In 1964, a Catholic school nun questions a priest's ambiguous relationship with a troubled young student, suspecting him of abuse. He denies the charges, and much of the film's quick-fire dialogue tackles themes of religion, morality, and authority.
A Catholic school principal questions a priest's ambiguous relationship with a troubled young student. Is she being overly protective or not protective enough? And can she work within the system to discover the truth? . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Doubt torrent reviews
(us) wrote: Jaffa strikes me as an updated version of Romeo and Juliet, sans the total fail at the end of that one. A Jewish girl falls in love with a Palestinian boy that she has known since childhood. The central conflict in the story is between members of a Jewish family and the Palestinians who work for them in their family owned garage. These conflicts are heightened and resolved through the relationship the young woman has with her love interest. While borrowing elements of a classic story, the movie is anything but predictable, and in the end, after the conflict inches further towards resolution, then further still, there is a gradual sense of movement past the inter-group struggle in play at the outset, but without a ride into the sunset. Love triumphs in the end, but each person who chooses love faces consequences for that decision.
(au) wrote: It's no secret that the Pang's aren't big on script talent, but good lord, this was embarrassing. I couldn't get all the way through it. A rape/murder takes place in a forest that is infamous as a mecca for suicide. A botanist is researching the ability of plants to communicate with people. His girlfriend is a tabloid reporter sensationalizing the ghostly aspects of the forest. A detective, investigating the rape/murder case, believes that plants can act as witnesses so she gets the botanist to bring his equipment to the forest and sets up a re-enactment of the crime where the plants will act as lie detectors. I'm not kidding.
(ca) wrote: what a life pf true love
(it) wrote: If opposites do attract, then "Irish Jam" makes that argument to a ridiculous degree. With Eddie Griffin as the star, this film appears to be something that would cause uproarious laughter but this actually turns out to be a fairly "heartwarming" tale. On the surface, this seems to be somewhat of a throwaway movie that was too far into the production phase but not worth releasing in theaters. In reality, "Irish Jam" makes something interesting and funny out of a seemingly impossible concept. It is somewhat of a redemption story coupled with a romantic comedy, all with an ending that even the most cynical movie viewer would be hard-pressed to not be swayed by. A fun movie with some of the most intriguing exteriors I've seen in a while.
(gb) wrote: Grindhouse Friday is among is us again and what better way to celebrate then with a good o'l 80's slasher flick...Though this guy was not as well known as Jason, Freddy or Michael, he still got the job done...with a little help from his kin.........SEE: Gorgeous woman get taken down one by one!!!SEE: George Kennedy scream "Stop you kids!!"SEE: Jack Lemons son in crazy 80's tube socks...and sooooooo much more...This actually does have some god moments and creepy shit going on....but low budget it is...so grab the kiddies and enjoy!!!!
(it) wrote: So Yeah First and foremost. This is not a Monty Python movie. Terry Jones is in it, but he dies less than five minutes into the picture and does not return as a different character later. Terry Gilliam is in it, briefly, and his character is wacky pretty much for the sake of, in a dark sort of way. Michael Palin stars. However, there is a notable lack of John Cleese, Eric Idle, and Graham Chapman. Not even Carol Cleveland. While the movie is arguably just a bunch of stuff that happens, long a hallmark of Python, it has a different sensibility. For starters, it's not actually quotable at all. No fear having lines from it driven into your head by people who think you're somehow inferior if you haven't seen it. For the most part, they haven't, either, and if they have, they still can't remember any lines from it. Dennis Cooper (Palin) is the despair of his father (Paul Curran). Despite his love for the "fair" Griselda Fishfinger (Annette Badland), Dennis leaves the village when his father dies to go earn a living in the big city so he can support his love in the fashion to which she is accustomed. Only it turns out to be hard to support anyone in the city; in the forests lurks the Jabberwocky. Jaws that bite and claws that catch per spec. It's slaughtering those unfortunate enough to be stuck outside the city's walls, and the flow of refugees has been halted by only permitting those with possessions into the city. Dennis has half a potato that Griselda gave him, but that isn't considered enough. He ends up sneaking in and having wacky adventures, also per spec. Interestingly, the potato is one of the few anachronisms I spotted. This is doubtless helped by the fact that it's not really set in a time period more precise than "the Middle Ages," and possibly were I an armour geek I would find errors there. It's also true that not everyone will note the potato anachronism. (Potatoes were first cultivated by the Inca and therefore didn't make it into Europe until well into the sixteenth century, and they weren't much of a people food for some time after that.) At that, it's probably true that Terry Gilliam knew and threw it in there anyway. However, hygiene was . . . an iffy thing at the time, and while the princess (Deborah Fallender) is shown taking a bath midway through, the, shall we say, casual disposal of bodily wastes is not as inaccurate as we'd all like to believe. However, the bodily wastes thing is one of the reasons I considered turning the movie off entirely. Yes, all right. We get it. There's no sewers, and people don't have any real compunction toward cleanliness. There's no need to be going on about it like that. It stops being funny awfully quickly, and Gilliam is smarter than that. The guard's going outside to relieve himself, providing Dennis with a chance to slip into the city? Okay. The other dozen or more similar jokes? No, thank you. We can do without. Likewise, the cartoonish violence starts as cute and gets awfully old awfully quickly. The movie nudges you in the ribs to make sure you notice that it's funny, and the simple fact is, movies which do that generally aren't. Sad but true. It is all the more vexing because you can see the future quality of Gilliam's work in it. His character is digging up rocks and claiming they're diamonds, and that's not a bad metaphor for the movie itself. As time went by, Gilliam actually learned what a diamond looks like and produced a fair few; the collaborative nature of his work with Monty Python saved [i]Holy Grail[/i] from this movie's failures. However, the way it's filmed is indicative of his later work. It isn't pretty, Gods know. It's grim and filthy; that's rather the point of the thing. Not all of the shots are of things worth looking at, either. As a whole, the film fails by being too broad. However, Gilliam's eye was already present, and as long as you can distract yourself from the bad humour, there's something of value there.
(nl) wrote: O austriaco Nikolaus Geyrhalter andou durante dois anos a recolher imagens em exploraes alimentares industriais para dar a ver como recolhida e processada a comida que consumimos diriamente. Sem voz off nem dilogos, o filme deixa as imagens falarem por si e capaz de fazer os espectadores sairem perturbados da sala ou jurarem que a partir de agora se tornam vegetarianos. Legumes, carne, peixe, fruta: pouco interesam as diferenas, tudo est automatizado de modo a poupar o esforo humano e a maximizar a rendibilidade de cada alimento, mas com o efeito irnico de desumanizar a mo-de-obra, reduzida ao mero estatuto de "mquina" que repete incessantemente os mesmos gestos para manter a linha de montagem a funcionar"Portanto j sabe, a partir daqui no tem desculpa, de cada vez que entrar nas grandes superficies dos Hipermercados j sabe do que que a casa gasta."Nikolaus Geyrhalter prope ver-nos a ns, os humanos que inventmos a linha de montagem, como mais uma rodinha na engrenagem do "po nosso de cada dia" - mas, entrando numa perturbante dimenso (quase paredes meias com o voyeurismo) f-lo com um distanciamento glacial, ele prprio "quase desumano", sem julgar nem tomar partido, mostrando-nos o que j sabemos mas preferimos ignorar, laia de segredo de polichinelo. Our Daily Bread uma espcie de apocalipse da natureza domesticada filmado em cmara lenta, enquanto os homens vo mastigando a sua sanduiche e bebendo o caf na pausa para o almoo, como se no fosse nada com eles". Ainda por cima, sempre de olho na omnipresente TV.
(ru) wrote: Intriguing drama, but could have been better.Builds slowly, initially quite innocently but then more and more with a sense of menace. Some sub-plots emerge along the way which obscure the main plot. Eventually they all tie together, but they provide too much of a smokescreen, ultimately.This prevents Kings Row from being a great movie. The sub-plots create this rambling story with several climaxes. You want to build up to one climax, but instead you have several, and these make you feel like you've watched several stories back-to-back, rather than one story.Ultimately, worth watching, but it could have been so much better. More intense focus on just one of the many and varied subjects and plots, and the dilution and even omission of the others, would have made this great.
(nl) wrote: Compelling and culturally significant film of it's time that was well acted and directed.
(mx) wrote: This movie makes living in a mental asylum almost seem fun until about the ending. Great movie and Milos Forman is slowly becoming one of my favorite directors.
(ag) wrote: Stranger Than Perfected Ridiculousness In the words of Dr. Jules Hilbert, allow me to "start with ridiculous and work backwards," but there is nothing less than ridiculous in Stranger than Fiction. Director Mark Forster presents this twisting tale inside a tale, in the hopes of reaching the audience through the fourth wall. In the dramatic comedy, Will Ferrell plays the surprisingly monotonous Harold Crick who lives each day like the previous. Using his watch, he measures his steps, counts his brush strokes, and times his activities. Working the bland office job in the city, he continues to the next client that must be audited, Ana Pascal. This sparky, rebellious young woman is played by Maggie Gyllenhaal. These modern-day events are seemingly normal, however, Crick has begun to hear the voice of a woman narrating his life and deepest thoughts. Much to his surprise, he realises his life is part of a novel in which the plot includes his character facing his death, The narrator, played by Emma Thompson, has a story of her own, as she lives just as Crick does. Karen Eiffel, the bizarre author, is in the midst of writing another one of her tragedies, but struggles with inspiration for the death of Crick's tale. Through deep, unconventional research with Jules Hilbert (played by Dustin Hoffman), Harold Crick finally meets the author. Though the written version of the story is finished, the author must struggle with whether she will commit the real-life murder, furthermore whether she has murdered previously. Each character must look death in the face and decide what is truly important. Throughout the movie, music underlines the important scenes of the movie. Music is another important aspect of sound while Harold Crick hears the voice of a woman.The importance of music is underlined when Crick says, "I've always wanted my life to be more musical." He explains that he hopes to play the guitar, but hearing him with an analytic ear, I hear the need for background music in his life. And so, every sound and song becomes an advance of plot or description of character. To describe Pascal's character, punk music is a motif. When Crick first enters her cafe, the punk music plays lightly (excuse the oxymoron) in the background. In addition, he plays his punk song for her on the guitar and it plays over the montage of their evening spent together. As Crick's life becomes increasingly interesting, more songs are played in the background of his tale. It escalates from technological music as he works on Pascal's papers, to very emotional music as he reads his story on the bus and decides his fate. As Crick had dreamt, the story of his life is concluded more musically.Much to the dismay of Crick, his death--along with other events--seems to be outlined through the acts of a young boy and his bicycle. This motif subtly shows the development of Crick's character through short scenes. Little do we know (see what I did there) this boy will be the cause of his death. The movie begins with a regular boy living a regular life with his regular father, receiving a regular gift. As well, Crick lives his regular life. That is, until the narrator scatters his life, leading him to shout curses to the heavens. Uncoincidentally, the next scene is the bicycling boy splashing a passerby, exemplifying the new, unenjoyable chapter of Crick's life. The final page of his life accepted, Harold Crick sets off to meet his death. Meanwhile, the young boy leaves his home and mounts his bike. The rest, as you know, seals Crick's fate. The seemingly regular life of the young boy is perfectly paralleled by the ridiculous life of Crick.To be utterly honest, I am easily impressed. I enjoy many movies no matter the music or underlying motifs. However, I've learned to find and respect these values to come to a conclusion. The film was very well thought out, planned, and summarized. Looking back on the film, I see nothing I would want to specifically improve of these factors. However, it is not a movie I feel extremely emotionally attached to, neither would I recommend it to a friend. I would rate this movie a three out of four on the ridiculous scale: between overly ridiculous and perfected ridiculousness.
(br) wrote: Although the film was probably seen as much riskier then other films at the time, The Pawnbroker seems to have lost its relevancy due to other superior films which have been subsequently made regarding the Holocaust. You still have to commend Lumet and Steiger for being one of the first to portray the struggles of a survivor living in the depressing and lonely aftermath of such horror. But the constant barrage of smash cuts/flashbacks and extreme close-up shots of people's faces seem quite dated and overtly dramatic. Rod Stiger's portrayal is complex and difficult for the viewer to immediately sympathize with which really makes it a masterful performance. However, all the supporting characters are either virtually inconsequential or so one-dimensional, they sometimes cross the line into parody. I mean, was that junkie pawning his mother's radio meant for comic relief??? And his assistant Ortiz, I swear when it first shows up, I thought I was watching a young Desi Arnaz (Ricky Ricardo) in this film! It really is unfortunate to be let down by such a poor supporting cast, but it is still very much worth watching.
(mx) wrote: Good Western flick that takes place down under. Good one to watch every few years or so.