While world religious leaders gather for a top secret meeting in La Spezia, the Reverend Jones, a famous television preacher and the creator of 'Reverend Jones's Sauce', is set on replacing... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
- Stars:Eric Roberts, Cary Elwes, Sarah Wynter, Chris Sarandon, Diane Venora, Michael Greyeyes, Terry Simpson, Joel McNichol, Daniel Magder, Robin Wilcock, Cas Anvar, Karen Cliche, Andrea Bruschi, Veronica Logan, Massimo Olcese, Manuela Ungaro, Gianna Piaz, Lella Costa, Marina Massironi, Carola Stagnaro, Ed Bishop, Rolando Ravello, Ugo Dighero, Michelangelo Pulci, Adolfo Oltrecolli, Marina Remi, Mauro Pirovano,
You may also like
500! torrent reviews
Spencer K (au) wrote: While I didn't love it as much as I was hoping to, Always Shine would be just plain bad if it weren't for its two fantastic performances from the two lead actresses. They play of one another so well, and it feels like every line of dialogue spoken is a one upper or a personal jab to the other character. Which, this is a nod to the sharply written script and again to these wonderful performances. Above all it's a feminist film with a sly sexist commentary and all the while weaving a tense psychological thriller into the mix, and it works. It's razor sharp and incredibly tense. You can feel the tension oozing out of every scene between these two characters. It's editing is a little choppy and the pace may be frustrating for some, but it's worth a watch, nevertheless.
Movie K (fr) wrote: A sequel is inevitable although it is slightly weaker compare to the first one. Tulio and Linda go into the jungle to release a bird they nursed back and they found more of Blue species. Meanwhile, Blu and Jewel along with their 3 kids still live in the city. Jewel see the news and wish to find the others. Rafael and Nico tag along. Illegal loggers (big boss Miguel Ferrer) are cutting down the trees. The family bumble along the way and found the other species. Blu found his father Eduardo (Andy Garcia) and he don't really like Blu urban style. Blu is also jealous of Roberto (Bruno Mars) the childhood playmate of Jewel. Nigel is now a fortune telling bird who is trap with a poison frog Gabi (Kristin Chenoweth) who likes Nigel and an anteater. Nigel saw the family flying and reignite his vengeance. After the previous accident he is saved but unable to fly anymore. Blu try to fit in but fail. He thought of taking a nut for Jewel as breakfast but unknowingly venture into another macaw species territory. The 2 sides fight it out in a football match. Blu is the last substitute and he score an own goal which lost the match 4-3. Blu is sad that Jewel and the kids want to stay in the jungle so he pack his bag and find Linda. Linda and Tulio are caught by the loggers and tied to a tree. Blu found them and save them. Roberto thought he is traitor and work with human. Blu tell him to warn the other birds as trees are falling. Blu unite the birds to fight the loggers. Even other animals and rival macaw helps. Blu take the dynamite up to the sky and Nigel latch on. Gabi prepare her poison dart and the anteater shoot but it hit Nigel instead. Then one of Blu daughter say Gabi is not a poisonous species of frog and she is so happy she hug Nigel which annoy him. The forest is to become protected area and Blu and Jewel with everyone else live happily there.
Macaulay G (es) wrote: Poor Luke Ward-Wilkinson was completely wasted in this movie; he deserves so much better.
Minna P (ag) wrote: Unbelieveably boring. Sorry. Sara Baras and Antonio Canales were the highlights.
wahwy h (fr) wrote: grand saga of true love
Niek S (au) wrote: Interesting insight into the - failed - making of one of the most infamous non-finished films: Terry Gilliams's The Man Who Killed Don Quixote. A tale of all the practical problems that stand in the way of a bringing a vision to the screen.
Steve S (it) wrote: Okay thriller that is far from Nicolas Cage's best work...but also far from his worst.
Joo P (ca) wrote: I was just a lad of ten when I saw this 1973 BBC production of "Jane Eyre" for the first time. Michael Jayston and, above all, Sorcha Cusack made an everlasting impression on me. After all these years, to be able to see her again as Jane is... all joy! To acknowledge how well both these actors did portray their respective characters from Robin Chapman's fine script and under Joan Craft's competent direction, allow me to transcribe here the following excerpts from Charlotte Bront,'s immortal novel: From chapter XIV (Jane about Rochester): - "[...] he rose from his chair, and stood, leaning his arm on the marble mantelpiece: in that attitude his shape was seen plainly as well as his face; his unusual breadth of chest, disproportionate almost to his length of limb. I am sure most people would have thought him an ugly man; yet there was so much unconscious pride in his port; so much ease in his demeanour; such a look of complete indifference to his own external appearance; so haughty a reliance on the power of other qualities, intrinsic or adventitious, to atone for the lack of mere personal attractiveness, that, in looking at him, one inevitably shared the indifference, and, even in a blind, imperfect sense, put faith in the confidence." From chapter XVI of the novel (Jane about Rochester and she): - "[...] I knew the pleasure of vexing and soothing him by turns; it was one I chiefly delighted in, and a sure instinct always prevented me from going too far; beyond the verge of provocation I never ventured; on the extreme brink I liked well to try my skill. Retaining every minute form of respect, every propriety of my station, I could still meet him in argument without fear or uneasy restraint; this suited both him and me." From chapter XXVII (Rochester to/about Jane): - "[...] You entered the room with the look and air at once shy and independent: you were quaintly dressed - much as you are now. I made you talk: ere long I found you full of strange contrasts. Your garb and manner were restricted by rule; your air was often diffident, and altogether that of one refined by nature, but absolutely unused to society, and a good deal afraid of making herself disadvantageously conspicuous by some solecism or blunder; yet when addressed, you lifted a keen, a daring, and a glowing eye to your interlocutor's face: there was penetration and power in each glance you gave; when plied by close questions, you found ready and round answers. Very soon you seemed to get used to me: I believe you felt the existence of sympathy between you and your grim and cross master, Jane; for it was astonishing to see how quickly a certain pleasant ease tranquillised your manner: snarl as I would, you showed no surprise, fear, annoyance, or displeasure at my moroseness; you watched me, and now and then smiled at me with a simple yet sagacious grace I cannot describe." In these three passages of her novel, Charlotte Bront, gave to all readers a crystal-clear synthesis of how she imagined Jane Eyre and Edward Rochester; and it is exactly this we have the exquisite privilege to contemplate in the 1973 BBC production of "Jane Eyre". Please, believe me: in no other production (not even in the rightly praised BBC 1983 production, with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke...) you will find these characters portrayed so faithfully to the novel and so perfectly on screen as in this one! Michael Jayston is a great, truly great Rochester; Sorcha Cusack, with that beautiful round face, those lovely eyes and that velvet voice, is a Jane from the other world; and the connection between them is way, way far beyond simple "chemistry" or "physical connection": it is genuine empathy - just like the connection there is between their respective characters. The portrayal of the secondary characters is made in much the same way. The performances of young Juliet Waley, as young Jane, Tina Heath as Helen Burns, and Isabelle Rosin as Adle, of reliable veterans John Philips as Mr. Brocklehurst and Megs Jenkins as Mrs. Fairfax, of glamorous Stephanie Beacham as Blanche Ingram, and of "Leslie-Howard-like" Geoffrey Whitehead as St. John Rivers, are all very good and quite close to what can we read in "Jane Eyre". The real marrow of Charlotte Bront,'s novel: this is what one can get from this, the 1973 BBC production of "Jane Eyre". Nothing of real importance is missing here - above all, God. The final lines said by Sorcha Cusack, taken out of the last chapter of novel (sadly missing in all the other TV and movie versions...), are a sort of resume of Charlotte Bront,'s faith in God: after helping both Jane and Rochester going through their ordeals, God blesses her supremely and judges him with mercy; so, there is reason to believe in God. Just like the novel, this TV production is a story told by Jane's own point of view: it's a "flash-back". The use of narration through Jane's "inner-voice" is as effective here as it is old in the History of English Theatre (and Cinema, for that matter): it harks back to William Shakespeare, who used to make his characters turn to the audiences and speak out their intimate thoughts. Drama and humor, suspense and surprise are all very finely balanced in this BBC production of "Jane Eyre". As for the humor, I don't mean to be rude to those reviewers whom have written here criticizing Sorcha Cusack's performance, but I'm afraid they simply don't grasp British humour - particularly, the "understatement", which is present in almost every line of many of the intimate dialogues between Jane and Rochester (both in the novel and in this production). Every time I see Sorcha (with a naughty smile) saying to Michael (with a wicked grin): "Won't she [Miss Ingram] feel forsaken and [pause!] deserted?", I roll myself with laughter! That's Bront,'s humour at its best! What a cracker! It should be noted that this is neither a "romantic" nor a "gothic" production of Charlotte Bront,'s novel. In fact, I'm not even sure that "Jane Eyre" is a true romantic or a true gothic novel. As far as I remember, it was Jorge Luis Borges who stated that it could be classified as one of the predecessors of the so-called "Magic Realism" in Literature. Indeed, between "Romanticism", "Gothicism" and "Magic Realism", I personally find "Jane Eyre" much closer to the latter... and, judging solely from what we can watch in this TV production, both Robin Chapman and Joan Craft fond it the same as I do. I've seen the DVD release of "Jane Eyre" (1973) so many times since I bought it that I'm seeing it now in bits and parts - specially those witty ones with Jane and Rochester. That's how good this production really is! To my mind, in a scale of 1 to 10, the 1973 BBC production of "Jane Eyre" deserves 9.9. It would get a clear 10 out of me if it had (as it should!) at least fifteen episodes; but, since it was a "low budget" production, it has only five - and, because of that, the "gipsy scene" had to be pruned up to the point of becoming just a hilarious scene, and the character of Rosamond Oliver had to be simply tossed off. Nevertheless, it is the best of all screen versions there are of "Jane Eyre": the most faithful to novel, superbly tight and paced, very well put up together, with first class performances and Elgar's Introduction and Allegro for strings, Opus 47 (1904-05), as the musical background. In short, it is a sublime piece of Art. Don't miss it!...
Amy K (nl) wrote: Richard Dreyfuss AND Holly Hunter....if there had been a shark in this movie and the clothes were more fabulous and Michael Myers made an appearance (the psycho not the actor) this would be my choice for most awesome movie EVER....but as it stands, it's still pretty great. The story is nothing new but the acting of Dreyfuss and Hunter as well as Danny Aiello Gena Rowlands and the rest, make this family dramedy pretty freaking good.
Movie T (us) wrote: Peter Gallagher and Laura San Giacomo are so disgusting.
MF J (ag) wrote: Used to watch this film as a kid & loved it. It has probably aged quite a bit but i'd love to watch it now. I remember being really entertained by all these lions breaking into the house and making a complete mess of the whole building. So much fun!
Private U (it) wrote: THE MOVIE OF MY CHILDHOOD!!!!!!!
Art S (ru) wrote: Fully prepared for campy schlock (possibly of the most boring kind), instead I found This Island Earth to be a fairly gripping episode of proto-Star Trek (the original TV series). Sure, we've got 1950s acting styles, dated technology, and actors never seen again, but sympathy is created for Exeter, the man from the planet under attack, who needs Earth's atomic energy scientists to help him sustain a force field shield. After a rather too long prelude, things go from weird to wonderful, especially in the art-directed exteriors of Metaluna. As a double feature with Forbidden Planet (which it was), it couldn't be beat.
Jeffrey K (jp) wrote: Cute and charming (don't expect any biting social commentary with this one)
Mohammed A (ca) wrote: It's good movie to watch
Ben D (ca) wrote: Exactly what the title says. On par with Shark Attack 3 in terms of special effects and acting skill.
Ben L (au) wrote: I like a good mind-bender and mathematics is a passion of mine. I thought the main character was established well so that we can sympathize with him, but also see his unhealthy obsession. Personally, I lean towards movies that have a clearer narrative flow than this one. It is very artistic in its presentation, which caters to a certain audience. Unfortunately, I'm not really in that target group. But I like elements of the film. Perhaps the best is the way it suggests a commonality between science, economics, nature, and religion. I'm sure there's a lot more to be gleaned if you examine the visual symbolism, but in general I'd rather gouge out my eyes with a rusty fork than spend time examining symbols in art. There was enough on the surface to keep me engaged all the way to the end. I personally prefer Requiem if I want an Aronofsky film, but I think I see what others enjoy in Pi.