Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
90 Minutes | Drama | 2020-01-24
📥 Rosa Pietra Stella 2020
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
169 Minutes | Drama, History, War | 1998-07-24
📥 Saving Private Ryan 1998
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
Great WWII war action in France, but too much of the drama is weak
RELEASED IN 1998 and directed by Steven Spielberg, "Saving Private Ryan" (SPR) is about the Normandy invasion and its immediate aftermath from June 6-16, 1944. The focus is on a Captain (Tom Hanks) and his men who are commissioned to find a paratrooper (Matt Damon) whose brothers have been killed in action.
No one's supposed to say anything bad about SPR. To do so is considered sacrilege, but I have to be honest about what I like and don't like about Spielberg's popular WWII war flick. The initial beach landing (shot at Curracloe Beach, Ballinesker, Ireland) is outstanding, as is the closing half-hour battle at the crumbling village of Ramelle.
In between these two great bookends are a few quality sequences, but I didn't find a lot of the drama all that engaging or convincing. The cast is notable (also including Tom Sizemore, Barry Pepper, Edward Burns, Giovanni Ribisi, Jeremy Davies, Vin Diesel, et al.), but the characters never struck me as real for the most part. I've seen the film three times and each time I was too often conscious of the fact that I was watching actors portraying WWII characters in a movie. When you see a truly great picture, by contrast, you completely forget you're watching a movie, e.g. the original "Apocalypse Now" (1979).
Moreover, too many of the situations in SPR, including the dialogue, simply struck me as unreal or annoyingly treacly. Exhibit A is the moronic dog-tag sequence, which was supposed to be emotionally stirring but just made me roll my eyes. But, like I said, no one can criticize SPR and get away with it, even if the criticism is legitimate. It's like you'll be accused of being un-American or something, which is far from the case with me since I love America; I just can't stand the corrupt government & politicians, particularly the loony DemonKKKraps.
In light of my criticisms, I simply don't get why so many praise SPR as "the greatest war movie ever made." Again, the opening and ending battle sequences are great but the dubious dramatics leave quite a bit to be desired.
I've heard SPR hailed on the grounds that much of it was taken "verbatim from first-hand, eye-witness accounts of the real Normandy invasion." I'll take their word for it, but this isn't what I object to. I object to the contrived, sappy, questionable way Spielberg depicted the dramatics and the fact that I was unable to buy the characters as real. The aforementioned dog-tag sequence is just one example, others include the French father’s stupefying actions and the forced fight at the radar station and how it’s resolved (ooh, the Captain’s a high school teacher, whoopee).
Nevertheless, there IS a lot of good in SPR that makes it worth viewing. You can’t beat the battle sequences, the cast and the convincing WWII visuals throughout.
THE MOVIE RUNS 2 hours, 49 minutes and was shot in Ireland, England and France. WRITER: Robert Rodat.
GRADE: C+/B-
This movie should be known for changing Historical War Dramas as we know them. It was the first to accurately depict the carnage of war, and changed the direction of this genre of movies for all time. The initial D-Day scene was fantastic. Afterwards, Tom Hanks is ordered to chose a team of his men and look for James MacGuffin Ryan from Iowa. In order to achieve this goal, Hanks takes us across the entire back drop of world war 2, all the while making us ask, is all this worth just one man?
Honestly it's a must watch and is on my "Difinitive Movie List"
I watched this movie during a project at school. Saving Private Ryan was a beautiful and, above all, realistic film. The film presented in a realistic way how the war went then. Most of the film was set in Europe in 1944. The story is that American soldiers are being sent to Europe to fight against the Germans. The American boy James Francis Ryan is sent to Europe with his brothers as a soldier. After the invasion of Normandy it appears that all his other brothers have already died and he is the only one left. That is why corporal Miller is instructed to look for him and return him home.
The main actors who play in the film are Tom Hanks who plays corporal Miller and Matt Damon who plays the soldier Ryan. You also have all the soldiers in the group of corporal Miller. I think the characters in the film are very well thought out because they contain characters that are very brave, but also characters who have a hard time in the war. With this they show that not every soldier was as heroic as everyone thought.
The film was made on a set that I thought looked very realistic. In the background you saw the buildings that were about to collapse and the shots. I also really liked the sound that came with the film. For example, when a tank arrived, you heard that it was slowly approaching.
Recensie saving private Ryan
Information about the movie
Title: Saving Private Ryan
Regisseur: Steven Spielberg
Most important actors: Tom Hanks as Captain Miller en Matt Damon as Private Ryan
Genre: War, Drama and history
Setting: Normandy, France
Plot: During WWII, Chief of Staff, General Marshall is informed that three of a woman's sons have been killed and that she's going to receive the notifications of their demise at the same time. And when he learns that a fourth son is still unaccounted for, the General decides to send a unit to find him and bring him back, despite being told that it's highly unlikely that he is still alive and the area that he was known to be at is very dangerous. So, the unit consisting of 8 men are sent to find him but as stated it's very dangerous and one by one, they are picked off. Will they find him and how many of them will still be alive?
I saw this movie at school. I think it's a good film because, the director is very good because it seemed like you were really in it because the camera moved with it. In the quiet parts, the image was also quiet and when it became chaotic, the image was also chaotic. The characters were very realistic and felt as if they were really in a war, and for the costumes it looked very real and the same for the decor it looked like you were in war in France. I liked the movie but thought it was a bit too long, so I give it a 9/10.
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
108 Minutes | Drama, History | 1957-01-15
📥 Throne of Blood 1957
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
One of a number of films that Akira Kurosawa made in the 1950s and which have become classics, Throne of Blood is the director's adaptation of Shakespeare's Macbeth, set in feudal Japan but showing that lust for power is a perennial feature of human society. Washizu (the Macbeth character, Toshiro Mifune) is a soldier serving the lord of Spiders-Web Castle. While riding through a forest with his comrade and childhood friend Miki (the Banquo character, Minoru Chiaki), they come upon a forest spirit that foretells an elevation in rank for the two, and eventually Washizu's reign over Spiders-Web Castle. While Washizu denies that he has any desire to seize the throne, the forest spirit could see into his heart, as can his wife Asaji (the Lady Macbeth character, Isuzu Yamada) who spurs him on to murder any potential rivals. Thus Mifune moves inextricably towards his own elevation, but also his own fall.
Although the film is an adaptation of Shakespeare, the way the actors move before the camera owes much to the Japanese theatre called Noh. So much of the film is carried by the powerful facial expressions of the main actors: the over-the-top snarls and gasps of Mifune; the sad mien of Chiaki, as if his character is already aware of his fate; and the chilling calm of Yamada, a coldblooded killer even if she doesn’t personally murder anyone but has others do it. Kurosawa's set design is elaborate, one really feels back in Edo Japan. Furthermore, by shooting the film in a bleak part of Japan with abundant fog, the landscape powerfully mirrors the predicament in which the characters find themselves.
This is one of those films that any Westerners with a solid liberal arts education (by which I mean at least some general knowledge of Macbeth) should see and will probably enjoy. Because it is based on a universal theme that just happened to be so well packaged by Shakespeare, the plot is straightforward and engaging in spite of the exotic setting. But because viewers can so easily follow that plot, the feudal Japan dressing with its distinct mores will prove a fascinating touch, and Kurosawa has depicted this world in rich detail. I don't know if postwar scarcity was still a thing in 1956 when Kurosawa shot Throne of Blood, but it seems like no expense was spared here.
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
| Drama | 2021-10-15
📥 The Last Duel 2021
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
154 Minutes | Drama, Thriller | 2000-06-16
📥 Amores Perros 2000
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
162 Minutes | Comedy, Drama, Thriller | 2019-07-24
📥 Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood 2019
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
The movie isn’t for everyone, of course, but it’s a fun ride back to the past with fantastic performances, hilarious comedy and beautiful aesthetics. Tarantino is the one director in 2019 that can get huge names without people referring to his films as “that Leo film“, and I think that’s worth something whether you’re a fan or not. It’s rare for a film like this to be a mainstream release, and in the lacklustre year of 2019 I think it’s about time we got something in cinemas that's original.
- Chris dos Santos
Read Chris' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-another-tarantino-classic
If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
Quentin Tarantino is one of the best filmmakers of all-time. He has undeniable talent behind the camera, and his movies are fated to leave a mark in each year they’re released. In addition to that, he’s also an extraordinary screenwriter, as Once Upon a Time in Hollywood proves once again. His knowledge of the early decades of film is vast, so every feature he produces is always going to be filled with references to those “fairy tale” years. And that’s precisely what this movie is: a fairy tale in Hollywood, hence its title. Let me just leave this here right off the bat: I’m not going to address any controversy surrounding this film (namely, the whole Bruce Lee depiction and the Manson Family, in general), as I’m always fair and impartial to the movie I’m reviewing. Moving on …
My knowledge of the 60s isn’t that good. Obviously, I know the whole Sharon Tate story, as well as the famous Manson murders, but when it comes to actual films from that decade, well … Probably, I only know a few by name, a classic scene, or a memorable soundtrack. Tarantino uses his large runtime to place tons of references to that period, and that’s one of the reasons the first act of the movie drags. There’s a lot of time spent with characters just driving cars while listening to music (references in the songs), wide shots of the city as they drive by (references in the buildings), or even just playing an LP and dancing to it (reference in the songs, again).
I understand that these mean something, but if they don’t develop the character in any way, then these are just Easter Eggs and have no impact on the actual narrative. The first hour or so is filled with sequences which sole purpose is to show how much Tarantino knows about that time, and there’s nothing wrong with it, as long as it tells a story. That’s the second issue I have with the first act: it takes too long to establish its characters, and there’s no apparent objective within the story. It feels like a person just strolling around with no destination, which in itself isn’t a bad thing. But if you put together repetitive sequences plus a story that no one knows where it’s going or how it connects to the only thing people are actually expecting (the Sharon Tate event), then you’ll bore the hell out of the audience (a lot of people constantly left my theater to get more food or something, and they weren’t in a hurry).
Nevertheless, from the moment we start understanding who Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth are, what they do, what they did, and what they want with their lives, then the film becomes incredibly captivating. It’s definitely a character-driven story. It’s a fairy tale where Rick tries his best to overcome his own personal issues to be the very best movie star, after being on an exponentially negative path. Cliff, as his stunt double, lives off of his buddy by doing everything he needs around the house and everywhere else. These two are inseparable, and their scenes are always filled with laughter and joy, even in the darkest moments. OUATIH works because of its beautifully-written characters.
If you don’t care about them, then you won’t enjoy the film at all. In addition to this, if you don’t know anything regarding the art of filmmaking, then you’ll probably hate it since it will become extremely dull. It’s one of those movies that anyone can like. However, for someone who knows and understands how films are made, it will always be a better time at the theater. You can love this movie, sure. But if you love filmmaking and you have knowledge of its techniques, you’ll love it even more. There are so many technical achievements worthy of appreciation that I can’t get to all of them, so I’ll just address two of my favorites. The first has to be the black-and-white flicks inside the actual film. Putting Leonardo DiCaprio acting on classic westerns with over-the-top performances is an absolute delight. Watching those features in a 4:3 black-and-white screen, filled with classic sound effects, and cheesy one-liners … Wonderful.
The second allows for my favorite scenes of the whole movie: the extensive one-take dialogues. I mean, 10 or 15-minute sequences where DiCaprio just gives it his all. This is how every single film should be done. There’s even a joke in the movie where Rick criticizes a particular type of filmmaking because they would film every character separately saying their lines and then editing them together. Unfortunately, that’s how most features are done today. Therefore, from watching a simple dialogue scene with DiCaprio and Julia Butters (a 10-year-old little girl!) to a bar sequence which belongs to a movie Rick is filming (this one even has Rick asking his lines, and the camera has to go back to its starting point), everything with no cuts whatsoever … What can I ask more from a director?!
Obviously, if this is a character-driven narrative, the cast has to be genuinely compelling. Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie … I mean, do I even need to explain how phenomenal they are? DiCaprio proves once again he’s one of the greatest actors of all-time. The ability that he has to put 200% in every single scene is unbelievable. I even started to tear up once his character is able to find his footing, solely due to the actor’s performance. The Oscar nom is guaranteed, let’s see about the win. Brad Pitt also has tons of nominations on his lap with an astonishing supporting display. He has a subtle performance, but it’s pretty incredible how much he can transmit to the audience by putting (apparently) so little effort. Margot Robbie doesn’t have that much screentime, but her character had the simple objective of showing how glamorous and dreamy an actress’ life could be at that time, so she didn’t exactly need to deliver her A-game.
It’s always good to see Al Pacino (Marvin Schwarz) on-screen, and I’m thrilled that Margaret Qualley (Pussycat), who I know from The Leftovers (one of the most underrated TV shows of the century), is finally getting some recognition. Technically, like I said above, it’s close to a masterpiece. It’s Tarantino, everyone knows what he’s capable of, but having in mind his most recent features, it’s a pleasant surprise and evidence of quality to the naysayers that he was able to produce a film with less bloody action. There are terrific demonstrations of great cinematography (Robert Richardson), and the editing is always impeccable in Tarantino’s features (this time due to Fred Raskin). The score is addictive, and it carries a very significant role in the movie. I would say that if Tarantino was able to shorten its runtime and control its pacing better, this would be a technically perfect film.
All in all, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood isn’t the best Quentin Tarantino’s movie, but it’s undoubtedly one of the year’s best. Filled with award-winning lead performances (second Oscar for DiCaprio, please), this character-driven story is packed with references to the 60s which will be the divisive point in whether people will enjoy the film or not. Its first act is slow and takes too long to set up its story, but from the moment it’s able to find its footing, it’s an entertaining ride. If you love filmmaking and you know the insides of the art, Tarantino delivers a near-perfect technical production. Its alternate ending to real-life events is meant to be controversial, but for me, it’s a vision of how everything should have happened if the world was fair or, indeed, a fairy tale … in Hollywood.
Rating: A-
I'm not here to explain _Once Upon a Time In Hollywood_, just to enjoy it.
_Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._
***Tarantino’s revenge on the Manson psychos***
In the late 60s, Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio), a popular TV Western actor, finds his career taking a downturn and tries to recover with the encouragement of his kick-axx stunt double and best friend, Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt). Sharon Tate (Margo Robbie) & Roman Polanski are neighbors with Jay Sebring always hanging around (Emile Hirsch). Meanwhile the Manson Family nutjobs are lurking in the background, prepping to attack.
“Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood” (2019) is Quentin Tarantino’s 9th full film and, for me, ranks somewhere in the middle of his oeuvre. It may not be as great as “Pulp Fiction” (1994) and “Django Unchained” (2012), but it places well with “Inglourious Basterds” (2009), “Jackie Brown” (1997) and “The Hateful Eight” (2015).
A famous director once succinctly defined a great movie as such: Three good scenes, no bad scenes. While the second part of this definition is debatable with "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood,” seeing as how the movie could've certainly been tightened up (there are some dull sequences), there's no doubt that it fulfills the first part.
My three favorite scenes are: The amusing satirical Bruce Lee confrontation; the great Spahn Ranch episode, which effectively creates an underlying sense of menace; and, of course, the entertaining hippie attack in the final act.
Thankfully, there are numerous additional gems: The friendship and respect of Rick and Cliff; the audacious flamethrower sequence; Rick's breakdown with the precocious girl actor (not actress); the beautiful women throughout; the great cast, including several celeb cameos; the entertaining soundtrack; Brandi, the pit bull; Rick's meltdown in his trailer; Rick finally pulling off a quality acting scene via ad libbing; George Spahn not remembering Cliff; everything (surprisingly) turning out to be precisely as so-and-so said; the allusion to what MAY have happened to Cliff's nagging wife (Rebecca Gayheart) on the boat; the way it should have turned out on that infamous night; and the heartwarming close,
The film runs 2 hour, 41 minutes, and was shot in the Los Angeles area.
GRADE: A-
Well, the last 15-minutes were great, the first 2.5 hours on the other hand was... uneventful. I have an interest in Hollywood, more from the 1980s though, so some of the slower scenes still kept my attention, but there's no real plot and minimal character development.
That said, DiCaprio and Pitt both give great performances and Margot Robbie of course had her moments, however I could only chuckle during the theater scene when she kicked her bare feet up. Okay, Quentin, lol. **3.0/5**
“When you come to the end of the line, with a buddy who is more than a brother and a little less than a wife, getting blind drunk together is really the only way to say farewell.”
‘Once Upon a Time In Hollywood’ is a chilled blast from the past told like a fairy tale. It’s both aimless and yet meaningful with the commentary on the new era in Hollywood. The movie pays tribute to old Hollywood, film making, Sharon Tate, stunt work, and actors. This is perhaps Tarantino’s most personal and mature movie his made, until the last 10 minutes (which I love) goes complete ape sh*t.
I can’t think of any other director where the passion and love for movies is so transparent through Tarantino's craft. He’s such an old school film maker that he and Martin Scorsese are the last golden age directors, as every new release feels like an event. In this movie, Quentin presents 69’ Hollywood at its peak, as he remembers it from his childhood. He manages to rebuild classy LA thanks to the crew and creative team.
Bright neon lights, fashionable clothes, and late 60’s automobiles. There’s a couple of scenes where Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), drives around LA and there are long shots that shows off the environment and it’s amazing the amount of detail and effort went into the setting - with Robert Richardson brilliant Cinematography bringing it all alive.
Leonardo DiCaprio was absolutely excellent as the fading Western star, Rick F**king Dalton. Dalton, a self-centered, yet vulnerable actor that you both laugh and pity. I will often forget about DiCaprio comedic chops, something similar to Ryan Gosling. I also like the subtle stutter that’s sprinkled through out, which is sad when given some thought that it’s something he’s got to deal with. There’s a heartfelt scene where Dalton tells his young co-star about a book his reading and mid way through explaining the story he realises it mirrors his life, and breaks down in tears with me crying with him. Yep, I teared up in a Tarantino movie. Leo was the pulse of the movie.
Brad Pitt was amazing as the deadpan and cool Cliff Booth. This is probably my favorite performance from him. Cliff’s main character trait is his strength and he demonstrates it multiple times, but leaves the scene before anything can escalate. The chemistry between Leo and Brad was electric. Pitt was the meat of the movie.
Margot Robbie was an absolute delight portraying the late Sharon Tate. Despite her slim screen time, but whenever she has screen time, I couldn’t help but smile. I instantly fell in love with her and it’s painfully to think something so sweet and pure could be taken away from us by brainwashed zombies who don’t deserve a life, just a jail cell. I thought her portrayal in the movie was a beautiful tribute and how they handle her gives new life into her legacy.
There’s a great scene where Sharon Tate watches a movie in cinemas that’s she’s in, but instead of Margot Robbie re-creating those scenes, they just show the real Sharon Tate in the movie. Now people were left a bit confused over this decision, although it’s clear to me that erasing the real Tate out of the movie would be more disrespectful to her memory, so leaving her in is a touching tribute to her career and her work. Robbie was the heart of the movie.
The other supporting cast all did terrific with the little screen time most of them had. Kurt Russell makes a welcoming return as a character that I assume is Stuntman Mike from 'Death Proof' - either way still a welcoming presence. He’s also the narrator and I find it hilarious whenever he tries to pronounce Italian movie titles. Al Pacino was a blast to watch as the tight and yet colorful producer. Mike Moh portrayal of Bruce Lee may have sparked some controversy recently, but I thought he was entertaining regardless and I don’t really think it mocks his legacy at all. I mean, this is the same director who made a four hour movie honoring the legend. Margaret Qualley was crazy good as the hippie girl who’s brain washed into a cult family. It’s crazy to know that Damon Herriman has played Charles Manson twice in the same year and month for this movie and the TV show ‘Mindhunter’, which you should totally check out by the way.
Julia Butters, Luke Perry, Timothy Olyphant, Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, and Damian Lewis - a stellar cast that did a stellar job.
After letting the film sit for awhile, there’s so many memorable lines that I would often catch myself recreating just from memory after seeing it twice. There’s so many great moments as well. The lights of LA coming to life at the dust of dawn, or the suspenseful scenes that actually got me feeling tense watching it. Without spoiling anything, but the Spahn Ranch scene where the Manson family stares down a defenseless Cliff Booth as he tries to speak to an old friend was terrifying - reminds me of the opening scene of ‘Inglorious Bastards’, in terms of building up tension that you wait in anticipation to explode.
Still, I think this is the best representation of the Manson family I’ve seen in any movie...by portraying them as absolute buffoons.
And of course with it being a Tarantino movie, the music is lost treasure revived for a modern generation. Always fantastic and incredibly catchy. I can’t think of anything better than Cliff driving around LA with the song ‘Bring a Little Lovin’ playing in the background.
Overall rating: I’ve seen this movie twice already and I still have a desire to watch it again. This is slowly creeping up to being my favorite Quentin Tarantino movie, but time will tell I guess.
I found this to be an excellent movie despite (or partly because of) major variance from the historic events it is based on.
Up until watching this movie, I had just seen four Tarantino films, so I guess I am not on his bandwagon. But I really enjoyed two of them (Jackie Brown and Pulp Fiction). I can now say I liked Once Upon a Time in Hollywood just as much as I did those two movies.
The dialogue is sharp and the main characters are sympathetic enough so I cared what happened to them. The film is loosely based on actual events, with fictional characters thrown in and at least one major plot change that I won't give away. I think some of the most negative feedback I have seen about this film were from purists who didn't like the major change in the story. But I appreciated the change. If I want total accuracy, I would watch a documentary, but I want to be entertained, not depressed, and I was.
And I plan to watch it again, not just for the sake of the story, but because maybe the second time through I will catch more of the movie references that are supposed to inhabit Tarantino's films.
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
131 Minutes | Crime, Drama, Thriller | 2003-05-02
📥 Memories of Murder 2003
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE