When a tribe of indigenous Guarani Indians attempts to re-inhabit their ancestral land, which lies on the border of a wealthy landowner's fields, tensions escalate. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil, the present. When a young Guarani-Kaiowá woman commits suicide, Nádio leads his community to form a protest camp on the borders of a local farm that sits on their ancestral burial ground.
- Stars:Claudio Santamaria, Alicélia Batista Cabreira, Chiara Caselli, Pedro Abrísio da Silva, Matheus Nachtergaele, Ambrósio Vilhava, Ademilson Concianza Verga, Leonardo Medeiros, Eliane Juca da Silva, Fabiane Pereira da Silva, Taiane Arce, César Chedid, Temily Comar, Nelson Concianza, Luciane da Silva,
You may also like
Birdwatchers torrent reviews
Diganta B (it) wrote: Captain Phillips should learn something from this one.
Patrick B (ag) wrote: While not perfect, this is a movie told with heart and honesty. Mario Van Peebles plays his real-life father, Melvin, during a time when Melvin wanted to make a film for black people to respond to. He ends up making the movie "Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song!"; which ends up starting the whole blaxploitation movement of the 1970s with "Shaft" and "Superfly" among others. The story is inspiring, and Mario Van Peebles doesn't shy away from the dark details. He gives us an honest portrayal of his father. We see a man who will never give up, but we also see a man who may have not been the best father to his son throughout the whole ordeal. The only thing I didn't like about the film was the whole docudrama aspect of it. I felt like the interviews took away from some of the film's power, and the movie felt a little rushed at times. But I'm being nitpicky here. "Baadassss!" is a truthful drama about one man who wanted to revolutionize how black people were portrayed in cinema, among other things. It will move and educate you.
Nicholas W (ca) wrote: Very cool flick that once again proves truth really is stranger than fiction.
Daniele C (kr) wrote: The first half of the movie is a brilliantly made, greatly acted, original and delicate story about a troubled woman who finds relief and hope in a man totally different from her. The second half is a trivial thriller. It could have been a marvellous movie... and that makes it even more disappointing.
Debjit G (ru) wrote: Clint Eastwood did a remarkable job as 'a man with no name' in this movie. An image of Angry Young man,depicted by Eastwood marks on the viewer's mind. As a director, he did a fabulous job in his sophomore film by gradually increasing thrill and drama in the film. The village Lego,it's corruption, inner conflictsare smartly presented in front of us. It may not be one of the best western films you have ever come across, but hell its exciting!
pedro t (it) wrote: Blah blah blah, absolutely brilliant film blah blah
Ricardo O (gb) wrote: A really good melodrama starring Olivia de Havilland as a woman who falls in love with a young soldier. He is killed in battle before they can marry, leaving de Havilland to raise the child alone. She gives her child up for adoption. After becoming successful in the cosmetic business she later on in life comes face to face with her grown son. She resists to tell him her real identity but with the help of an old British peer they are brought back together.It is a movie that is quite soapy but not so much that one will be turned off by it. Olivia de Havilland's exquisite performance as a woman who gives up her son and later is brought together with him is one of the greatest performances by an actress. She deservedly won the Oscar for Best Actress, an award that was even sweeter since it was her first film after a forced 2 year long hiatus. Her performance in this film is closely matched by her later performance in The Heiress, for which she would earn her second Oscar, as the best of her brilliant career. Credit also belongs to the talented supporting cast, the screenwriter Charles Brackett and Mitchel Leisen's unpretentious, sensitive style of direction. Highly recommended viewing. 8/10
Richard S (fr) wrote: A OK mystery. Catch on TV.
sarah d (fr) wrote: Just recently saw this again on free to air TV. Always a great watch with Hans Zimmer's beautiful score adding to it's magic.
G M (ag) wrote: It was a visually delightful film with a fantastic cast, scenery, and logical frame transitions. It failed to delight, however, with its storyline, which attempted to blend at least four gigantic angles: Josemaria Escriva's life, founding of the Opus Dei, and rise to sainthood; Torres' fall and eventual reach for redemption; the Spanish civil war; and a son's search for truth and meaning. With films like this, I always expect to be so dramatically moved and inspired to be transformed. Tragically, neither happened in a dramatic scale.
Jack F (fr) wrote: Depending on how big a fan you are of "Cloverfield," the 2008 J.J. Abrams-produced/Matt Reeves-directed found footage monster film, the best way to approach its follow-up, 2016's "10 Cloverfield Lane," is to just throw out the word "Cloverfield" altogether. If you're expecting a true follow-up to the earlier film, you're going to be disappointed. "10 Cloverfield Lane" is more of a "sidequel," a story that takes place within the same universe but doesn't really have any obvious connection to its predecessor. In that sense, the word "Cloverfield" in the title might be seen as a distraction. Therefore you should just push it out of your mind and try and enjoy the movie for what it is, and it's an enjoyably taut little thriller. In a weird way, it's almost like the anti-"Cloverfield," as it forsakes the elements of that film, for the most part (i.e., found footage format, little known stars, elaborate special effects), and tells its story on a much smaller scale. It's true that the last act of the movie plays things a little differently, but for the vast majority of the running time, it almost seems like it could work as a stage play, what with its single location and small number of characters. The atmosphere is claustrophobic and intimate, and that helps greatly when the film goes into suspense mode. Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays a young woman named Michelle who, as the film opens, is involved in a car accident. She awakens to find herself chained to the wall in some kind of bunker with an IV bag dripping fluid into her. A burly, gruff man named Howard (John Goodman) enters, carrying a tray of food. He explains to her that there has been an "attack." Some kind of chemical or gas-based weapon has been released on the world, just prior to her accident. He discovered her lying in the road and brought her to his man-made underground bomb shelter, where he says she will be safe. Michelle is obviously very confused. Who conducted this "attack?" Why isn't she currently in the hospital? Can she reach out to members of her family? Howard doesn't have all the answers, but the most important--and chilling--thing he tells her is that everyone out there in the world is dead. Whoever carried out the attack, they were aiming for total destruction.This is an intriguing set-up, mainly because the audience shares Michelle's bewilderment. Is this mercurial doomsday-prepper her savior or her captor? Howard's personality tends to shift wildly; he can be laconic and soft-spoken, but he can also be moody and intense. Although he's clearly a smart, capable man, he also appears to be a bit unbalanced. This is probably the description many of us would use to describe a person who's constructed a fully inhabitable bomb shelter, but hey, it looks he had the right idea. Or did he? And that's the movie's biggest strength. For a large amount of run-time, we're uncertain as to what actually transpired. Was there ever an attack or is Howard just a creepy, deranged kidnapper? Or, perhaps more disturbingly, is Howard so crazy that he believes there was an attack when there actually wasn't? Now there are instances that seem to suggest that Howard is telling the truth, and yet, for reasons I won't get into here, there are also instances that suggest there's more going on here than we, and Michelle, were led to believe. The air of mystery that surrounds the film is its strongest suit, and it leads to dynamic performances from Winstead and Goodman in roles that are a bit more complex than "horror movie heroine and villain." A definitive answer is eventually given in the final act, which is a bit of a disappointment, if I'm being honest. To be entirely fair, as the film takes place in the "Cloverfield" universe, it does not cheat. But I just felt a bit underwhelmed by the conclusion, especially when compared to the tense, paranoid atmosphere established during the movie's first two-thirds. It just worked better when the story felt more intimate and human. Even so, "10 Cloverfield Lane" is a solid film, expertly crafted, and it demonstrates that it is possible to make a good sequel to a sci-fi horror film that is vastly different from its forebear. It's not a pointless retread of all the things we've already seen; at its heart, there is a sharp story here, one that effortlessly extracts tension from its minimal surroundings.