Biopic of the famed British Prime Minister focusing on his concern about Russia's growing interest in the Indian subcontinent and his attempts to buy the Suez Canal. He sees the Canal as the key strategic resource in maintaining the Empire in the East but is unpopular in many quarters. With antisemitism rife at the time, Disraeli finds little support for his plan to purchase the canal or his foreign policy in general. There is no doubt that the Russians are plotting against British interests and he is surrounded by spies, even in his office at 10 Downing St. When the Bank of England refuses to finance the purchase of the available shares he turns to private sources to raise the available cash only to find the conspirators one step ahead of him.
Prime Minister of Great Britain Benjamin Disraeli outwits the subterfuge of the Russians and chicanery at home in order to secure the purchase of the Suez Canal. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Disraeli torrent reviews
(gb) wrote: Discussions inintressantes, dj vues des milliers de fois avant, rotisme mdiocre, un film sans personnalit
(jp) wrote: Bad film worth 2 stars only.
(nl) wrote: i really enjoyed this, loved the dreamy, soehow beautiful, fucked-up sequences. and there are lot of those here. modine is really good, hopper is cool..the script is not that strong but it didn't matter that much because it is more about the whole atmosphere. i liked the visual look. it is quite 90's. BY THE WAY: People in flixster...in noticed some of you have copy-pasted thoughts from some professional critics. without mentioning it of course. that's lame.
(ag) wrote: Na "pilha" para ver...
(mx) wrote: I like " Emmanuelle Beart"'s movies (^^)V
(it) wrote: Funny. Clyde steals the show.
(ag) wrote: Looks like has one of my ideal cast line ups, but so many poor reviews, i'll have to check it out for myself
(ag) wrote: Long and boring with uninteresting characters, the one thing that really bugs me about this film was the selfish nature of Gertrud. She only wanted the men all to herself, but wasn't willing to give herself fully to them.
(au) wrote: Marvelous melodrama made genius by Ophuls's complex camera movements and mise-en-scene.
(gb) wrote: Dark film about a group of bank robbers who flee to Mexico to divide their million dollar score only to be pursued by the man they seemingly set up to take the blame by using a flower delivery truck identical to his as their getaway car. The budget for this film was obviously low but it has some of the same inspired grittiness as other film noirs like 'Detour'.
(nl) wrote: itching to have bigger stars (seriously, where are Orson Welles and Gregory Peck when you need em?), but in its own B-movie dimensions it works well, even with an ending that is hilariously stupid.
(fr) wrote: A decent film but not as good as I expected. I just did not find Laurel and Hardy as funny as other pairs. such Abbott and Costello and Martin and Lewis. There were a few funny moments but the duo were too dependent on slapstick humor and that's just not my type of humor I guess.
(de) wrote: More like Leon than the bodyguard but this movie is not as captivating as Leon, but more grounded than the bodyguard, it is nonetheless an above average thriller.
(mx) wrote: Technology is topic that's both so easy to point at and relevant to discuss. However, a movie coming out in 2016 needs to have more ideas than what could have been executed thirty years ago. Coming off of the heels of movies such as Her and Ex Machina, sci-fi movies about how technology impacts people's relationships needs to really have a novel central idea. Creative Control has very good cinematography, but its technical aspects are really the only place that the movie exceeds any set standards. This is a movie with concepts and commentary that would have been a lot more interesting in the '80s or '90s, but nowadays its themes just feel like easy targets. The movie follows an ad executive (director/co-writer Benjamin Dickinson) who uses his company's hardware--a sort of virtual reality pair of glasses of sorts--to have what could pass for an affair with his best friend's girlfriend. That's pretty much the entire movie at its core, and it could have been a short film. There are some striking moments that make good use of lighting and the entire movie has great black-and-white cinematography that doesn't feel gimmicky, but again, the successes of Creative Control are basically just that of its aesthetics. The movie's integration of visual effects is pretty seamless and looks good for what must of been a very small budget, but what really takes center stage is how oddly uninteresting this movie is. The movie is part drama and part satire, neither of which quite work. The characters are pretty thinly drawn only to be partially redeemed by some pretty good supporting performances, and the satire, again, is nothing new. The movie takes shots at advertising and yoga hipsters, but it either doesn't fit with the surrounding drama or just feels half-baked. As a result of the uninteresting and rather unsympathetic characters, the movie is boring. It's only 97 minutes, but it begins to feel long after just 40 minutes, only occasionally saved by some strong visuals. But without an engaging story or characters that are even entertaining to watch, nothing matters as much as it should. There's also an underlying sense of smugness brought on by the lead actor/director/co-writer, who falls victim to a lot of movies starring and directed by the same person: it feels like it's made to show how cool he is. By the time that it ends, which is both very sudden and too late, Creative Control doesn't do much of anything. It looks good, but--pardon the cliche--looks aren't everything, and if the movie could actually say something new, there might be an actual impact. It has some brief moments, but it's forgettable. Shoutout to the cinematography and visual effects crew, but as for Dickinson, he needs to get over himself. Using classical music doesn't automatically make something smart, and restating what's been said before with different people doesn't mean that something new is actually being said. 4.4/10, lame, two thumbs down, below average, etc.