Disgrace is the story of a South African professor of English who loses everything: his reputation, his job, his peace of mind, his good looks, his dreams of artistic success, and finally even his ability to protect his cherished daughter. After having an affair with a student, he moves to the Eastern Cape, where he gets caught up in a mess of post-apartheid politics.
- Stars:John Malkovich, Jessica Haines, Eriq Ebouaney, Fiona Press, Antoinette Engel, Natalie Becker, Antonio Fisher, Isabella De Villiers, Cindy Mkaza, Liezel De Kock, Charles Tertiens, David Denis, Paula Arundell, Anne Looby, David Ritchie,
- Country:Australia, South Africa
- Director:Steve Jacobs,
- Writer:J.M. Coetzee (novel), Anna Maria Monticelli (screenplay)
After having an affair with a student, a Cape Town professor moves to the Eastern Cape, where he gets caught up in a mess of post-apartheid politics. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Disgrace torrent reviews
(ag) wrote: If you were moaning and groaning about having to watch another one (since you had already watch the previous ones being the completetist you are), this one is actually good. Say what you want if nothing else this series has non stop action and this one has the best of all the series.I admit it could have a little too so that I was expecting the worse but forget the bad reviews: Watch this one, I went from hoping this was the last one to hoping they are making more.
(ag) wrote: The first movie was a remake of the classic 1972 Charles Bronson thriller starring Jason Statham...and was reasonably acceptable to remake, I guess. Of course they then got carried away (as always happens) and thought it would be a good idea to make a sequel to said remake...of the original 1972 classic. Now everyone knows this would all end in tears and complete failure...accept the makers of this movie it seems. So once again we have yet another movie all about a super agent type bloke that is virtually invincible and that's about it. Bishop (Statham) is now living in Brazil after faking his death in the last movie. He is approached by some bad guys who work for another bad guy (Crain played by some bloke called Sam Hazeldine) who wants Bishop to kill three specific people. Bishop refuses, a fight breaks out, Bishop wins and escapes. Bishop is now living in Thailand (as you do) when he rescues a sexy blonde (Jessica Alba) from some drunk bloke. Turns out she has been blackmailed by Crain to meet up with Bishop and seduce him so Crain could then fake her kidnapping so he would carry out the hits. Well low and behold, in time, Bishop and Gina (Alba) do fall for each other and low and behold Crain's goons turn up and kidnap them both. Now Bishop must carry out the three hits to save his new girlfriend...zzzz.Seriously could this be anymore cliched and predictable? Who wrote this? How did they even get paid for this unoriginal tripe?? How did this even get a green light for fucks sake?! For starters this doesn't feel like an action flick, oh no, this feels more like a holiday destination video. The camera work is honesty stunning, Thailand, Rio, Sydney, Malaysia etc...all look beautiful, wonderful. If you're watching this on a good TV in 1080p, 2K, 4K or whatever, then these exotic locations will burst through your screen into your living room in bright, sharp, crisp, vivid colours. I lost all interest in the films plot and was more interested in the possibility of going to one of these places for my next holiday. What's more all the scenes on the beach in Thailand are enough to make you sick. The most perfect beaches you've ever seen in your live, the most perfect weather, and everyone in shot is tanned and beautiful (with the exception of Statham perhaps). What actually happens in the movie is of course ridiculous and crap, but that really shouldn't be any surprise. For Bishop's first hit he must infiltrate a prison in Malaysia, well get himself locked up. He does this by acting drunk and being a bit rude to a Malaysian cop. Apparently this is enough to get you banged up in this horrendous maximum security prison that looks like it holds the type of people that have eaten someone. All these hits have to look like accidents by the way, as you can guess this doesn't really seem to happen in my opinion. Pretty sure the first hit would look like someone strangled and suffocated the guy...because that's what he did.The second hit is what you see on the movies poster. It involves Bishop having to scale the outside of a skyscraper in order to break a glass bottom swimming pool that overhangs the building. In all honesty this is probably the best part of the movie because you see a lot of technical hitman type jiggery-pokery as Bishop works out how to make it look like an accident, and then how he manages to scale the outside of the building. But Tom Cruise this ain't, its all greenscreen and CGI. Once again the hit goes without a flaw but I'm pretty sure the guy could have gotten out of the pool in time.In between all these Bishop does try to rescue Gina from Crain's super posh yacht out at sea. He locates the yacht, gets on-board and manages to wipe out a good number of faceless henchmen. Alas he is eventually caught, given a good slap with some verbal from Crain, and then sent on his merry way to carry out hit number three. So basically, this entire rescue sequence was completely and utterly pointless filler that didn't amount to anything.The last stage on this videogame escapade sees Bishop going up against arms dealer Max Adams played by a very old Tommy Lee Jones. In order to make Jones look somewhat hip and trendy he wears bizarre clothing, some stupid coloured circular glasses and has some earrings. But because Jones is an A-list star they can't just have him killed off, so he teams up with Statham's Bishop to take on Crain. This naturally leads to the big final showdown on Crain's posh yacht where Bishop this time wipes out all of the faceless henchmen and (spoilers!) kills Crain. He does this without really breaking sweat or taking any injuries because he's got his invincibility cheat code switched on. You wanna see a one man army situation, well it doesn't get much more one man army than this crapola.I think you gotta be a hardcore Jason Statham fan for this one. Don't get me wrong I enjoy a good action flick and I've got nothing against Statham, but the man makes the same shit over and over and over again. He's becoming the new Steven Seagal but with bigger budget flicks. Every damn movie he makes he's either special forces, or an undercover super agent, or an ex-special forces/ex-military/ex-super cop or whatever, with super martial arts skills of course. I mean honesty, did the movie really need to take place in exotic locations across the globe? Or was that just the excuse to enable everyone to get a super extravagant holiday that's all paid for, plus you get a wage and you can call it 'work'.
(gb) wrote: There are four main characters in Happy, Happy because it is about two couples; however, one of them really shines through and becomes such a pleasure to watch that it really does not matter what happens with the plot or any of the other players, she is just stunning. I am talking about Agnes Kittelsen who plays Kaja. She is almost always smiling, even when there are situations when there is nothing to smile about. She exudes positive energy and cannot help it when her actions either makes someone else around her happy or rubs someone else the wrong way. Kaja is married to Eirik (Joachim Rafaelsen) and they appear to live in the middle of nowhere Norway. They not only own their own house, but also the one next door which they rent out to people who are usually looking to get away from the city. A city couple from Denmark does exactly that when they abruptly shift from urban to rural. The new couple next door is Sigve (Henrik Rafaelsen) and Elisabeth (Maibritt Saerens). Since there is not much else to do in the immediate locale, the two couples start sharing dinners together and playing games. These games lead to uncomfortable couple comparisons which is never a good thing. Comparing your relationship to someone else's is not the way to end the evening on a high note. During one game, it emerges that Kaja and Eirik have not had sex in over a year and that Elisabeth has recently cheated on Sigve which was a catalyst in their decision to escape to the countryside. The couples also notice the personality clashes and matches around the dinner table. Kaja and Sigve are naturally extroverted and outwardly positive. Elisabeth and Eirik are much more reserved and while not necessarily secretive, they do not have the impulse to share their feelings around the room. These situations and personalities obviously set up what may lead to adulterous liaisons, secrets, and acrimony. However, this is not a heavy handed drama about adultery and revenge. There are laughs, comedic scenes, and an overall light air around the decisions these couples make in response to one another. Each couple also has a son, although Sigve and Elisabeth's son is adopted and black. There are scenes between the two boys, who seem to be around seven years old, which do the film no credit and do not fit. Their sequences are only peripheral to the plot and have no bearing on any central themes, which is all the more puzzling why they are even there. Their interactions disrupt the light flow and mood of the movie and should either be completely rewritten or just taken out. Happy, Happy won the Grand Jury Prize for Dramatic World Cinema at this year's Sundance Film Festival and is also Norway's official submission for the 2012 Academy Awards. It approaches its characters with maturity and understanding, characteristics true for most Scandinavian films but frequently lacking in American ones. It is also challenging to classify Happy, Happy as just a comedy or a drama. There are not very many jokes or moments to laugh at but there are also very few emotional moments which aim for true drama either; it carves out a distinct middle ground. I recommend Happy, Happy for those of us who like Scandinavian films and appreciate movies which take their characters seriously. Thank goodness there are no slapstick moments here which would not fit and no downright weepy 'woe is me' segments. Just lose the scenes with the kids and then you would really have a heck of film on your hands.
(nl) wrote: A totally bizarre film looking at politcal strife and obsession...Following Castro's Raul as he strives to become his favourite movie character (Tony Manero from Sat Night Fever) and the crimes tthat he commits in order to do this is a striking and uncomfortable experience. Driven by jealousy and obsession and the need to stay out of the way of Pinochet's regime, this is quite unlike anything else out there...The main issue is that there is not one likeable character to root for in all of this madness. Fascinating to be sure but a challenging watch....
(us) wrote: A very depressing but very well done film ABOUT depression.
(us) wrote: Another awful classic. ("Nice Rack.")
(ag) wrote: With hearted performances and exact directing, Road to Perdition depicts in a beautiful and profound fashion the family ties between a father and a son
(fr) wrote: While there was the 4D theme park attraction Honey, I Shrunk the Audience! several years before, thankfully Disney left the Honey... franchise alone after this stale 1997 direct-to-video entry. The minuscule budget and inexperienced acting shows in the effects and amongst the young cast respectively here. While several of its stars, who would go on to better things (Allison Mack as Chloe on Smallville; Mila Kunis as Jackie on That '70s Show and as the voice of Meg on Family Guy) lend it a slight air of awkward actors' beginnings, but this was better off left as an idea. Nell Scovell, creator Sabrina the Teenage Witch has written better 20-minute episodes than anything contained within this weak offering.
(jp) wrote: While there are plenty of fun scenes and moments, I have to agree with the general consensus that this film is an unsatisfying continuation of the original. It is a little too long and drag at times. Dan and Herbert have been busy in the eight month since the previous film, and are now working on not just reanimation of dead tissue, but of creating life. It is VERY Frankenstein...in a good way. But Dr. Hill's head is shoehorned into the plot for little reason, other than he ends up with bat wings coming out of his head and can fly. For the most part he detracts from the good bits, which is a shame because in the first film he WAS one of the good bits. I can't say its too terrible, and it may be enough for the average horror fan, but it just doesn't move as swiftly as the first.
(au) wrote: That Holly Hunter though.
(au) wrote: 1972's The Godfather Is My Fourth Favorite Film.
(kr) wrote: Absolutely sublime giallo from the the delightful Aldo Late Night Trains Lado.
(ca) wrote: 50 First Dates is another hilarious Adam Sandler movie and another romantic comedy by Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore. This movie is hilarious and heartwarming. I would very much suggest this movie.
(de) wrote: David Lynch's, as of yet, last commitment to cinema was equally hailed as both his best and most convoluted worst work committed in his canon of nightmarish delights. I will happily stand up right now and say that Inland Empire is both alienating and extremely brutal to push your way right through to the end with. However this only makes the experience feel more real and rewarding by its conclusion. It's 1 minute shy of 3 hours run time, instantly makes it one that you cant just shove on, in the back ground and turn your brain off, as Inland Empire requires you to have every brain cell operating at its fullest, in order for you to get any sense of cohesion from it, but if your willing to slug it out, it is as rewarding and demanding as some of Lynch's best work to day. Bare with me here, so the film follows an unnamed woman, she is sad, alone and trapped within a nightmare, here she has no option but to glue herself to the television, however this channel isnt exactly HBO or BBC, its a television of nightmarish and ghastly proportions, churning out bizarre erotic pornography and a sitcom that's 3 lead characters are bunny rabbits... Still with me? So on the screen starts what appears to be a highly resonate and depraved movie about an actress, played by Laura Dern, who is married to a very dangerous and frightening Polish man, hugely wealthy and feared by all. She is lucky enough to receive a role in a new up and coming Hollywood film, directed by a hot shot director Kingsley and co star with a heart throb Devon, its the chance of a lifetime for her and if all goes well, it could cement her place, firmly in Hollywood, only soon Nicky, Dern, becomes confused with her character and real life and is unable to let go of a highly intoxicating and demanding character and to go any deeper into it would just lose you completely. Even with my summary I have barely scratched the surface and it can hardly be set in stone as Lynch is always been about what you take away from his imagery and bizarre story arcs. It is extremely tough, I find the best way is to just allow it all to flow through and try to digest later, forcing multiple viewings and constant conversation. It is most certainly art, but to what degree of connection to your self, is entirely up to you as an individual. One thing that can be said is this cast, apart from being a huge wealth of talent, are all in it for the long shot, no performance to weak, no character to small to own mere moments of screen, talent such as Laura Dern, Justin Theroux, Jeremy Irons, William H. Macy, Terry Crews, Harry Dean Stanton, Diane Ladd, Grace Zabrinski, Naomi Watts, Laura Harring and Scott Coffey to name merely a few, in this huge black comedy, psycho thrilling, satire, stuff with horror, intrigue and romance. Its fucking deep. And Dern shatters the screen with her multi layered, bipolar and hypnotizing role as Nicky. Her arc is so wonderfully crafted and woven together, that by the very last frame, we are still unsure of just how deep she went down the rabbit hole. Justin Theroux is perfect as Devon, his whit, looks and charisma just ooze every time hes on screen. Jeremy Irons is outstanding as Kingsley and Harry Dean Stanton is a work of genius as his right hand man. Even William H. Macy makes his 30 second intervention wonderfully hilarious, magnetic and highly resonate, 30 seconds, seriously name a character in any film, who has 30 seconds to completely blow you off your feet. It happens here. All this would be lost, if it were not for Lynch's new and unorthodox approach to film making. He has pushed himself away from being as cinematic as possible, with huge multi layered story lines, shot lists comprised of 75 percent close ups and a script that takes just about every ounce of energy in which to decipher, and even then you wont get close, he tries something new, its not user friendly and it most certainly will not gain him any new fans, more appease his already existing followers. Trust me, you want a friend to get into Lynch, this is NOT the one to start on. Ease them in with Blue Velvet or Elephant Man, as this thing is as far detached but equally as stunning as both of those films. The new digital aspect of his film, also works in making the film feel incredibly lifelike, you feel like you are in the film, taking part, which is probably why its so difficult to get through, as what our characters have to go through is tormenting and a battle of strength. We feel exhausted 1 hour in and there is still 2 hours to go. Lynch continually throws curve balls, using all of his previous card tricks, in a well paced out manner, in order to keep the ship floating and for me, it works. He throws in some new moments, like the locomotion, yes that one and Sinner man, which could act solely as music videos, but their inclusion is hysterical and hypnotic all at the same time. Even in the sound department, the first time away from Angelo Badalamenti, long time collaberator, the score is excellently crafted and the use of songs from Beck and other great artists and warmly welcomed and dont feel shoe horned in. All this being said, the 3rd act does begin to wilt, and it leaves you asking yourself a huge question, what am I doing, why have I spent my time with this? For a huge portion of people, making it to the 3rd act, is just not going to happen, sleep or surrender will kick in long before then, Inland Empire does not want you to like it, it wants you to endure it, live it, breathe it and it is without a doubt one of the most accurately depicted collapse in mental health ever committed to cinema, but people are not going to be comfortable with that, some will even hum and haw at its potentional sway into the art wank category. However for those of you, willing to sit through marathon-esque nightmares, enveloping your life within the film, you will come out the other side, scorned maybe but thinking. People sometimes forget that film is a visual medium, and although this is a jumbled pot of ideas, wonderfully woven into one, it consistantly hits every note a film should, always coming back around and never getting too lost within itself. Not for everyone, not just for anyone. Inland Empire will push you as far as you can go, the question is, how far are you willing to go?
(ag) wrote: As I flip through channels I inevitably come across the last hour of this movie. The scene at the cemetery is as good as it gets for an inspiriational scene. Those reviewers who blow this movie off do not get it. This is a great story about the resiliency of the human spirit. I
(br) wrote: Simple and easy to follow. classic old skool effects that just work