Madeleine steals a string of pearls in Paris and uses US engineer Tom, who is driving on his vacation to Spain, to get the pearls out of France. But getting the pearls back from him proves to be difficult without falling in love.
You may also like
Desire torrent reviews
Bill R (de) wrote: a cool documentry that horror fans will love. I've been a fan of Nicotero since I can remember, and way before he became the head special effects guy on TWD. shows you how they make things, the teaching and background of how they all became horror effects masters.
Domenique D (au) wrote: Meh...LOVE Kirsten and Oscar...but meh on the movie. Kudos on accuracy for having things LOOK like it should have in the 60's with clothes, hair, cars.
David F (fr) wrote: It's a Blow Up wannabe that doesn't know when to pick up the pace, or how to effectively use the tool of ominousness. I rarely felt a connection to any of the characters, or story. It's too vague and borrowed to be really interesting. Rashida Jones, while likeable as usual, doesn't have much to do besides appearing upset. Massina's character is too lost and unlikeable to feel sympathy for. Oh, and the side story of the mystery woman goes nowhere the entire time, and when the shock does come, you aren't surprised. I hoped this would be better.
Jolinda D (ca) wrote: I want to watch this movie. Does anyone know when it is coming out?
Deena K (au) wrote: S.O.P. Standard Operating ProcedureThis film is a mix of a documentary, a re-enactment and a photo essay. The combination of these elements makes it impossible not to become engaged in the story of what seems almost impossible to believe. 1. Choose a prison site that's being mortared every day2. Under supply it3. Under staff it4. Situate it in the Sunni Triangle5. Contaminate the food and water6. Outnumber the MPs to inmate ratio 100:17. Using under trained reservistsTheir orders were to gather intelligence to advance the capture of Saddam Hussien. The pressure from above,their lack of training, isolation and what appears to be a total lack of understanding that most of these people were innocent. This presents an alarming look at what has essentially been a cover up. This is not a film about torture so much as preparation for torture, it's difficult to see the difference between what is Standard Operating Procedure and a criminal act.Brigadier Janis Karpinski assumed command of the 800th MP Brigade in June 2003. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld visits Abu Ghraib soon after and leaves within minutes of inspecting one cell stating he'd seen enough. Throughout the film most of the participants are interviewed. Only two people seem to be coherent Sergeant Jarvel Davis an MP and an independent interrogator Tim Dugan. What stands out is the basic lack of intellect among the staff at the prison. How could such an important task be left in the hands of the totally incompetent? No military intelligence was gained at Abu Ghraib. Jarvel pointed out that the photos were just moments in time and they didn't begin to show the horror of what really happened. The photos were cropped and some were posed. There were three cameras constantly recording daily events, two of those under the control of Charles Graner (who was not allowed to be interviewed).MP Lynndie England the most photographed person in the photos and clearly blindly did what she was told. Her interview after serving her three year prison sentence was mind numbing. She has no regrets, she'd do it all again because....she had a baby with the man that ordered her to abuse the inmates. Someone needs to tell her that it wasn't the torture that makes babies! MP Sabrina Harman on seeing what was happening at the prison decided to take photographs as evidence, thinking no one would believe her. She didn't see she had a way out of the situation. This cost her as well as MP Megan Ambuhl for not reporting the abuse. Sabrina's letters to her wife are honest and open and form the narrative. There are so many elements of this film that made me feel ill. 1. The injustice of the arrests (including children)2. The treatment of the inmates3. The lack of diligent follow up by the military/red cross/UN4. The total ignoring of the Geneva Convention5. The lack of responsibility by senior military6. The lack of explanation by the US government7. The lack of basic respect for other humansI can't say that this film was enjoyable on any level but I do believe it's an important film. If the only outcome of this film is more inquiry then it was worth it. T here are 1000s of photographs that will never be public and 1000s of explanations we will never hear. We know our news is edited, we know we are never told the whole story, this is not the whole story. No one above the rank of Sergeant was arrested, however Brigadier Janis Karpinski was relieved of her commission. I find it impossible to believe the MPs at Abu Ghraib had the capacity to plan what happened there. See what you think.
Wiebke K (ca) wrote: Not the book, but still a worth while docu-fiction. Sitting Bull is not the focus of the story; rather a senator and his Sioux protege who becomes witness to the Dakota massacre. Most impressive are the air born scenes (beautiful) and the manipulative wording of the senator and other politicians (depressing).
emily h (gb) wrote: Started but couldn't get into it
Giovanni M (ca) wrote: Caden, you're wrong. This movie sucks.
Robert M (us) wrote: Part "The Blob", and Part "The Thing" and nowhere as good as either of those. And what the hell is up with Live Schreiber's character?
Rodney E (mx) wrote: The Mark Hamill story was the best one
Marc B (gb) wrote: very slow but great heist movie by Melville with both great Delon and Volont. Maybe a bit too long, but overall very good.
Timothy M (au) wrote: Lacks any real energy or vitality, which is a shame, because Ricardo Montalban makes for a natural and engaging lead. The focus on forensic science is interesting - not quite sure why the film had to be a love letter to Harvard, though. Elsa Lanchester is the film's other highlight, in a typically eccentric turn.
Christopher B (mx) wrote: Great intro to Robert R. Enjoyed this very much
Steven W (ca) wrote: My kinda film. Loved it from being to end
Don S (us) wrote: Samuel L. Jackson played his character well. Why someone who survived what happened to him would return to teaching is beyond me. The "love of teaching" answer just doesn't cut it. As you watch the movie, you become aware of just how this effected him and why he is still doing it. Chilling. That being said, this movie is similar to many others on the same topic. Vigilante justice by teachers fed up with the crap they have to put up with to reach the few students who want to learn... nothing new here. You don't sympathize with the characters, even the ones you are "supposed" to in the story because the movie doesn't give you enough to make you care. It is padded with scenes to show you the plight of the violent students and what makes them that way. Again, this is supposed to invoke sympathy for their situation. I didn't feel it. Violence is a choice someone makes, not a means to right the wrongs of society. Average movie with some good performances (Jackson and Arroyove - the young lady who plays Rita - come immediately to mind). You wrote this on 5/28/09.
Wade H (au) wrote: Another great performance from Gibson in another WWII epic. The effects and action scenes are intense as the writing and dialogue are authentic.
Paul J (br) wrote: This is one of the more sophisticated video nasties - it makes all the rest seem very trashy. The acting is decent (especially the Priest), the story solid and the horror quite terrifying. In fact, the film is extremely creepy. There are one or two images that would most definitely have traumatized me as a child. Siblings be warned: you may not look at your sister quite the same way again. There's also one helluva nasty dog. Why was it banned? Perhaps it was the power drill jammed into the dog's skull. Or else the little girl smashing a rock repeatedly into her sister's face. Enough said.