Of all my uncles, Rodolfo was the only one who didn't want to be a blacksmith like my grandfather: He wanted to be a dancer. The search for the traces of his life leads to the discovery ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
You may also like
108 torrent reviews
Steve W (ca) wrote: This biographical tale of Ip Man in his earlier days is very basic and cliche. It does have a good cast and plenty of awesome fight scenes, but they do not make up for the tired plot. YU-Hang To is talented indeed, but he zero charisma when compared to Donnie Yen. The villains are very one dimensional and not very powerful, and this movie could have benefited with a tighter story and plot.
Robbie N (fr) wrote: Although there's the occasional dull moments, Date Night still introduces a lot of funny and memorable lines, jokes and scenes. Room for improvement, but all in all a pretty good movie to watch and enjoy.
Todd S (au) wrote: For 4 years, Prison Break was the smartest, grittiest, best casted, and best written show on Television. While badly harmed by the 2007 writers strike and low ratings, this show never did get the recognition it deserved. When Paul Scheuring created the show, he wrote a story he'd planned to last six season, however in the middle of season 4, he pulled the plug. Scheuring decided that the show had become a farce of itself and would not longer continue. In the final 15 minutes of the last episode of season 4, they jumped ahead 3 years to the ending Scheuring had originally envisioned, and it left fans with millions of unanswered questions. They were outraged and besieged the network with letters. The result, the events of a hypothetical season 6 were condensed into a 90 minute movie. The movie was a return to the shows beginnings and was terrific! While season 4 did get stupid, this would have been a fantastic season and an amazing way to end the show. Of course when you condense 24 episodes into an hour and a half, it's going to be rushed and have holes, but they do a nice job of trying to explain everything and ultimately do give the fans the closure they desired. This was the smartest show I've ever seen and no matter what this cast does for the rest of their careers, it will never compare to the incredible job they did on this show and in this movie.
Philip C (ca) wrote: Whatever happened to Lukas Moodysson? Where did the director disappear to after creating three of the most beautiful and moving films of the past decade; and who is this miserable, tactless and pretentious filmmaker who has stepped in to direct his last two pictures? As personality shifts go, the change that occurred between Moodysson?s 2002 masterpiece [i]Lilja 4-Ever[/i] and 2004?s horrible [i]A Hole in my Heart[/i] is a drastic and baffling one. The latter film displayed none of the humanism, subtlety, wit and intelligence of his first three pictures, and the result was a nihilistic and repulsive ordeal which seemed to be created solely as an empty provocation. And yet, we still held out hope for this extraordinary young filmmaker. Every director stumbles once or twice in their career, and perhaps Moodysson would regain some of those former qualities with his next picture. Alas, Moodysson?s latest is just as depressingly awful as [i]A Hole in my Heart[/i]. Actually, no; I think it might be even worse. [i]Container[/i] is a black-and-white film which runs for little over 70 minutes, but that?s just about 70 minutes too many. There?s no narrative here, just a series of murkily shot monochrome images which feature two people: a fat man (Peter Lorentzon) and a lithe Asian woman (Mariha berg). We don?t know who they are or what relationship they share at first, they?re just two random strangers who are filmed sitting in a messy apartment, making their way through a rubbish tip, or strapping a plastic foetus to their faces. Sometimes they?re together, sometimes they?re apart, sometimes they crawl on all fours, sometimes the man carries the woman on his back. The man is often seen wearing women?s clothing and, perhaps, the woman he carries around is an embodiment of the female trapped inside him. Who knows? Who the hell cares? This is barely a ?film? in the traditional sense at all; there?s nothing to grab hold of, nothing to draw our interest and no attempt to shape these images into a meaningful whole. The whole farrago is accompanied by a whispering voiceover from American actress Jena Malone, which is possibly the only interesting thing about the film. Malone?s ceaseless narration is a stream of consciousness which touches on a wide variety of barely connected topics - the Virgin Mary, the Holocaust, pregnancy, etc. - and she also seems to take on a variety of roles as she talks. At first, it?s as if she is acting as the inner voice of the fat man, but then she introduces herself as Jena Malone, telling us that she has come to Sweden for the first time in order to record this narration. Her specific role in the proceedings becomes even more blurred as [i]Container[/i] progresses and the monologue seems to take her down a series of blind alleys. This aspect of the film is slightly more engaging because Malone has a great delivery. Her measured reading is soft, wistful and slightly erotic; and in conjunction with the surreal visuals, it [i]could[/i] have produced something quite unsettling and haunting. But Malone?s running commentary rarely - if ever - aligns with what we see on screen. It?s just a frustratingly opaque collision between sound and imagery, and it?s almost impossible to figure out what on earth Moodysson is trying to say. In truth, I don?t think he has anything to say. [i]A Hole in my Heart[/i] was undeniably repugnant, but in retrospect it at least seemed to come from a place of genuine anger and emotion, and it was provocative in a way few films manage to be. When Moodysson filmed the horrible act of one character vomiting into another?s mouth, and then set it against the glorious, exhilarating sound of Bach?s [i]St Matthew Passion[/i], I didn?t know what I was supposed to think or feel about the sight in front of me - but by God, I sure felt something. [i]Container[/i] offers nothing on that level. It offers nothing at all. The film just sits lifelessly on the cinema screen. It?s a flaccid, ugly and ridiculously soporific fiasco which may be better suited to an art gallery; a place where people can wander past, observe a few minutes of the film, and then walk away. They might laugh at the self-indulgent and meaningless pretension on show, but the choices Moodysson is making in his work are no laughing matter. In a way, perhaps it?s all Ingmar Bergman?s fault. It was he who described Moodysson as ?a young master? when he burst onto the scene a few years ago - high praise indeed from such a legendary figure - and Moodysson now seems determined to rebel against the expectations people have of what his career should be. The director has stated in interviews that he reckons [i]Container[/i] will find an appreciative audience of about seven, as if it?s something to be proud of, and it?s disheartening to think that this film is nothing more than a wind-up, with Moodysson taking a childish delight in pissing people off. I hate the thought of Moodysson continuing to squander his considerable gifts on this kind of pointless fare, but he seems to be a law unto himself and who knows what his next move will be? Whatever type of filmmaker he chooses to be from this point on, at least he has given us [i]Show me Love[/i], [i]Together[/i] and [i]Lilja 4-Ever[/i] - three wonderful films to cherish. I just hope we see the old Lukas Moodysson again some day.
Bryan M (de) wrote: Europe is beginning to edge out America in the b-movie genre.
Jason Y (nl) wrote: [b]DVD [/b]First Viewing, 1 Decena film seen This is an extremely well-made film regarding the chemical reactions that are "love." [i]Dopamine [/i]is natural in its philosophy and intruiging in its characterization. It played the Sundance Film Festival last year to an enthusiastic crowd, but its DVD transfer is less emotional and involving as it presumably was in a theater. But still a fine effort.
Jayakrishnan R (jp) wrote: 81%Saw this on 24/4/15Most of the times it's extremely slow and uninteresting (may be because I don't know half a thing about Che Guera), but still somewhere it's a subtle drama.
Bry G (br) wrote: before Adrien got his Oscars
Emma J (mx) wrote: I absolutely love Cher, but the movie could have had more of her in it! Some parts get boring, but it is a great movie!
Alex K (gb) wrote: My Favorite Film Is 1941's Citizen Kane.
Edith N (au) wrote: Any student of nuclear physics would recognize perhaps a third of the character names in this film; many other characters are composites of other real physicists. This is the story of the creation of the atomic bomb. It tries to be pretty apolitical, I think. Never is it said that the decision was right or wrong. All that is said is that it should be discussed. Which I think is perfectly reasonable. The morals of such a horrible "device" should always be considered before use. Did it, in the long run, save lives? Impossible to say. However, any lives it saved must be balanced against the innocent lives it cost. I am not, myself, a student of the Manhattan Project. I wouldn't understand half of it anyway; all the physics is over my head. Therefore, I am not able to give a rundown of all the places the movie fails history except to note that what is initially called "tickling the dragon's tail" isn't and that Jon Cusack's character is a composite of two men. So let's look at the filming instead, shall we? We are caught up in the tension--most people do not know that the Manhattan Project had been given a deadline, and the movie does not let us forget it. We also see the conflict between the Army and its way of doing things and the scientists and their way. Science, you see, is notoriously open and does not work as well when it is compartmentalized. The Army was not prepared for it. In my head, I always see David Strathairn as Oppenheimer, though he isn't. In this film, Oppenheimer is played by Dwight Schultz, who played Barclay on Star Trek. Very, very different actors. Schultz does an adequate job, but he's outclassed by Paul Newman and Jon Cusack. Most vexingly, they left out his most famous line. This isn't a fun movie. It is a [i]good[/i] movie, but it's not fun. But it's well-filmed and well-acted, and I highly recommend it.
Jonathan L (ag) wrote: go Chilly, go Chilly, GO!
Antonis G (br) wrote: Mia tainia gia tis sxeseis ithopiou skinotheti. Exei mmia theatriki mageia pu maresei!!!
Alexander N (gb) wrote: Comedy is hard. 90% of contemporary comedy is shit and doesn't work at all, so it's very rare, to me, for a comedy to work after more than 70 years. This is one of them: Jack Benny is great; he invented the deadpan and he could do a lot with a look and a gesture. Great writing and direction and there are some big laughs. Hard to believe that a Jewish German emigre' director could make a funny movie about Nazis in 1942, but Lubitsch really pulled off a magic trick with this movie. Inglourious Basterds inspiration is very evident.
John M (fr) wrote: Suspense, maybe, not horror. Good for its time, but looks dated now.
Stuart K (ru) wrote: Adapted from Arthur Ransome's 1930 childrens novel of the same name, and directed by Claude Whatham, (That'll Be the Day (1973) and Hoodwink (1981)), this is a sweet and innocent children's adventure, made for a meagre $250,000. It's a prime example of the kinds of children's film that simply doesn't get made anymore, as the frolics that they play in the film seem so old-fashioned now. Set during the summer of 1929, the Walker family go on holiday to the Lake District, while the mother (Virginia McKenna) stays at home, the Walker children, Susan (Suzanna Hamilton), John (Simon West), Titty (Sophie Neville) and Roger (Stephen Grendon) take a boat out into the middle of the neighbouring lake, and set up a camp on the island, they call their group the Swallows, named after the boat that took them out there. It's not long before they meet two other children, Nancy (Kit Seymour) and Peggy (Lesley Bennett), who are a lot more mischievious, teasing their Uncle Jim (Ronald Fraser), who is staying on a boat nearby, they're the Amazons. It's a very old fashioned film, cut from similar cloth to The Railway Children (1970), and it does highlight the art of children getting out and about and playing. The shoot was an absolute nightmare though, Ronald Fraser was never sober and the weather was very uncooperative, but a charming and precious film emerged from it all.
Richard Y (nl) wrote: The first film I ever saw in a cinema when I was 7y.o. Scared the shit out of me at the time, couldn't sleep for nights after that, and since then, I became a fan of Vampire films, Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing and in general the horror genre thanks no less to my older sister! In my mind, this telling of Dracula is second only to 1992 Francis Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" years later.
Fidel Antonio M (ru) wrote: Friggin' awesome! Best of the year so far. Effectively mixes action, time travel, and superpowers with devastating results. Director Rian Johnson is the next Christopher Nolan.
Joey W (au) wrote: really not good, always the Aids card when a gay movie is released. however didn't flow like dalas buyers but dragged like a reasonably well filmed student film. bit crap.