Diario de una becaria

Diario de una becaria


  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:108 minutes
  • Release:2003
  • Language:Spanish
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:based on novel,  

. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Diario de una becaria torrent reviews

Melissa L (it) wrote: I must say one of the most intriguing Russian movies I've seen. The premise is great, and the interaction between people -- especially using violence as the medium -- is different than anything else portrayed in other films. An existential trip that brings along Hamlet, the police, murderers, and let us not forget, chopsticks.

Jeff N (au) wrote: While I appreciate Artie Lange more than most, and I thoroughly enjoyed seeing Ralph Macchio in a movie again, this movie was nothing more than a vulgar, low-budget collection of one-liners straight from the Howard Stern show. While that normally wouldn't bother me, Artie is better than this. No, really. He is.

Alexander C (us) wrote: Fuck yes Rachael x x The whole film seems very enticing and passionate while a story that may transcend something more than just pure sex, the so heavenly love that i am so glad i have. My wife Rachael i thank you. Would like to see for the reasons stated: A: Rachael and me making babies :D B: Love and Romance C: Plot From what i read there's plenty of nakedness and love scenes. I mean come on look at the poster right here on Flix. I usually watch love scenes because their from others respective persepctives. Could be similar to : Y Tu Mama Tambien

Kyle M (br) wrote: film footage in the opening sequence taken from The Galaxy Invader (1985). This movie is only "slightly" better than Pod People (aka Trumpy's adventure aka The Extra Terrestrials aka The Unearthling aka Mayor McCheese fucks an elephant.) For maximum enjoyment, the film MUST be viewed in it's Film Ventures English Dub form. (God damn is it ever bad.) One should probably note the lyrics to "Burning Rubber Tires" which include such classic chestnuts as "All I wanna feel is the wind in my eyes" and "Steady as she goes were flying over [trout]."

Jack G (ca) wrote: Now here's something you don't see everyday: a movie that opens as if like a documentary, then going right into a cast of characters doing a full rehearsal of a Chekhov play, Uncle Vanya, with only a few little breaks here and there to fully remind the audience "hey, this is still a bunch of 'real' people not even putting on but preparing to put on a play." Vanya on 42nd Street is something of a revelation in translating theater to film, or rather theater AS cinema, or vise-versa. As an audience watching an adaptation of a play we're often used to seeing a play taken from its roots on the stage to film, its realistic recreation presented live to an audience as an event where the spontaneity of life occurs from moment to moment without a break, fleshed out by way of the devices of the cinematic language (lighting, different focal points and shots, editing, music cues). In the case of Vanya on 42nd Street we're watching a play take shape- at first slightly awkwardly, since I had never read or seen the play performed I wasn't even quite sure when the characters were starting to talk in the Chekhov language out of their own actors-playing characters voices- and we should be drawn in like a usual theater crowd. And we are, or at least I was, thanks to the very powerful and moving performances and the inherent wonders to be found in Chekhov's text. But Louis Malle plays around a little bit, or rather more than just a little bit. Because of the placement of the camera in certain scenes, and as it is a play rehearsed in a decrepid theater on 42nd street, we see an actor here and there in the background watching as a scene which is supposed to be taking place with just two of the characters in play, and something like this small touch creates something else to the process. The process of doing this play, even as a rehearsal, is kind of in the background of how the movie works as a *movie*, not as theater. If this sounds a little complicated a dissection, it should be noted that Malle, a man who made many films and had this as his final film before he was taken away so suddenly, knows the essential thing is important: put on a great production of a play. And it works, fully: we're sucked into this story of a family in Russia torn apart by their love, or disconnect from it, mistrust, loneliness, bitterness, despair, and moments that ponder the very reason why we even go on living when things look to be the worst (the final speech given by Vanya's daughter played by Brooke Smith, should be considered a mini-masterpiece of the written word with it starting with "All we can do is live."). It's about wasted lives, or chances that have gone by for some, like Wallace Shawn's title character, for over half of a lifetime. So Chekhov fans, of whom there are quite a few in the theater world, won't be disappointed in the least by the presentation. It's a best-of-both-worlds piece of art; we get the wonderful essentials of what it all comes down to in the world of theater as actors (such as Julianne Moore and Shawn and Smith who are all fantastic, sometimes nearing genius), totally in tune and prepared with this heavy work of intelligently gut-ripping familial drama, are revealed though Malle's careful and sometimes very subtle documentary approach. It's a double edged sword: we're watching a play, yes, but there's something else about watching theater as process, as something that evolves along, that is captured as well, which is something rare (maybe one other film, Bergman's minor but great work, After the Rehearsal, has this quality). But at the same time, Louis Malle is directing a film that is fictional, and we are forced to still see things a certain way, to see real film lights hitting on what is supposed to be a "realistic" setting, and editing directing our eyes where to go in a big confrontation and with actors and their eyelines and the 180 degree rule and so on. There's even a very tricky moment I wasn't sure at first that I liked: in the second half there's a moment where Moore's character is thinking something to herself, about getting angry, about saying something she feels to Vanya or someone (i.e. the "mermaid" bit). Up until now we've seen these actors relatively in naturalistic conditions in terms of their own audience- the actors' dress rehearsal is being seen by a few guests- but this suddenly takes into consideration narration, and we're reminded it is all really a film. I'm still not sure if this completely fits, but it's such a bold moment that I respect it all the same. Vanya on 42nd Street is an immensely stimulating experience both as pure drama and as an intellectual rendering of what theater and film represents as art forms. And as a final feature from a director like Malle is a very fine achievement. 9.5/10

paul s (it) wrote: I'm still trying to figure out what the heck the title has to do with anything that went on with this film; but that being said, the co-mingled stories are intriguing, well filmed and very well acted. Gwyneth Paltrow and Aaron Eckhart are featured as two professorial types (uh huh) who, upon the 100th anniversary of a famous poets' demise, stumble upon a secret liaison between the married poet and another famous poet, believed to be a lesbian. The pacing works well, building solidly until about the 3/4 mark when things get a bit tangled and too much time is spent on Paltrow and Eckhart's budding relationship (in truth, the 150 year old tale is more interesting). Director Neil LaBute does a masterful job of intertwining the two tales, often using the same scene or location to flip back into the past, or zoom into the present. A fine example is having a car on a rural road pass underneath an old stone bridge, and when the car moves out of the scene a steam engine enters the picture to cross the same bridge. The 150-year-old love story really comes as no surprise, but it is well played, especially by Jennifer Ehle as Cristobel, the female poet. As you would expect from two poets who correspond primarily via letters, the dialog between the two is wonderful, full of poetic terms of endearment and that lovely Victorian sense of language. The modern day language used by Paltrow and Eckhart is clumsy by comparison and jarring in its lack of elegance, as I believe was intended. The device of telling the poet's story through the discovery of letters works well here, and again LaBute is able to juggle shots of the story along with capturing the excitement of Paltrow and Eckhart as they read the letters to each other. The film uses a haunting music score as background to the 150-year-old story to good effect, and the cinematography is tactfully artful, not showy. The only real pratfall is the resolution of Paltrow and Eckhart's story line, and the plot vehicle involving the late night unearthing of the final piece of the puzzle, where fisticuffs are used, but unnecessary, out of place, and almost laughable. Said final piece allows for a touching flashback ending that includes a final letter being abandoned to the wind; a nice touch that lets you wonder what may have happened if said letter had been delivered. A romantic film that has a compelling mystery within it, I found it mostly charming and was interested in the poet's tale, even though you could see the melodramatic aftermath coming from miles away.

Michael O (ca) wrote: This was filmed where I grew up I climbed that mountain where the young boy flew of of.

Peter W (nl) wrote: Supposedly the 1st Horror film made in Russia it's good worth checking out. It also has a lot of comedy before things get scary.

Sylvester E (ca) wrote: I really enjoyed this RUTHLESS film...HAHAHA!!!!

Tehe T (kr) wrote: It's a innocent movie but the cheesiness and sappiness is extremely boring, and laughable at parts. Though I wouldn't say the movie is bad, but it's not very good.

Russell H (es) wrote: a lot of slow points but the action was pretty good when it was there