Blood and Roses
Young Carmilla is jealous of her friend's engagement, and her obsession leads her to the tomb of a female vampire. The vampire possesses her and leads her to kill and terrorise the inhabitants of the estate. But is it all in her mind, or is she really under the control of an ancient vampire ancestor?
- Stars:Mel Ferrer, Elsa Martinelli, Annette Stroyberg, Alberto Bonucci, René-Jean Chauffard, Gabriella Farinon, Serge Marquand, Edith Peters, Nathalie Lafaurie, Carmilla Stroyberg, Marc Allégret,
- Country:France, Italy
- Director:Roger Vadim,
- Writer:Claude Brulé (original story), Sheridan Le Fanu (novel), Claude Martin (original story), Roger Vadim (screenplay), Roger Vailland (screenplay)
Young Carmilla is jealous of her friend's engagement, and her obsession leads her to the tomb of a female vampire. The vampire possesses her and leads her to kill and terrorise the ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Blood and Roses torrent reviews
(nl) wrote: el titulo le viene muy bien al director y el resto de actores que, salvo la chica protagonista, son bastante amateurs. Pelicula muy floja con un argumento de gran potencial...quina llastima!
(us) wrote: Kind of cute romantic Christmas drama. Cute acting and characters, but not particularly noteworthy. (Gives the nice romantic Christmas feeling, though)
(gb) wrote: It's kind of like a real life version of Born on the Fourth Of July. An Iraqi war veteran comes back after he's paralyzed and becomes an anti-war activist. Meanwhile we get many clips from 2002 from Bush and others trying to convince the American public to invade Iraq. It's one side of the story I suppose and there's no holds barred in the life of this disabled man. Everything is there for us to see including a scene where Mom puts in his catheter. There's little mention of the Iraqi civilians but I don't think that's a political motivation. I think this is supposed to show one particular side of the consequences of the war in Iraq.
(au) wrote: The animation was so much like a computer game that sometimes it felt like I was playing one. There was a lot of action in the film, but it felt slowed down. Not slow-motion, but not full speed. I'm not sure how, maybe they didn't use speed-lines in the same way hand-drawn Anime does. Or maybe the music/sound effects were more realistic.I enjoyed the storyline, of a desolate Japan caused by a crazy scientist experimenting with android technology while the country was isolated from the rest of the world. But the characters were never fleshed out enough for me to worry about any of them.Overall, the original elements of the movie, from people becoming androids to the metal-worm-monster-things referred to as Jags really made this worth watching.
(de) wrote: I knew kids who would want to watch this over and over again, so kid's probably really enjoy this. But the movie isn't like the original at all. The plot just has to do with three random stories about different characters. There's no actual plot, and it's very predictable in my opinion. The soundtrack isn't great, either. The only redeeming quality for me was this: at least the prince got a little more dialogue in this than the first movie. That always bugged me about the first movie. You didn't get enough of the prince. I wouldn't waste my money on this. It's just not worth it.
(br) wrote: I thought this movie was better than Snatch. The cast was good in this movie. I thought the plot was great in this movie and that is why this movie was better than Snatch in my opinion. The plot focused on three groups trying to get the money and the two guns. This movie was funny and entertaining especially the ending.
(gb) wrote: A pretty standard and predictable feelgood-film. But it was entertaining !
(it) wrote: AVOID THIS LIKE THE PLAGUE. I only watched this because I wanted to see the origins of Candyman and I heard the reviews were 'mixed' (aka not horrible). However, the myth of his character only works as an urban legend and seeing it on screen is a let down (and not just because of the acting). The film illustrates practically every single cliche in the horror genre and doesn't even attempt to follow the quality set by the first Candyman.
(au) wrote: Great movie, very touching.Good acting, good story and a great cast. Very different from all other films that are all dancing and singing.
(es) wrote: Y'know what? This is actually pretty fuckin' good. I mean: make no mistake, it is what it is, okay? Just look at the poster. But for what it is, this thing pretty much does everything right. It's got switchblades and fights and boobs and rollerskates. Comedy and drama. Love and loss. A chick with an eye patch. I mean, seriously.
(au) wrote: A masterpiece on the modern male. And directed with all the tricks that would make a younger director popular in our times, but Kazan had already done them in 1969
(kr) wrote: Believe it or not, this is actually the first Laurel & Hardy movie I've seen. Apparently this was one of their later works, had a troubled production, and even they weren't that fond of it. The movie follows Laurel and Hardy as they join the French Foreign Legion, discover it's no fun, and try to leave. There are definitely some inspired gags here, particularly the final one, but overall the movie feels a bit tired, even though it's only 60 minutes long. While I'm sure their earlier films are better, this one has not aged nearly as well as the comparable works of the Marx Brothers or even Abbott and Costello. It's kind of amusing, but there are plenty of better zany 1930s comedies.
(es) wrote: Garbo is captivating, and I really really like the end of the movie, but despite that it's really only an "okay" movie. The costumes are also very good . . . but it's basically just silly.
(us) wrote: Remembered at the Oscars for Best Picture going to a British film, Chariots of Fire is one of those movies that will be remembered for a long time to come. Based on a real event, Chariots of Fire can't get anymore British if you tried. The story is simple with well cast characters connecting with one another. Locations have been chosen which both add to the film, as well as become memorable.There were two things that popped out to me as successful. One is the choice of showing the races in slow motion. It gives you time to really capture the emotions and looks on the competitors faces. To add to this, you also gain the electronic music from Vangelis. The music is not too overpowering and the classic theme is not overused. However, I wasn't 100% impressed with the movie personally. I felt that more emotion was needed in the characters for the audience to go by. The ending just seemed to arrive without any real build up. I feel that to really give the characters what they were "fighting" for all this time, they should have showed more emotion between one another with the big payoff at the end. Still, I can't fault for Chariots of Fire as a classic British film that many people will love.