Bílá paní

Bílá paní

This castle has its own ghost - a mysterious White lady. She emerges from the painting on the wall when someone speaks out magic formula. White lady is good ghost, she can make someone's ...

This castle has its own ghost - a mysterious White lady. She emerges from the painting on the wall when someone speaks out magic formula. White lady is good ghost, she can make someone's ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Bílá paní torrent reviews

Jenn T (ca) wrote: It was actually really funny, in a low budget lame horror movie type way.

Cameron M (au) wrote: Open Water's terrifyingly true story is sadly inundated by its cheap appearance and drawn-out moments of monotony.

Greg W (us) wrote: a surrealistic trip or fractured fairy tale like the films of Fellini or luis Bunnel

Riley H (fr) wrote: Corn fields are scary. Straw is scary. Since when did scarecrows have mind-control powers?

Noname (ca) wrote: Nice family adventure movie from the 80s. Ron Horward directed it and the story comes from George Lucas. Its a saga like lord of the rings but not as good but still very great. *thumbs up*

Adam F (ru) wrote: Slams through the goofy wall about four minutes in and stays on the other side, doing obscene things to the rubble.

Stefan G (br) wrote: Chevy Chase may not have been one of the best names in the 1980's. In fact, when I think about him, I usually think about stereotypically unfunny '80's comedy. This film, however, is actually worth watching. The main premise, which revolves around a journalist who uses an array of disguises in his pursuit of incriminating information, is quite solid and surprisingly realistic. It's as though the writers have a real grasp of what being a journalist is about, and what helps is that the story has a balanced pace, so it doesn't seem tedious in any way. I find Chase's performance as the title character to be quite eccentric, in a way that it's certainly better than any other film he's in (as far as I know). The main attraction of this film is its overall style. There are two main tracks that are used very frequently, and they are very good. The film's soundtrack is the kind of quintessentially '80's synth music that obsessive fans of the decade crave, and it's extremely catchy. The humour is sometimes a little hit-or-miss, but it's subtle enough that it works it the right time, so long as the right performances are there. It's not one of the best movies of the '80's, but I find it to be rather underrated. If you find it, I'd recommend seeing it at least once.

V E (jp) wrote: Brilliant; just complex and Edward James Olmos is great!

Paul Z (us) wrote: The very first bit of dialogue is the kind of introductory exposition you get and gradually learn the rhythm of from a movie that is testing you. Being a film by John Cassavetes, it shall be one of those films that leaves you unsure of what to think of it at all, except that you were strangely engrossed in many scenes, only not quite like other examples of this sort of movie experience. His sense of pace is epic, but the subjects that fascinate him are granular in scale. Husbands is a Cassavetes film that even experienced Cassavetes film watchers aren't quite prepared for. It is a formalistically rebellious, gravely intimate reflection of the bareness of suburban life, magnified 500%, unpatronizing to and violatingly honest about its anxious, inarticulate sticks in the mud who have no idea what they're feeling while they're undergoing their feelings. The dialogue is comprised of unfinished thoughts, of knee-jerk shouts, not to mention three actors with egos more massive than the movie's gaps of seeming inertia. The camera just rolls and the microphone just hears. That we're seeing and hearing anything in particular is not as central as the fact that we are indeed looking and listening. Cassavetes tries so hard to seize and squeeze every possibility of any moments that catch what we all know happens between concept and execution. Moments that don't seem scriptable, that hardly seem describable. When we're with somebody but before anyone's thought of anything to say, or when we are distracted into an unthinking transition, anything impulsive or seemingly without thought. I might even go so far as to say the whole film seems involuntary. And what's more, it is predominantly comprised of Cassavetes' trademark scenes of agonizing discomfort. The most emboldened stand-out in this film's succession of scenes of that nature is an inordinately long one in which Cassavetes, Gazzara and Falk sit with a table of friends and family in a bar, not a tissue of their body left dry of alcohol, taking random turns singing traditional folk songs, and after awhile---and I mean awhile---one person begins singing, and the three jeer them into silence, then tell her to try again. They jeer her quiet again, and again and again and again until finally, after anyone in her position would still be cooperating, they praise her for finally getting it right. This to me represents what has to be the creative process for actors in a Cassavetes film, especially the Cassavetes film Husbands. There seems to be no frontal lobe left in any actor. Husbands is described sometimes as a comedy. Well, I don't know if it's a comedy, but is a drama with sporadic moments of strange, seemingly incidental humor. There is an unusually brief scene where Gazzara visits his office and is greeted by an outlandishly goofy colleague. When the three friends are electrified with excitement about going to London, we cut to London, where it's dreary and pouring rain. There doesn't seem to be a way to pinpoint the nature of the movie's tone, or its structure at all. Like I said, it puts you to the test, and the test is to accept the film on its terms. If you do, you can be moved by the nature of its point of view and be open to the nature of your own reactions to it.

Derrick R (jp) wrote: I own this and think it's one of the most underrated B-horror movie of all time. It will probably never get It credit It deserves, but oh well because movies now blow, Lets remake, lets make a Sequel. very sad

Yash B (ca) wrote: I really tried to get into the unique style of this movie but ultimately was made uncomfortable by most of it. The movie has a nonsensical story and situations that don't really add up. I think the actors do their best with the material given to them but ultimately they can't save this movie.I was just waiting for this movie to end, it feels much longer than it is. I didn't find it really all that funny, considering it supposed to be a comedy. It has some cool moments of over the top violence and dialogue that I would've probably enjoyed if the story made any sense.