BRAKHAGE explores the depth and breadth of the filmmaker’s genius, the exquisite splendor of his films, his magic personal charm, his aesthetic fellow travelers, and the influence his work has had on generations of other creators. While touching on significant moments in Brakhage’s biography, the film celebrates Brakhage’s visionary genius, and explores the extraordinary artistic possibilities of cinema, a medium mostly known only for its commercial applications in the form of narratives, cartoons, documentaries, and advertising. BRAKHAGE combines excerpts from Brakhage’s films and films of other avant-garde filmmakers (eg, George Kuchar, Jonas Mekas, Willie Varela, Bruce Elder, and others); interviews with Brakhage, his friends, family, colleagues, and critics; archival footage of Brakhage spanning the past thirty-five years; and location shooting in Boulder, Colorado and New York.
BRAKHAGE explores the depth and breadth of the filmmaker’s genius, the exquisite splendor of his films, his magic personal charm, his aesthetic fellow travelers, and the influence his work has had on generations of other creators. While touching on significant moments in Brakhage’s biography, the film celebrates Brakhage’s visionary genius, and explores the extraordinary artistic possibilities of cinema, a medium mostly known only for its commercial applications in the form of narratives, cartoons, documentaries, and advertising. BRAKHAGE combines excerpts from Brakhage’s films and films of other avant-garde filmmakers (eg, George Kuchar, Jonas Mekas, Willie Varela, Bruce Elder, and others); interviews with Brakhage, his friends, family, colleagues, and critics; archival footage of Brakhage spanning the past thirty-five years; and location shooting in Boulder, Colorado and New York. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Brakhage torrent reviews
(ag) wrote: It's a fascinating true-life story that would seem more than capable of making the direct translation to film, but unfortunately Arnauld Desplechin doesn't quite grab the bull by the horns. While the film certainly works as an authentic period piece, and Mathieu Amalric and Benicio Del Toro capably handle their respective roles as doctor and patient, it's just the film's narrative is meandering and messy, and ultimately doesn't add up too much. Those dying to see a half-way decent art house release amidst the current movie dry season could do a lot worse than this, but I figure most other people would be better off just saving their money.
(us) wrote: The promise it begins with doesn't pay off. And while "Arthur Newman" is not a complete disaster, it does leave you wishing the romance and the ride had been a whole lot smoother. I say RENT IT!!!
(ag) wrote: Action Movie of 2011
(it) wrote: A great segway between the series'
(us) wrote: "Forgettable" that's what comes to mind after 104 minutes of this
(it) wrote: I have always been a big animation fan, but have really not gotten into the latest superhero cartoons that have become so popular. I have stuck mostly to classic Warner Bros and MGM cartoon shorts. However, given the strength of "Justice League: The New Frontier", I'll have to seriously consider watching more of them. The story line is adult and there is a surprising amount of violence. The plot is pretty thin but most of the movie's run time concentrates on Green Lantern and Martian Manhunter. Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman play secondary roles, with Flash getting more screen time. The Justice League presented here is not like the one portrayed in the corny, kidsy "SuperFriends" cartoons of the 70's. It is at times a very serious film. The animation on this DVD is a mixed bag. I was very impressed by the opening title sequence and the dogfight that appears at the start of the movie. The most disappointing thing about the animation was the lack of character detail in many of the shots. The final battle with the villain named "The Centre" was pretty exciting and the conclusion was satisfying.
(it) wrote: Finally watched this film. Good story (I know it was based on a true story), good acting, and GREAT scenery! Makes me want to travel to Thailand!! A good mix of backstory with boxing scenes. Interesting style of editing at times. At first I didn't like it, but after watching the film more and more, I got used to it and felt it worked well with the story. It kind of lightened things up a bit.
(ag) wrote: The movie had the exact same plot as the first one, but with hotter chicks and some mild female nudity, but it still sucked!!
(es) wrote: The true crime movie has become fashionable in recent years, with "In Cold Blood" a particularly hyped example. This first movie from Tom Kalin, often seen as a leading proponent of the 1990s "new Queer Cinema" is perhaps the best of the genre I have seen and something of a relief - I had seen his most recent film, "Savage Grace" and found it to be shallow and pretentious. I don't tend to be a fan of films shot in black and white for the artistic sake of it, but again, had my preferences subverted. The explicit nature of the two protagonists' relationship works well in that we usually expect monochrome settings to be accompanied by monochrome storylines. Egged on by the psychopathic Dick, the relatively benign Nathan is ultimately unable to control his love and goes along with a crime which he had had no intention of committing and had precious little involvement in. The filming is full of clever touches and the shockingly homophobic atmosphere of public opinion is vividly depicted - although we have little sympathy for the murderers.
(nl) wrote: Ugh.. Well. I.. can't. This was just so bad. Jennifer Aniston had a rocky career start off between this and The Leprechaun. However, The Leprechaun was so bad it was funny, which made it kind of good. It turned out to be a sort of cult classic and has a significant fan base. Camp Cucamonga.. not so much. Most people don't even know what it is.. and they are lucky. The plot, or lack there of, is old, boring and just plain dumb. The events of the story don't even form together to make a plot. Although it was nice to see some familiar faces, the acting left something to be desired for sure. And the song.. anyone who's seen this knows what I mean. So irritating and to make matters worse, catchy. The movie ended with feelings of relief and "what the hell just happened". It's probably best to just stay away from this film.
(de) wrote: Really disapointing Lucio Fulci movie. The two death scenes (the one with the cat and the one where a men is ripped apart by 2 trees) are really badly made. They look so fake like if they were done by some amateur with no budget.
(de) wrote: Basically the same as the first movie, but with less comedy.
(es) wrote: certain lines of dialogue are real attention-grabbers and really draw you in to the overall "heartwarming" message of the film. getting there, though, was mediocre struggle after mediocre struggle. everyone aside from George Burns was a talentless nobody, there were plot holes galore, and even the humour was more subdued from the previous two. like I said, the overall message of the film works, but the film itself is iffy at best.
(us) wrote: GREAT MOVIE, A MUST SEE
(de) wrote: Rich absurdities abound.
(mx) wrote: Summertime is a superb romance film with a simple, but very effective plot mostly due to the phenomenal acting and excellent direction from David Lean. This is one of those films that isn't bombastic, but instead requires the viewer to pay attention to the little details, the subtle aspects, and the interactions between the characters. If you take the time to do so, you'll find yourself immersed within it, as if you're right there taking a vacation in Venice as well. It's a beautiful and compelling romance film that might seem simple on the surface, but has a lot more to it when you look at what seems like the little things. I think it's one of the greatest romance films ever made. I highly recommend it if you love a good romance film.
(fr) wrote: After enjoying a long and creative stint with Hal Roach, Laurel and Hardy's first feature with Fox is perhaps the best of their pictures with their new, restrictive studio. There's no denying the lovable chemistry between the boys (and, by extension, between them and their faithful audience), so there's plenty of fun to be had with a string of effective gags, including Laurel's dim-witting dialogue and Hardy showcasing some outstanding physical comedy with a concealed crow. The supporting players and subplot love story involving Dick Nelson and the lovely Sheila Ryan actually works well here, but there's no denying who this show belongs to.
(br) wrote: There is about 5 minutes in the beginning of the movie where there is no dialogue - just Mark and Channing wrestling - it initially seems weird, but it sets the stage for what comes later. It shows just how much Mark [Channing Tatum] relies on his brother Dave [Mark Ruffalo] and depends on his direction and coaching. When things unravel at the end, you remember these first scenes and things become clearer for you. The acting here is amazing. Watching Channing and Mark work together is like watching a fine-tuned ballet. They trained for 6 months before shooting the movie and then would train every night after filming and it shows in many of the scenes. That said, this is a very sad movie; there is no happy ending here. I am looking forward to reading the book, which delves further into what truly happened at the Foxcatcher Estate and also is more detailed about John du Pont's [played amazingly by Steve Carrell. He is SERIOUSLY creepy in this movie. He was perfect casting] descent into madness.
(es) wrote: An incredible film. It took a while for me to really start tracking with it, but this film really goes in a lot of interesting directions and brings up some very interesting questions and problems. I loved it. Too bad the DVD has forced French subtitles.
(jp) wrote: this was made right after rocky. its set in new york. its also tom waits first movie. its just a silly movie and its not very good.