Molly, former baby prostitute "Angel" from Sunset Boulevard, has managed to leave her street life with help of Lt. Andrews. She studies law at an university and aims to become attorney. When she learns that Andrews was shot during a failed observation by brutal gangsters, she returns downtown to take revenge
- Stars:Betsy Russell, Rory Calhoun, Susan Tyrrell, Ossie Davis, Robert F. Lyons, Steven M. Porter, Paul Lambert, Barry Pearl, Estee Chandler, Tim Rossovich, Frank Doubleday, Howard Honig, Ross Hagen, Tracy Robert Austin, Michael A. Andrews,
- Director:Robert Vincent O'Neill,
- Writer:Robert Vincent O'Neill, Joseph Michael Cala
Molly, former baby prostitute "Angel" from Sunset Boulevard, has managed to leave her street life with help of Lt. Andrews. She studies law at an university and aims to become attorney. ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Avenging Angel torrent reviews
(au) wrote: "Found Footage" Don't waste your time. This movie is awful and lacks to tell a genuine story. The film brings little to no fear factor. 1 star...
(ag) wrote: It is a well made documentary but I just couldn't get past Mitt Romney. Without any name calling, I am just happy he isn't president. Thank God. I know a lot of people came out of this movie thinking they found a new found respect for him (like a lot of liberal reporters said) but not me. This whole thing felt like propaganda. Cool-enough concept. Bullshit execution.
(br) wrote: Sensitive, honest, reliable and touching - The Spectacular Now succeds in delivering an inspirational and mature film about youth without idealizations and clichs especially due to its tender script and the marvellous chemistry between Miles Teller and Shailene Woodley.
(jp) wrote: Not sure what the goal of this film was. A bit all over the place. What's the message?
(kr) wrote: A sharp and genuinely scary slow burn thriller. Gorgeously shot and briskly paced with plenty of kick.
(nl) wrote: really funny and learning
(nl) wrote: Best van damme movie ever
(ru) wrote: (I submitted this as an English essay)Gregory Doran(TM)s adaptation of Shakespeare(TM)s Hamlet was very well done. I enjoyed both Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation and Gregory Doran(TM)s adaptation equally. However, I felt like this adaptation did the better job of staying true to the play. While it does put a big modern spin on the play, it maintained the story(TM)s original dark and grim atmosphere.This movie was much better casted than the other adaptation. Having a younger actor (David Tennant) play Hamlet seemed to better fit the character(TM)s childish mannerisms. He acted with a great range of emotions. While Kenneth Branagh acted the part psychotically most of the time, David Tennant(TM)s acting ranged from psychotic to tranquil, from joyful to depressed, from hateful to loving. This great range of emotions portrayed in a very off-putting way helped show the character(TM)s emotionally-contradictive personality, which is what Shakespeare likely intended.The minor characters were also very well casted. Gertrude was portrayed as emotionally troubled as opposed to old and bitter, which I felt added more dynamic to the film. Claudius seemed more intimidating and antagonistic in his polite manners, in a devil in disguise? sort of way. The Ghost of Hamlet was acted antagonistically as well. While reading the play, most often the reader(TM)s first impression of the ghost wouldn(TM)t be that of an antagonist. But the way the part was acted was very tour de force, and aggressive in a kind of Raging Bull? demeanor. The portrayal of the Ghost reflects Hamlet(TM)s fluctuating emotions, but also foils his lack of anger and confidence. Also, it was very smart to portray King Hamlet as more directly antagonistic than King Claudius, because it helps the audience focus more on Hamlet(TM)s inner conflict and less on his family affairs. I also thought it was very clever to make Patrick Stewart play both Claudius and the Ghost of Hamlet, because they were physically the same person, but almost polar opposites in their demeanor.This movie had less production value than Kenneth Branagh(TM)s version. However, I liked the lesser production value of this version. It creates a whole different atmosphere. Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation had Victorian, well lit settings that seemed almost too lively and grand. The setting of this version is much colder?. The rooms are smaller and the halls are narrower, giving the movie more tension. It also makes less use of lighting, for a dark and gloomy feel. It also gives the movie more ambiguity and suspense, while only focusing on what(TM)s important (example: the ghost? scenes at night sometimes kept the actors in the dark while lighting the ghost when it makes its appearance, then uses lighting to capture the actor(TM)s reactions). All of this helps to capture the play(TM)s true heart of darkness, which I really appreciated.There was a difference in this version(TM)s sequence of the play(TM)s scenes. Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation was very paint-by-numbers?, in that it reflected the original text in its entirety. But this adaptation(TM)s removal and rearrangement of scenes made it seem more movie-like?, so that the plot is more easily comprehensible and entertaining.What I appreciated the most of this movie is its well thought out use of different types of shots, which all had different purposes. The type of shot that I considered most cleverly executed was the found-footage shot. In this movie, it is in the form of security camera footage. I felt that the use of this type of shot helped to increase feelings of paranoia. My favorite example of this is during Hamlet(TM)s to be or not to be? monologue, where Polonius and Claudius watch him via the security cameras. This scene also made a good use of long shots (shots that last longer than a minute without cuts) and close-ups, which help the audience appreciate the acting more as well as create more intensity. A lot of long shots were used during monologues. The long close-ups in the to be or not to be? scene, matched with the found footage shots, created a really intense and paranoid tone that I really enjoyed and did not expect.Another type of shot that the director implemented that I really enjoyed was jump-edited shots. This is when two sequential shots don(TM)t differ in camera angle, and the subject remains on camera but in a slightly different position. Jump-edited shots were cleverly used during Hamlet(TM)s soliloquies to show sudden shifts of emotions. In one shot he(TM)d be maniacal in his expressions, and it will cut immediately to a shot of him in a sad and melancholy trance. This makes it seem like these two emotionally-polar sides of him coexist, and the intention of this was likely to mess with the viewer psychologically, which I really enjoyed.I also really enjoyed the varied use of static shots and moving shots. In Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation, most shots were moving, making the movie seem much livelier. However, this adaptation consisted of mostly static shots to create a better gloomy atmosphere. The moving shots are only used when something is going wrong. This helps guides the viewer(TM)s emotions. Overall, I really enjoyed this film. The varied acting, the gloomier production atmosphere, the clever execution of different shots, and the more coherent plot sequence all helped to create a wonderful adaptation that is unique in that it stays true to the play not literally, but through artistic elements. This is a wonderful adaptation that deserves more recognition than Kenneth Branagh(TM)s, so that moviegoers can be exposed to the play(TM)s true raw heart of darkness, rather than given blockbuster eye-candy that only captures Hamlet(TM)s words and not its spirit.
(es) wrote: Out of all the movies I have seen from the Far East this was one of the hardest to keep up with, took about 50 minutes to get straight who was who and who was doing what. Movie is set back in 1911 time frame, and when the master dies his son is in no condition to rule the family (A bad day with Opium ruin his mental facilities.) So wit no choice but to allow Ruyi (Li Gong)the daughter to rule the family, her first action is to throw the whores and concubines out of the house, this really pisses off the elders. As time goes on she falls in love with her brother in law who is a sleaze bucket from Shanghi. In the eng Ruyi falls victim to the same fate as her brother. Not as good as other Asian films I have seen but worth 3 1/2 stars.
(it) wrote: Geoffrey Rush has to be one of the most fantastic actors to have ever graced the silver screen. Honest and pure film. Don't ask me why those two words come to mind. Man it sucks being a pianist and watching prodigies.. You go Mr. Rush
(jp) wrote: gotta love landis this looks like a really sweet movie! lol
(fr) wrote: My Animated Film Is 1940's Fantasia.
(nl) wrote: The Best Godzilla movie, by far! A little corn thrown in, purposely. Fun!
(mx) wrote: It's heartbreaking to see two iconic actors in such a poorly executed film. The plot has potential and score is fantastic but other than that it's an absolute train wreck.
(nl) wrote: I don't understand the low tomatometer reading!Maybe because of reviews from people who haven't read the book? Well I read it. I read of the feelings from the characters' letters to each other. The whole movie I was an emotional wreck. I say the movie was perfect.
(kr) wrote: Sprawling emotional epic finds a simple country girl falling for a ladies man, but he leaves her with child and without wedding ring. The baby dies and she is rejected by her family, so she must travel until being taken in by a farm. The move is able to capture little emotions on the player's faces, as well as throwing in many curves and twists for a very heart wrenching if long tale. DW Griffith's drama is influential for sure, giving us a simple morality tale with a lot of drama and conflict.