A Girl in Black
Hot on the heels of his breakthrough film Stella, Greek moviemaker Michael Cacoyanis came up with To Koritsi Me Ta Mara. Released worldwide as A Girl in Black, the film stars Ellie Lambetti as the title character. Because of her mother's loose reputation, Lambetti is considered "easy" by the male population of the tiny Greek island where she lives. She ultimately finds true love in the form of vacationer Dmitri Horn. The lovers' relationship is placed in sharp contrast with the cruelty and implicit degeneracy all around them. To Koritsi Me Ta Mara was screened at the 1956 Cannes Film Festival. ~ Hal Erickson, Rovi
- Stars:Ellie Lambeti, Dimitris Horn, Eleni Zafeiriou, Stephanos Stratigos, Giorgos Foundas, Notis Peryalis, Nikos Fermas, Anestis Vlahos, Maria Thalassinou, Thanasis Vengos,
- Director:Mihalis Kakogiannis,
- Writer:Mihalis Kakogiannis
Marina's sister drowned herself, her brother is both headstrong and weak, and her widowed mother has a reputation for sleeping around. Plus, Marina, who's family was rich before the war, is... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
A Girl in Black torrent reviews
(br) wrote: This film is just terrible : director/screenwriter/editor Oren Peli gets wrong anything he can; violating every screenwriting "rule" made popular by "script gurus". He starts with a terrible script in what the late Blake Snyder would have called the "Monster in the house" genre , and it's talk, talk, talk from beginning to end. Characters talk the plot all the time, or expressly tell the audience how they're feeling : "Something's happening in this house", thanks ! I know that already. "I want to leave, I'm scared" says a character : Peli, don't tell me about her fear, show me her fear ! Films are visual ! And you've shot this film almost entirely in sequence shot ! I don't think that's a good idea in terms of film pace. And the whole story is something about two characters talking and talking all the time : you'd have to be Quentin Tarantino or David Mamet to keep up the audience's attention for such a long time. But you're not, and "Reservoir Dogs" had it's action sequences between dialogue parts, you know. Dialogue only, well it would have been hard for them too. Oh, and do you think having a door slightly opening, obviously filmed using someone pulling invisible threads off-screen, will really give someone the creeps ? There is one film shot entirely in long take, you know : it's called "Rope", and, you know, it was directed by someone named Alfred Hitchcock. And, yes, it was shot in a close environment too, but if you're not Hitchcock ,Brian De Palma or a real Hollywood big shot, I'd seriously recommend you not to do it at home. and it doesn't matter at all if you come up with some decent ending if you've killed the film a long time before it.You see : the problem is not you're trying to do "poltergeist" on a low-budget, without special effects. The problem is you're tryin' to do "Poltergeist" at home when you don't know to write first, and you don't know how to direct it secondly. So why not going for a different subject ?
(br) wrote: Informative, but more important, you really care about the five men the filmmakers followed for that year's Miss Gay America. The little guy who worked at Walt Disney World was my favorite - the unconditional love and friendship he has with his (straight) friend/choreographer Jake just about broke my heart. It was nice to see the support from the various family and friends who took part in the documentary. I was thankful for the entirely positive representation of these men :)
(es) wrote: Great performances and pacing turn a somewhat familiar tale into something extremely engaging.
(us) wrote: 'Reservoir Dogs' Aussie style!
(ru) wrote: I almost stopped watching it around 35 minutes because it started so slow and boring but was glad I finished it, had an odd ending and by the end I actually like the characters a bunch.
(ca) wrote: funny and danny dyer in it sooo yummy
(au) wrote: The books were so good, but the movie sucked the life out of the book and the entire fantasy genre.
(ru) wrote: Poetique, fragile, touchant. Wow! Un beau petit film qui nous fait relaiser a quel point la vie est fragile. Et aussi, a quel point la mort peut nous chambouler.. L'histoire de deux ames perdues qui tentent de se retrouver.
(jp) wrote: By the late 80s, Stephen King was the biggest author around but King had always disliked the numerous Hollywoods adaptations of his works, even though some of them counted with big caliber directors like Stanley Kubrick, David Cronenberg, John Carpenter, and Brian De Palma. But in 1986 King made his directorial debut because, as he said in the trailer, "if you want something done right, you better do it yourself", he "just wanted someone to make Stephen King right" and promised to "scare the hell out of you". On June 19th, 1987, the Earth passed into the extraordinarily diffuse tail of comet Rhea-M and it stayed there for eight days. This astrological event gave life to inanimate objects which started to show a murderous behavior towards humans. We follow a group of survivors stranded on the "Dixie Boy", a truck stop and we witness their struggle to stay alive. On his earlier adaptations, King blamed the directors of each movie for not understanding his work but in "Maximum Overdrive" there is no excuse as he served not only as the source material but also as writer and director but after this effort is clear that King should stay as an author and leave the movie adaptations to more capable people. The acting is abysmal with no absolute exception, the writing is cheesy and so over the top that you will be laughing during its runtime, the characters are so badly written that you won't even remember/care about their names, it never has a scary scene whatsoever, the story doesn't make any sense, it is a tell don't show and finally, Kings directing is filled with more than questionable choices, mediocre shoots and lack of any suspense. But even with those god awful elements, "Maximum Overdrive" is one of those films that's so bad its good thanks to its laughable over the top silly vibe which is established in the first 5 minutes, hilarious scenes which supposedly were "scary", a phenomenal "score" by none other than AC/DC and a creepy/hilarious "Green Goblin" truck which perfectly summarize this film: It tries to be scary but it turns out to be campy thanks to the lack of logic. King promised "to scare the hell out of you", in the trailer, but instead "Maximum Overdrive" makes you laugh thanks to its B movie elements: campy vibe and over the top performances. It is by no means a good movie but it guaranties some laughs scored by AC/DC. He may be a fantastic writer, occasionally, but he isn't even a mediocre director/screenwriter.
(jp) wrote: Quality 80's film noir written by Oliver Stone starring Jeff Bridges, Rosanna Arquette and Andy Garcia.A little slow and disjointed at the start but grows into a tense gripping thriller with some fine performances from the main cast.One particular Taranteno esque stand off in a warehouse will have you biting your knuckles with the terror and excitment of it all.
(us) wrote: Congratulations for Opening Night for being officially my least favorite film of all time. Biggest pile of shit ever.
(gb) wrote: "Derailed" is a ridiculous thriller that only gets worse as it goes along. The whole film depends on the main character (played by Clive Owen) being the most gullible, suggestible and idiotic victim of blackmail in the history of mankind and it becomes so infuriating you'll need to take breaks during the film to scream out in rage. A quick resume of what happens in the movie to give some context: Charles Schine works in the advertising industry, is married to Deanna and has a daughter that's type 1 diabetic. The two parents work non-stop to save up money in order to get their daughter some medical help and pay off their second mortgage on the house. One day, "Charles" meets "Lucinda" (played by Jennifer Anniston) on a train, the two hit it off and start having an affair, but when they go back to a hotel room, they're victims of a vicious crime. The criminal in question is "Philippe" (played by Vincent Cassel) who proceeds to blackmail "Charles" for outrageous sums of money. So you might be able to think of some problems with this set up from the beginning... like "Why is Charles going along with this instead of calling the police?" Well the answer to that question is because he's a total moron. It doesn't take a genius to realise that the reason why a criminal would tell you "not to contact the police" is because the police would be able to solve the whole affair quickly. It also doesn't take a genius to realise that if you give a blackmailer some money, they're not going to go away. You almost want "Philippe" to succeed with his plot because you have no sympathy for someone who would be stupid enough to give all of his money to one of the most transparent and one dimensional villains ever seen on screen. He's so evil that he casually goes around beating up people (even in their own house), threatening people over the phone and even commiting murder to get his blackmail money. The guy feels like a total amateur at the whole blackmail thing because he's just leaving evidence everywhere but thankfully he's picked the biggest pushover ever as his victim.As the movie goes, there are several scenes that feel very awkward and create plot holes for the film. In one scene that cements "Charles" as a total fool, he is speaking to a police officer when he gets a call from the blackmailer. It doesn't take a titan of intellect to think that maybe if you passed the phone onto the detective while making a "shh, just listen" motion, you would probably be able to set the bad guy up to confess his crimes to the police right there and then! Because this is a thriller that does rely on some twists to keep itself going, it would be wrong to write down all of the scenes that have logical problems in them but particularly towards the end these become more and more obvious. It's just really hard to believe that the man who has been saving money for years for his daughter to get better would just throw it away because he was almost unfaithful to his wife. For that reason the movie really doesn't work but it is, at the very least entertaining throughout. Sure, it will drive you mad looking at these fools making the dumbest choices possible while dealing with this whole blackmail plot but you won't be able to turn it off because the movie consistently tops its own stupidity. Other than that, Jennifer Anniston sure looks good trying to seduce Clive Owen and the performances are decent too.The plot of "Derailed" is utter nonsense but it does stay consistantly more interesting as it goes along and even though the characters are surprisingly stupid you'll still be curious to see what happens to them; it might not be good but there is some entertainment to be found here. (Dvd, March 29, 2013)
(it) wrote: While certainly not better than the first "Blacula" film, this one at least has the benefit of adding Pam Grier to the cast. It is still a campy goofball kind of horror film, so I think fans of the original wouldn't be disappointed. The plot revolves around a man scorned by his mother when she chooses Grier ad her successor instead of him, and in revenge resurrects Blacula. You know, good fun!