Before the Rain

Before the Rain

The circularity of violence seen in a story that circles on itself. In Macedonia, during war in Bosnia, Christians hunt an ethnic Albanian girl who may have murdered one of their own. A young monk who's taken a vow of silence offers her protection. In London, a photographic editor who's pregnant needs to talk it out with her estranged husband and chooses a toney restaurant.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:113 minutes
  • Release:1994
  • Language:Macedonian,English,Albanian,French
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:escape,   christian,   murder,  

The circularity of violence seen in a story that circles on itself. In Macedonia, during war in Bosnia, Christians hunt an ethnic Albanian girl who may have murdered one of their own. A ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Before the Rain torrent reviews

Phil T (gb) wrote: A few decent moments from this video footage-style horror help raise this movie ist slightly over the average Mark.

Jason C (fr) wrote: Ran into this movie that slipped through the cracks, the acting is great, always Hoffman puts out honest and natural performances and Walken plays his borderline comical self that is enjoyable. The story flows nicely that the 1 hr 45 minutes it runs for doesn't feel as long as it is.

Andr D (jp) wrote: Los fanaticos de "Taxi Driver" y "Cape Fear" de Martin Scorsese quedaran con la boca abierta al ver este negrisimo relato acerca de un vaquero (ecos de "MIdnight Cowboy"), interpretado por un excelente Edward Norton que no logra adaptarse a los tiempos modernos y que pierde el principio de realidad al encontrar el amor en una joven (EVan Rachel Wood) y la admiracion en un chico solitario (Kieran Culkin). Una gran cinta que aunque pierde toda logica en su escena final, quedara en la mente, en el corazon y en las terminales nerviosas del espectador.

Juan M (ag) wrote: The movie isn't that great, still it was a risky choice and a great critic against american movies taking the credit of what other countries have made. Great for Chirstian Slater.

Niklas S (es) wrote: I wanted to see this and find out exactly how bad it could be. Pretty bad for a drama but perfect for a comedy. Too bad they shot for drama.

Matthew M (br) wrote: It's uneven, as anthologies usually are, but the jokes manage to hit more than they miss, and the directors satire programmes that most of us are familiar with, which helps a lot. It's an interesting and entertaining look at a world where so much happens but so little are immersed in it, and the recurring segment joke about the Amazon women on the moon, and the promise of "no commericials", is very funny, no matter how many times you rewatch it. It's like an extended slapstick comedy, with some added intellectual jokes, which means that you'll probably enjoy it more as a guilty pleasure than anything else - but that's just fine.

Danijel J (kr) wrote: "Comrade Communists, fuck freely", shouts the narrator at the beginning of Dusan Makavejev's hilarious 1971. satire about sex and politics behind, but also, to a smaller extent, in front of the iron curtain. The film's destiny, it's safe to say, was already determent at the time of its release: it became an instant art house classic, retained a cult following even in these sexually more liberated, ideologically not so colorful times and it also marked a seventeen year hiatus from a targeted country for its creator. He eventually came back; the dream of communism is dead, as is his country for that matter, but WR: Mysteries of the Organism remains a great testament to the audacity of its creator and to the moment of time when the sixties started making their breakthrough to the east. The film is based on the teachings of Wilhelm Reich, a student of Sigmund Freud, whose controversial ideas about the role of sex in people's lives brought him to trials in the mid fifties. He died in 1957. but left a number of followers who continued to explore his ideas. Makavejev used some of them in this film, the structure of which is not so easy to explain. It is a combination of fact and fiction, where the documentary content consists of interviews with Reich's family members and experts in his philosophy, who conduct a number of experiments to prove their theories. That part, set in the United States, is intercut with a fictional story about a beautiful Serbian Milena (Milena Dravic) who propagates philosopher's views in the communist Yugoslavia. While her randy roommate Jagoda (Jagoda Kaloper) mostly has sex or can be seen naked in the background, Milena preaches free love to the tenants of her building more passionately than any speech Yugoslav leader Tito ever gave. When she meets and becomes attracted to a sexually repressed Russian ice-skater Vladimir Iljic (Ivica Vidovic, obviously named after Lenjin), the whole east block becomes the target of Makavejev's biting humor. The sole construction of this picture is a pleasure to watch, not surprisingly, considering it comes from probably the weirdest and most original director of the late sixties and early seventies. His juxtaposition may be influenced by the cinema of Godard, Eisenstein and Bunuel, but the style has Makavejev written all over it. Just see few other of his films, especially Innocence Unprotected, and you'll see what I mean. The biggest mistake one could make is to call this exploitation due to the heavy sexual content. It's not, that's clear to anyone familiar with the nature of communism and with a small insight into Reich's work. What makes it exceptional is that Makavejev took the philosophy which was controversial even in the "liberal" West and applied his radical view of it on the conservative communist society, even if the society in question was the "the most liberal communist country". It's easy to see how this would trigger controversy upon its release. If you choose to find one single meaning here (I won't, nor does Makavejev, I'm pretty sure of that), you will find this to be a cautionary tale, without the intention to shock, but to worn. By doing this, you could find the main idea to be the one about the dangers of dedication to any ideology that puts abstract ideas and ideological riddles in front of the individuals and their freedoms. But, for anyone who has seen it, it is clear that the reduction of this kind would be an unnecessary, and probably untrue, simplification. I realize that everyone won't like WR. It doesn't have a structure of, what you'd call, a normal picture. But if you refuse to restrict your self to standard TV film narrative you might try with Makavejev, one of the directors whose work represents the most radical challenge to that convention.

Scott R (es) wrote: Crime doesn't pay, but this film noir does.

David J (ru) wrote: Hitchcock's dialogue-heavy drama, "Rope," is darkly comical and well-written, but it's noticeably stagy and it lacks a satisfying and, more importantly, credible conclusion.

Natalie M (kr) wrote: Clooney's directorial debut is fun, crazy, and star-filled.

Tim S (au) wrote: Lake Placid was released in 1999 and was directed by horror veteran Steve Miner. It also starred a wealth of acting talent for a B movie of its caliber, and even though it wasn't a huge box office success, it thrived quite well due to its popularity on home video and repeats on cable. The movie also came out at a time when there was a monster movie boom going on at the box office. Looking back at it today, the movie wasn't any sort of game changer or hot new spin on the comedy/horror genre, even though some of its creators might like to think so. It's a fun and sometimes witty monster movie, but never quite reaches the levels of awesomeness you could want. Betty White, of course, became a mini-superstar due to her use of blue language in the film, but it was also a time when CGI and practical effects were still being employed to make a movie like this. Stan Winston designed and created the huge crocodile in the film, and while the CGI doesn't really hold up, it adds a bit of flavor to the mix. The movie, overall, is no masterpiece of the genre, by any means, but it's entertaining enough and has a bit of rewatchability to it that most movies like it don't have.

Ash M (it) wrote: Great story line that was very poorly executed.