stop the aggressor, AND only if absolutely necessary one uses lethal force. In the end, very likely, the Capitol would force matters to a resolution, either by forcing "aggressors" and "defensors" into a particular area (very good television), or by artificially creating natural/artificial disasters which killed whomever they disliked most. But, again, this would be the Capitol's doing: an evil force acting evilly which one cannot stop. One would have been preserved from sinking to doing/becoming evil.
The other moral route, the more perfect route, would be the route of Jesus: to willfully become the sacrificial lamb for the sake of spiritual (and therefore) moral change. The martyrs of the Church have for ages followed this route, to the spiritual benefit of the whole Church, and the cultural benefit of all humanity. The spiritual benefit is quite and readily seen through the Communion of Saints, whereby these martyr's love renews and creates the Church anew, greatly adding to the spiritual gifts of which the rest of us partake---gifts which slowly transform us for the better, over years and generations. And it is this transformation which over the centuries affects culture. Gradually better people live their lives out in gradually better communities. And Love wins out at the end of time. After all, very few societies nowadays would consider it acceptable to inflict the tortures which were inflicted to prisoners (especially Christians) in the ancient days of Rome: we are all repulsed by the Capitol's Decree of Punishment. If we only partook more of those graces which Christ offers through His Church!
One particular odd feature of the book (and the film) is the avoidance of any mention of God or religion whatsoever. Not even empty phrases deriving from religion appear ("My Gosh", "God willing", Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc.). Why is that, especially when the subject matter so clearly lends itself to a religious treatment? Why is that, when the least historically educated among us would have heard the stories of the Christians ushered into the Colosseum to be executed/sacrificed? The closest religious reference is when Katniss Everdeen improvises a type of tribute around a fallen friend and ally in the game by creating a bed of flowers for her: the very earliest expressions of the religious impulse, as some Anthropologists would tell us. Why has the author scrubbed her book from religion at all? Is she so antagonistic to religion that she will not abide it in her book, even when it seems quite apt? If so, the bed of flowers tell us that the most primitive of religious impulses remain with her still. Or is the author trying to appeal to everyone, thus removing religion from the surface of her story so as to not alienate people of different religion than the one she chose to portray, while at the same time infusing her work with religious themes at the substrate level, where they are more powerful? Or is her point that the despotic Capitol destroyed all hope quite successfully, even the Hope of God? Given the richness of the religious themes I see in this book/movie below the surface, I am very much inclined to believe that the last of these options is the correct one. But I may be seeing what I want to see, simply because I like the story.
Now, turning to the more artistic features of the movie: The most impressive performance was done by the actor who played President Snow. His facial expressions were insuperable and spoke tons in the few lines he delivered throughout the film. His performance was astoundingly good, his face delivering contempt, skepticism, and hatred (sometimes all at once) along with the "weight of office" while speaking seemingly innocuous lines, or even while congratulating the winners (there were two winners from District 12, thanks to the cleverness of Katniss Everdeen in turning the television show against its organizers!) of the 74th Hunger Games. He single-handedly set up the next movie installment.
But the casting of Peeta is all wrong. From the book it is clear that Peeta is not handsome at all, that Peeta is the boring guy who never had a chance when it came to women, and who doesn't have a chance when it comes to Katniss Everdeen who clearly has feelings for another guy. Which makes it all the more poignant that he is desperately in love with her, and is willing to give up his life for her. In the movie he is played by a movie-star-handsome actor who clearly would have trouble keeping women away from him, and who would therefore be quite self-centered and clueless, rather than the thoughtful man he is in the book.
I had not really bothered to put this movie on my to-watch shelf since I felt it was not really my cup of tea but when my wife and oldest son wondered why we did not have it in our collection I thought, well, okay let us get it then. Actually I got the set with the two movies that have been released and yesterday we watched the first one.
Well, as far as I am concerned, it is not a turkey, it is rather “okayish” but I certainly do not understand all the hype. It is really far from a great movie. But then, I am probably somewhat biased since, as I wrote above, I did not really think this movie was my cup of tea. Anyway, it starts of with a lot of scenes in “wobblycam”. I have not met any person outside of the movie industry and self-proclaimed so-called “critics” that actually likes it when the camera wobbles around, scenes are blurred and you generally get nauseous by watching. Bad start!
The backbone of the story is ludicrous to say the least. Part of the world leaves in luxury when the rest is starving. Been there, seen that. Every year a seemingly random selection of kids, not adults but kids, are selected to fight to the death under some silly pretext of “preserving the peace”. As I said, ludicrous. The entire air of ludicrousness is enforced by the wacky costumes, makeup and hair styles of the people in the capitol. As I science fiction and fantasy fan I could easily live with this but, sadly, the movie made me only mildly interested in following the characters to the end.
The acting in general is adequate but nothing special. Having said that it must be difficult to actually make anything out of some of the silly roles in this movie. I for sure would laugh my head off every time I entered a scene with all of those ludicrous (yes I know I have used that word a lot in this review, live with it) costumes. The main characters act like the children, with absolutely no clue what they are doing, that they indeed are. This is of course entirely in line with the story but still, the main character is spending a lot of the time running away and sitting around looking startled, sorry or depressed when the games start. I have to say that, at times, the movie felt a bit boring. I have liked several movies that are very slow but here it simply did not sit right.
The games themselves with those dickheads in control and the changing rules, well they were mostly frustrating.
This movie, to me, is a movie for a young adult audience. I have not read the books and I can see how this kind of story would work for a YA book. Personally I was not unhappy having seen the movie and now, having watched the first of the movies I will watch the rest as well but for me it was okay as a two-hour diversion, nothing more.
I don't really know what's so special about this movie. I found "The Running Man" or "Total Recall" much more deep thought than this. Is it maybe that the main character is a female?
Still, it is entertaining and, in this regard, it does its job.
The Hunger Games is a new concept in a long line of post-apocalyptic future fantasies. Where other stories of the same genre often deal with technology and artificial intelligence as the main threat to human existence, Hunger Games actually takes us back to Roman times, with a revitalised version of "Panem et Circenses" or "Bread and Circuses". Simply put; human devastation as mass entertainment. Welcome to Panem: formally known as The United States of America, where every year, a young man and woman from each of the twelve districts are selected to fight each other to the death, with only one possible survivor. These Games are broadcasted on national television as a means to keep the people happy and submissive.
Considering the fact that this film is based on a teen book series (written by Suzanne Collins), I can't help but feel this concept is pretty far out there, and actually it's kind of sick. It's not a pretty idea to think that one day we might live in a world where watching young people, ranging from 12 to 18 years old, brutally murder each other is considered to be a form of mass entertainment. Thankfully, this is 'just' a story, and I must say, a very entertaining one at that (no pun intended).
The story revolves around the two youngsters from District 12, where the people are dirt poor and life is utterly desolate. 16-year-old Katniss Everdeen volunteers as 'tribute' to fight in the Hunger Games, after her little sister is initially selected. Her male counterpart is Peeta Mellark, and together they set off to train for and participate in the Games.
The character of Katniss is played by Jennifer Lawrence, and she is terrific. Actually, she is my biggest recommendation for watching this film. Before this, I had only seen her in X-Men: First Class and thought she was pretty good, but after seeing The Hunger Games, it's not hard to see why this 21-year-old already has her first Oscar nomination under her belt. She has a very natural quality about her, which makes it very easy to make you empathise with her character. She's not a superficial, happy-go-lucky kind of girl; she's actually very sullen, not even particularly likable. And yet you just love her from the get go. I guess it's charisma, and Jennifer Lawrence definitely has it.
Actually, this film is full of great actors. One of the greatest is definitely Stanley Tucci, who plays his most flamboyant role yet. His character (Caesar Flickerman, the TV-host who emcees the Games) is ridiculously over-the-top, but brilliantly amusing. With blue hair, prosthetic teeth and a big horse's smile which he flashes incessantly, he looks like a PG-13 version of the Joker. And if you're at all familiar with Tucci's work and talent, you know just what I mean when I say he's making this character appear to be oh-so nice, yet subtly sadistic at the same time. He's just great, period. Woody Harrelson also has a pretty interesting role as Haymitch Abernathy, a once-winner of the Hunger Games, who now mentors Katniss and Peeta in their training. He's scruffy and gnarly, basically just typically another weird Woody character, which is always worth the watch. Wes Bentley plays Seneca Crane, a character most notable for his unusual facial hair: he sports a beard Lucifer himself would be proud of. However, the biggest surprise to me was Elizabeth Banks, whom I am well familiar with, but never really cared for because I only know her from superficial, comedic roles. I was pleasantly surprised to see that she can also play challenging roles like this one. She plays Effie Trinket, a bizarre, neo-Renaissance type from the richest District, big wig, crazy make-up and all. She's pretty much the female version of Tucci's character and she was a delight to watch, beautifully grotesque in all her decadence.
Unfortunately, it can't all be great. I had three major problems with this film. One: if you haven't read the book, there's a lot that doesn't make sense. They really should have spent a little more time explaining everything, because more than once it simply wasn't clear to me what was going on and why. And that's a risk no filmmaker should take. Two: Peeta's character. It could be just me of course, but he annoyed the crap out of me. He just comes across as such a sissy that it's frustrating to watch. Katniss burns her leg and deals with it. Peeta cuts his leg and stays lying in a cave because he "can't walk". And then he lets her take care of him, at the risk of her own life. Give me a break. Three: totally disappointing climax. I was waiting for fireworks, for Katniss having to make brutal decisions, but this never happened. It just kind of faded out.
And this is how you can clearly tell this story has a mainly teenage demographic, and they obviously wanted to keep it PG-13. Because despite the sometimes pretty brutal violence, nasty use of weaponry and tomato ketchup-a-plenty, overall the whole just lacked, well (pardon my French)...balls. You can tell they tried to spike things up a bit here and there, but the film failed to make things truly interesting at moments where it definitely should have been. In my opinion, had they decided to make this rated-R, it would have been infinitely better.
Having said that, you can rest assured there is still plenty to enjoy. Visually it is absolutely awesome and simply beautiful. The costumes and make-up are great, as are the CGI effects. The characters (aside from Peeta...) are great, and the whole futuristic 'universe' that is created is pretty inventive.
There is actually still a lot more I would like to say, but I've reached my word-limit, so I'll just leave you with this: Thumbs up!
_(April 2012)_
A powerful movie that crosses several genres. From various post-apocalyptic movies we are shown the world after a worldwide disaster that has destroyed our civilization and left a more brutal one. From Spartacus the idea of gladiator games, with the added horror that these "fighters" are children who are presumably too naive to put up any resistance to the regime. From 1984 we have futuristic technology which can monitor anything the victims do, giving them no privacy in their last moments.
But the originality is in the heroine -- a tomboy determined to stay alive without losing her integrity. How can she keep herself and her friends alive in a fight when only one victim will be allowed to leave the arena intact, and an entire decadent empire is arrayed against her? This part was given to Jennifer Lawrence, who impressed audiences so well that she inspired numerous later action heroines -- Tris in DIVERGENT, Wonder Woman, Arya Stark, and others
Watch The Amityville Murders 2018 Movie LIVE Stream
The Amityville Murders 2018Movie LIVE Stream-ebert-auf italienisch-HDTS-123movies-t-2018-hd stream-AVI-HD Full Movie.jpg
Watch The Amityville Murders 2018 Movie LIVE Stream
Filmteam
Coordination art Department : Walid Daniel
Stunt coordinator : Essah Vernia
Script layout :Almeta Lela
Pictures : Sarde Florent
Co-Produzent : Jewell Elle
Executive producer : Baylee Shaima
Director of supervisory art : Brady Blier
Produce : Eliot Nataly
Manufacturer : Mubarak Frank
Actress : Preston Wanita
On the night of November 13th, 1974, Ronald DeFeo Jr. took a high powered rifle and murdered his entire family as they slept. At his trial, DeFeo claimed that 'voices' in the house commanded him to kill. This is their story.
5.1
20
The Amityville Murders | |
Moment | 157 minute |
Release | 2018-11-05 |
Quality | AVI 1440p Blu-ray |
Category | Horror |
language | English |
castname | Casian B. Martel, Chana N. Niamé, Nassim R. Goran |
[HD] Watch The Amityville Murders 2018 Movie LIVE Stream
Film kurz
Spent : $484,529,614
Revenue : $220,367,714
category : Grausamkeit - Biographie , Fotografie - Wild Mountain Epidemic , Stück Leben - Geistesgesundheit , Scheitern - Sommer
Production Country : Dominica
Production : Widespread Creative
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
Subscribe To
Postingan
Semua Komentar