Search
Search results
iPhytter iPhone Edition
Social Networking and Business
App
・Achieved 70% discount of G729 audio codec! PHYTTER, the major brand in VoIP solution arena,...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Beatles: Eight Days A Week - The Touring Years (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A film worth getting into your life.
Reviewing documentaries is always a bit tricky, since it is often difficult to separate the quality of the film making from your emotional attachment to the subject material. In my case, my early life was saturated with Beatlemania. Although I was only 2 year’s old in 1963 at the start of it all, I had three older siblings who ramped up the excitement so much that it permeated my young mind. I still remember being vehemently “Sssshhed” since I was making too much noise during the live and ground-breaking “All you need is Love” telecast!
Ron Howard’s film focuses on “the touring years” which as depicted were truly manic, spanning from 1963 to 1966 before then skipping forward to 1969 for their final rooftop concert. This was in a time when airline travel was not the more comfortable and smoke-free environment it is today, so these worldwide trips much have been seriously grueling, even without the adoration that reached dangerous proportions when they reached their destinations.
Howard has clearly had his research team scour the world for archive clips since – whilst sensitively skipping some of the more ‘commonly seen’ materials, like the “jewelry shaking” clip – the film shows concert action I certainly had never seen before.
The film is also nicely interlaced with celebrity cameos recalling their linkage to the Fab Four’s performances (often moving, like Whoopi Goldberg’s) and the group’s “legacy” effect on modern-day art (in Richard Curtis’s case rather less convincing). One of the most striking of these is that of Sigourney Weaver recounting her attendance as a pre-teen at the Beatle’s Rose Bowl performance in LA. There, in the newsreel footage of adoring fans, is the unmistakable face of the ‘before she was famous’ actress: at least I hope it really was her (as the clip’s timing implied) and not a lookalike, since that would be really disappointing!
Also featuring – although not enough for my liking – are Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, recounting their feelings about the events and what happened behind the closed doors of hotel rooms or – most notably – a meat truck.
What shines through is the honesty and intelligence of Lennon and McCartney, typified by the idiotic questioning of journalists, some of who had done so little homework they didn’t even know there wasn’t a Beatle called Eric! Some of the group’s off the cuff responses were priceless: “What is the secret of your success?” asks one journo. “We don’t know” quips John. “If we knew we’d form another group and be managers.”
While the film has enormous energy in its first two thirds, it rather runs out of momentum in its final reel…. a bit like the Beatles did in fact. It also has elements of gimmickry like the smoke rising from photo cigarettes which gets a tad tiresome after the tenth occurrence.
But this is a very watchable and enjoyable rock down memory lane for 50-somethings and for any fans old and young of the Fab Four’s music. Highly Recommended. Note that the documentary itself is about 90 minutes in length, with another 30 minutes of live concert music tagged onto the end post-titles (which for travel reasons I was unfortunately unable to stay for so can’t comment on).
Ron Howard’s film focuses on “the touring years” which as depicted were truly manic, spanning from 1963 to 1966 before then skipping forward to 1969 for their final rooftop concert. This was in a time when airline travel was not the more comfortable and smoke-free environment it is today, so these worldwide trips much have been seriously grueling, even without the adoration that reached dangerous proportions when they reached their destinations.
Howard has clearly had his research team scour the world for archive clips since – whilst sensitively skipping some of the more ‘commonly seen’ materials, like the “jewelry shaking” clip – the film shows concert action I certainly had never seen before.
The film is also nicely interlaced with celebrity cameos recalling their linkage to the Fab Four’s performances (often moving, like Whoopi Goldberg’s) and the group’s “legacy” effect on modern-day art (in Richard Curtis’s case rather less convincing). One of the most striking of these is that of Sigourney Weaver recounting her attendance as a pre-teen at the Beatle’s Rose Bowl performance in LA. There, in the newsreel footage of adoring fans, is the unmistakable face of the ‘before she was famous’ actress: at least I hope it really was her (as the clip’s timing implied) and not a lookalike, since that would be really disappointing!
Also featuring – although not enough for my liking – are Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, recounting their feelings about the events and what happened behind the closed doors of hotel rooms or – most notably – a meat truck.
What shines through is the honesty and intelligence of Lennon and McCartney, typified by the idiotic questioning of journalists, some of who had done so little homework they didn’t even know there wasn’t a Beatle called Eric! Some of the group’s off the cuff responses were priceless: “What is the secret of your success?” asks one journo. “We don’t know” quips John. “If we knew we’d form another group and be managers.”
While the film has enormous energy in its first two thirds, it rather runs out of momentum in its final reel…. a bit like the Beatles did in fact. It also has elements of gimmickry like the smoke rising from photo cigarettes which gets a tad tiresome after the tenth occurrence.
But this is a very watchable and enjoyable rock down memory lane for 50-somethings and for any fans old and young of the Fab Four’s music. Highly Recommended. Note that the documentary itself is about 90 minutes in length, with another 30 minutes of live concert music tagged onto the end post-titles (which for travel reasons I was unfortunately unable to stay for so can’t comment on).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fences (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The Last Post.
In “Fences” Denzel Washington plays Troy – a bitter, self-centred and selfish man in his mid-fifties who loves the sound of his own voice. They say “empty vessels make the most noise” and here is a case in point. Set in the early fifties, race plays a strong card in every aspect of life, and Troy feels betrayed by a failed baseball career that – in his eyes at least – looked over his skills to the colour of his skin. But Troy is also a stubborn cuss, and refuses to acknowledge that even in the 50’s “The times they are a changing’”. His cussedness puts him on a collision course with his teenage son Cory (Jovan Adepo), given his aspirations for a college football scholarship, and his mother (Viola Davis, “The Help”) tries to keep the peace between the two of them.
This is a film primarily about resistance to change. All those changes in the outside world are on the ‘other side of the fence’ that Troy habitually tries to finish but never seems to put his mind to. Fences keep things out; but they also keep things in, and Troy is in a cocoon of his own making. He justifies his actions as a ‘family provider’ with lengthy speeches but ultimately they deliver hollow words and assertions that don’t stand up to scrutiny.
This is a pressure cooker of family life that is primed to blow, and a revelation (which I didn’t see coming) sets that fuse alight.
This is a film worth watching for the acting performances of Denzel Washington and (particularly) Viola Davis, winner of the Best Supporting Actress BAFTA and a strong contender for the Oscar. Both give assured performances, although Troy is such an instantly dis-likable and pitiable character that I could feel my emotions influencing my judgement about his performance.
But this is also a strong ensemble cast, with Mykelti Williamson (famously appearing as Bubba of the ‘Bubba Gump Shrimp Factory’ fame) being effective as Troy’s disabled brother and English-born Jovan Adepo being particularly impressive in an extremely assured feature debut.
However, the Broadway roots of the piece are highly visible with 98% of the film set either in the back yard, in the house, or on the front steps (the set could clearly rotate!). For such a claustrophobic topic, this is perhaps apt. But as a feature film I longed for the action to go elsewhere. The film version of the story – with a few tweaks to the screenplay – has lots of opportunities for this, but these are never taken. This makes the whole piece feel ‘worthy but dull’. In particular, anyone looking for a useful tutorial on fence building needs to look elsewhere!
As for the recent “Moonlight” there is also excessive use of the “N” word and other outdated racial references that have the potential to offend.
Good luck to Viola Davis and Denzel Washington (who also directed this) for their Best Supporting Actress and Best Actor Oscars nominations. But “Best Film” Oscar? No, I don’t think so. In truth this is a film that I will struggle to remember or get excited about in a month’s time and it will not be on my re-watch list.
This is a film primarily about resistance to change. All those changes in the outside world are on the ‘other side of the fence’ that Troy habitually tries to finish but never seems to put his mind to. Fences keep things out; but they also keep things in, and Troy is in a cocoon of his own making. He justifies his actions as a ‘family provider’ with lengthy speeches but ultimately they deliver hollow words and assertions that don’t stand up to scrutiny.
This is a pressure cooker of family life that is primed to blow, and a revelation (which I didn’t see coming) sets that fuse alight.
This is a film worth watching for the acting performances of Denzel Washington and (particularly) Viola Davis, winner of the Best Supporting Actress BAFTA and a strong contender for the Oscar. Both give assured performances, although Troy is such an instantly dis-likable and pitiable character that I could feel my emotions influencing my judgement about his performance.
But this is also a strong ensemble cast, with Mykelti Williamson (famously appearing as Bubba of the ‘Bubba Gump Shrimp Factory’ fame) being effective as Troy’s disabled brother and English-born Jovan Adepo being particularly impressive in an extremely assured feature debut.
However, the Broadway roots of the piece are highly visible with 98% of the film set either in the back yard, in the house, or on the front steps (the set could clearly rotate!). For such a claustrophobic topic, this is perhaps apt. But as a feature film I longed for the action to go elsewhere. The film version of the story – with a few tweaks to the screenplay – has lots of opportunities for this, but these are never taken. This makes the whole piece feel ‘worthy but dull’. In particular, anyone looking for a useful tutorial on fence building needs to look elsewhere!
As for the recent “Moonlight” there is also excessive use of the “N” word and other outdated racial references that have the potential to offend.
Good luck to Viola Davis and Denzel Washington (who also directed this) for their Best Supporting Actress and Best Actor Oscars nominations. But “Best Film” Oscar? No, I don’t think so. In truth this is a film that I will struggle to remember or get excited about in a month’s time and it will not be on my re-watch list.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bird Box (2018) in Movies
Feb 1, 2019
Almost a good movie
One of my favorite films of 2018 is A QUIET PLACE where aliens with extreme hearing can get you if you make a noise. It is a quite interesting and well made film (with a bravura performance by Emily Blunt), so when I heard there was a variant of this theme (this time you can't use your eyes), I decided to check it out and to see if Sandra Bullock could pull off the same sort of bravura performance as Blunt.
And, that's too bad, for by comparison the Netflix flick BIRD BOX is no A QUIET PLACE, but if I don't try to compare it to A QUIET PLACE, BIRD BOX is a very entertaining film, indeed.
The story follows Bullock as Malorie a pregnant single woman who holds no "maternal instinct" towards her unborn child. Malorie is devoid of emotion and compassion and is dreading the day that her child will be born. Enter into this an "end of world event" where unseen aliens show up and, if you look at them, you go insane and try to commit suicide. Amidst this chaos, Malorie and a ragtag assortment of survivors find shelter in the house of Douglas (John Malkovich). Can this disparate group of strangers find a way to survive in this insane new world?
Well...the fun in this kind of movie is in the characters trapped together and the "10 Little Indians" style of demise as the house guests are picked off one by one by the aliens (or each other). It is the drama of these trapped individuals, and the surprise and the ingenuity of how they are killed off that makes or breaks these types of films.
And in this way, this film succeeds very well for besides Bullock and Malkovich, the housemates are filled with (for the most part) a strong grouping of actors led, most notably, by Trevante Rhodes (MOONLIGHT) and Jacki Weaver (ANIMAL KINGDOM). They are strong presences in this household and are interesting to watch. Good ol' B.D. Wong (JURASSIC PARK among many, many credits) brings his usual, solid game and Lil Rey Howery (GET OUT) brings much needed energy and humor to the proceedings. Add to this the usual, creepy Tom Hollander (IN THE LOOP) as a mysterious houseguest who is...creepy...and there is enough going on to keep my interest.
Add to this the always intriguing work of Malkovich as the paranoid, "me first" homeowner and Bullock underplaying her emotions as a counterbalance to Malkovich overplaying his emotions and the scenes in the house were interesting and (at times) gripping.
The problem I have with this film is that it inter cuts these scenes with scenes of Bullock (and a few other survivors from the house) "5 years later" - so, you already know who makes it and who doesn't - which takes away the tension of the house scenes. It also has an ending that, quite frankly, I saw coming a mile off and so it was not a satisfying conclusion to the proceedings for the ending was uneventful and unsurprising. A poor way to end this sort of film.
Don't get me wrong, the scenes in the house of the initial group of survivors is well worth viewing this film, I just wish Director Susanne Bier (THE NIGHT MANAGER) didn't dilute these scenes by bringing us forward in time too soon. I wonder how much better this film could have been had we just watched the events of the film (including all of the "5 years later scenes") in chronological order, I gotta think it would have been a better film.
This is, by every definition of the term, a "B" film, perfect for a snow, rain or cold-bound afternoon at home.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And, that's too bad, for by comparison the Netflix flick BIRD BOX is no A QUIET PLACE, but if I don't try to compare it to A QUIET PLACE, BIRD BOX is a very entertaining film, indeed.
The story follows Bullock as Malorie a pregnant single woman who holds no "maternal instinct" towards her unborn child. Malorie is devoid of emotion and compassion and is dreading the day that her child will be born. Enter into this an "end of world event" where unseen aliens show up and, if you look at them, you go insane and try to commit suicide. Amidst this chaos, Malorie and a ragtag assortment of survivors find shelter in the house of Douglas (John Malkovich). Can this disparate group of strangers find a way to survive in this insane new world?
Well...the fun in this kind of movie is in the characters trapped together and the "10 Little Indians" style of demise as the house guests are picked off one by one by the aliens (or each other). It is the drama of these trapped individuals, and the surprise and the ingenuity of how they are killed off that makes or breaks these types of films.
And in this way, this film succeeds very well for besides Bullock and Malkovich, the housemates are filled with (for the most part) a strong grouping of actors led, most notably, by Trevante Rhodes (MOONLIGHT) and Jacki Weaver (ANIMAL KINGDOM). They are strong presences in this household and are interesting to watch. Good ol' B.D. Wong (JURASSIC PARK among many, many credits) brings his usual, solid game and Lil Rey Howery (GET OUT) brings much needed energy and humor to the proceedings. Add to this the usual, creepy Tom Hollander (IN THE LOOP) as a mysterious houseguest who is...creepy...and there is enough going on to keep my interest.
Add to this the always intriguing work of Malkovich as the paranoid, "me first" homeowner and Bullock underplaying her emotions as a counterbalance to Malkovich overplaying his emotions and the scenes in the house were interesting and (at times) gripping.
The problem I have with this film is that it inter cuts these scenes with scenes of Bullock (and a few other survivors from the house) "5 years later" - so, you already know who makes it and who doesn't - which takes away the tension of the house scenes. It also has an ending that, quite frankly, I saw coming a mile off and so it was not a satisfying conclusion to the proceedings for the ending was uneventful and unsurprising. A poor way to end this sort of film.
Don't get me wrong, the scenes in the house of the initial group of survivors is well worth viewing this film, I just wish Director Susanne Bier (THE NIGHT MANAGER) didn't dilute these scenes by bringing us forward in time too soon. I wonder how much better this film could have been had we just watched the events of the film (including all of the "5 years later scenes") in chronological order, I gotta think it would have been a better film.
This is, by every definition of the term, a "B" film, perfect for a snow, rain or cold-bound afternoon at home.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Hannibal Rising (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
After three books and films featuring the enigmatic and deadly Hannibal Lecter, author Thomas Harris has decided to lift the lid on the murky past of perhaps the most known killer in fiction.
In Hannibal Rising, Harris has crafted a screenplay that stays close to his 2006 book of the same name, and presents Hannibal as a sympathetic character driven to his fate due to circumstances beyond what any reasonable person should have to endure.
The film opens with young Hannibal in 1944 as the Lecter family flees their family castle from the advancing Nazi forces. When a series of bizarre circumstances leave Hannibal and his younger sister alone, they are easy victims to a band of scavengers who come upon them.
After a series of horrific situations, the film flashes forward 8 years where Hannibal (Gaspard Ulliel), is now a ward of the Soviet State, and as a further insult, his former family castle is now the orphanage in which he lives.
Hannibal draws the wrath of the local bully as he refuses to sing the required nationalist songs, and generally only makes noise when he is screaming in his sleep due to his nightmares about his sister.
Despite his withdrawn nature, Hannibal is not against striking back at his tormentor and does so before fleeing the orphanage to France where he makes his way to the home of his Uncle.
Upon arrival, Hannibal learns that his Uncle has passed away, but is taken in and cared for by his Aunt (Gong Li). As time passes, the two form a bond, and Hannibal learns about martial arts from his Aunt as well as more about her Japanese heritage.
Despite the positive changes in his life, Hannibal is still haunted by his sister and is obsessed about finding the men who held them captive and exacting revenge.
Towards this end, Hannibal snaps and exacts a violent revenge upon a local merchant who disparages his aunt, which makes Hannibal known to the local police, especially Inspector Popil (Dominic West), who investigate suspected war criminals.
When a chance lead surfaces, Hannibal returns to his homeland and confronts one of his childhood captors. As he exacts his revenge, he also learns information about the locales of the others he seeks, and soon sets out of a series of revenge killings, all the while attempting to stay ahead of Inspector Popil and the authorities.
The film for the most part works, as it is engaging and does move at a solid pace during its nearly two-hour run time. Ulliel does a good job of capturing the manic and sophisticated duality of Lecter but does not have the eerie presence of Sir Anthony Hopkins who made Lecter into a household name and took home and Oscar for his portrayal.
To expect Ulliel to equal the performance of Hopkins would be unfair in my opinion, so suffice it to say, he carries the film well, and does as much justice to the part as could be expected.
The last part of the film does become a bit to pat for my taste as it seems as if the filmmakers did not have enough confidence with the pacing of the film to allow it to unfold the way the previous 90 minutes had. Instead we get some by the number action sequences and a final confrontation that seems lifted from dozens of other films.
While the finale may lack the tension that the film had been building towards, there are enough moments in the film to make it worth seeing if you are a fan of the series.
In Hannibal Rising, Harris has crafted a screenplay that stays close to his 2006 book of the same name, and presents Hannibal as a sympathetic character driven to his fate due to circumstances beyond what any reasonable person should have to endure.
The film opens with young Hannibal in 1944 as the Lecter family flees their family castle from the advancing Nazi forces. When a series of bizarre circumstances leave Hannibal and his younger sister alone, they are easy victims to a band of scavengers who come upon them.
After a series of horrific situations, the film flashes forward 8 years where Hannibal (Gaspard Ulliel), is now a ward of the Soviet State, and as a further insult, his former family castle is now the orphanage in which he lives.
Hannibal draws the wrath of the local bully as he refuses to sing the required nationalist songs, and generally only makes noise when he is screaming in his sleep due to his nightmares about his sister.
Despite his withdrawn nature, Hannibal is not against striking back at his tormentor and does so before fleeing the orphanage to France where he makes his way to the home of his Uncle.
Upon arrival, Hannibal learns that his Uncle has passed away, but is taken in and cared for by his Aunt (Gong Li). As time passes, the two form a bond, and Hannibal learns about martial arts from his Aunt as well as more about her Japanese heritage.
Despite the positive changes in his life, Hannibal is still haunted by his sister and is obsessed about finding the men who held them captive and exacting revenge.
Towards this end, Hannibal snaps and exacts a violent revenge upon a local merchant who disparages his aunt, which makes Hannibal known to the local police, especially Inspector Popil (Dominic West), who investigate suspected war criminals.
When a chance lead surfaces, Hannibal returns to his homeland and confronts one of his childhood captors. As he exacts his revenge, he also learns information about the locales of the others he seeks, and soon sets out of a series of revenge killings, all the while attempting to stay ahead of Inspector Popil and the authorities.
The film for the most part works, as it is engaging and does move at a solid pace during its nearly two-hour run time. Ulliel does a good job of capturing the manic and sophisticated duality of Lecter but does not have the eerie presence of Sir Anthony Hopkins who made Lecter into a household name and took home and Oscar for his portrayal.
To expect Ulliel to equal the performance of Hopkins would be unfair in my opinion, so suffice it to say, he carries the film well, and does as much justice to the part as could be expected.
The last part of the film does become a bit to pat for my taste as it seems as if the filmmakers did not have enough confidence with the pacing of the film to allow it to unfold the way the previous 90 minutes had. Instead we get some by the number action sequences and a final confrontation that seems lifted from dozens of other films.
While the finale may lack the tension that the film had been building towards, there are enough moments in the film to make it worth seeing if you are a fan of the series.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
If anyone tells me they didn’t enjoy The Irishman, I would have to say, fair enough. There are reasons not to. As an entertainment it isn’t Goodfellas, as a thriller it isn’t The Departed, and as a classic gangster tale it isn’t anywhere near The Godfather, of course. It sags in the middle, ends morbidly, and, at three and a half hours, even in its brightest moments, you can find yourself waiting for it to finish. But, anyone who tells me The Irishman isn’t a great film is blind to the artistry at work here from a gang of septegenarians with a mighty track record. If it is one thing, it is Epic!
Also in the negative column is the ageing and de-ageing technology, which whilst pretty damn good is noticable and sometimes distracting. Myself, I was willing to forgive these faults, just for the privilege of being swept away once more by Scorsese’s eye for a shot and moments of pure mood, of which there are too many to count.
De Niro hasn’t been this good for years, that seems to be accepted knowledge. Pacino is Pacino, what else would you want him to be? But, it is the return from retirement of Joe Pesci that really impressed me. Almost certainly a career best performance at the age of 77 – always underplayed and menacing, there were times he acted the big two under the table. Of the 10 nominations at the 92nd Oscars, this is the one I hope lands.
If Scorsese also wins for best director, I wouldn’t complain either. Looking at his body of work, I count this as the 20th film I would class as very good or better. And although less “fun” it is certainly a better, classier film than The Departed, his only win to date. Other gongs I would give serious weight to are Thelma Schoonmaker for editing, and production design, which is as rich and detailed as it could possibly be, at times breath-takingly so.
There has been much made of the idea that this is Scorsese atoning for his sins in using violence as entertainment. And it is true that this film seems to meditate more or regret and loneliness as a side effect of a violent life. There is blood, people die violently, but these moments are often brief and unshowey, keeping the focus on the men (and it is always the men) who choose to live this way. In the end, we all age and grow weak; time advances and we are left with nothing but memories, surrounded by people who can’t remember who we are and what we did in our Golden days.
I found the last half hour very moving and somewhat depressing. I think we are meant to. No big climax, just a fading away. It felt like the hours after a party, full of joy and noise, when you are finally left alone with only yourself for company. More than any other emotion, this is what I have taken from this experience; and it’s a good trick, fully intended, that I applaud. And it is what ultimately makes the film feel mature and meaningful.
However, for all the praise it deserves, this isn’t a film I will choose to watch again in a hurry. And I think that will be common. It lacks the tension of a tighter, shorter film, and emotionally it is often difficult to connect to these men and their brutal deeds. If that is the point, then I get it… but there are plenty of films to go to, as already mentioned that have a more satisfying and rounded feel. Recommended highly, but with reservations.
Also in the negative column is the ageing and de-ageing technology, which whilst pretty damn good is noticable and sometimes distracting. Myself, I was willing to forgive these faults, just for the privilege of being swept away once more by Scorsese’s eye for a shot and moments of pure mood, of which there are too many to count.
De Niro hasn’t been this good for years, that seems to be accepted knowledge. Pacino is Pacino, what else would you want him to be? But, it is the return from retirement of Joe Pesci that really impressed me. Almost certainly a career best performance at the age of 77 – always underplayed and menacing, there were times he acted the big two under the table. Of the 10 nominations at the 92nd Oscars, this is the one I hope lands.
If Scorsese also wins for best director, I wouldn’t complain either. Looking at his body of work, I count this as the 20th film I would class as very good or better. And although less “fun” it is certainly a better, classier film than The Departed, his only win to date. Other gongs I would give serious weight to are Thelma Schoonmaker for editing, and production design, which is as rich and detailed as it could possibly be, at times breath-takingly so.
There has been much made of the idea that this is Scorsese atoning for his sins in using violence as entertainment. And it is true that this film seems to meditate more or regret and loneliness as a side effect of a violent life. There is blood, people die violently, but these moments are often brief and unshowey, keeping the focus on the men (and it is always the men) who choose to live this way. In the end, we all age and grow weak; time advances and we are left with nothing but memories, surrounded by people who can’t remember who we are and what we did in our Golden days.
I found the last half hour very moving and somewhat depressing. I think we are meant to. No big climax, just a fading away. It felt like the hours after a party, full of joy and noise, when you are finally left alone with only yourself for company. More than any other emotion, this is what I have taken from this experience; and it’s a good trick, fully intended, that I applaud. And it is what ultimately makes the film feel mature and meaningful.
However, for all the praise it deserves, this isn’t a film I will choose to watch again in a hurry. And I think that will be common. It lacks the tension of a tighter, shorter film, and emotionally it is often difficult to connect to these men and their brutal deeds. If that is the point, then I get it… but there are plenty of films to go to, as already mentioned that have a more satisfying and rounded feel. Recommended highly, but with reservations.
The Master Key System by Charles Haanel Audiobook Meditation Program: A Better Personality, Power to Achieve, Personal Purpose, Derived From -The Secret, From Mind Cures.
Book and Business
App
**Bonus FREE Master Key System eBook with this app** **24-Audios for over 6 hours of listening!** ...
Sleep Sounds and SPA Music for Insomnia Relief
Medical and Health & Fitness
App
MAKE SURE YOU KNOW: As part of our worldwide promotional efforts, we offer all music from In-App...
Tinnitus Help for iPad
Medical and Health & Fitness
App
‘Tinnitus Help’ - eight programs in one. The ultimate application for tinnitus sufferers. Only...