Falling in the Paradise

Falling in the Paradise

A half-mad patriot who shot Avax from the roof of his house captures its American pilot during NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. The hostage gets romantically involved with his sister while unsuccessfully trying to escape.

A half-mad patriot who shot Avax from the roof of his house captures its American pilot during NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. The hostage gets romantically involved with his sister while unsuccessfully trying to escape. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Falling in the Paradise torrent reviews

Kimberley J (us) wrote: This is one of the WORST movies I have ever seen. Ever. I honestly wanted to cry, it was seriously THAT boring. The worst thing? I actually payed for it. I regret going into the video store for this. I actually took time out of my life to watch this. Which makes me want to cut my face until it reaches my skul,l with a bread knife. I rate this a -10,000/5

Nick C (ru) wrote: how did Michael Madsen end up in such a shit film? the only good thing about this film is looking for places in Amsterdam that you've been to and going yaay I've been there.

Heather M (ca) wrote: This movie has a few redeeming scenes between the two leading characters. Overall you don't want to watch this train wreck happen, but you can't look away.

Doug M (it) wrote: Sorry but I couldn't get past the first 20 minutes. To me, it was the story of three jerks who are no more mature at 45 than they were at 20, and at both 20 and 45, they seem as mature as a 15 year old that never had real parents. I thought one of the main points (in the amount of time I could bring myself to keep watching it) was that the 20 year old nephew was more mature than any of them. It's big on dogs**t jokes and piss/ catheter jokes, so if that's the level of comedy you're into, more power to you.

aaron w (nl) wrote: Part of me wants to give this movie five stars. And part of me wants to give it 0.

Cancelled U (mx) wrote: i wish i can go to hawaii and surf but i doon`t know how to swim

Hawk E (ru) wrote: just saw it. too much sexual content = ruined the story line. the story wasn't good. the principles behind the story revealed hurts from infidelity, dishonesty, cheating, secrecy, self-centeredness.

Jennifer T (de) wrote: Excellent movie about education and children. It is also about a very determined elderly man who wants to get an education and has a dark past.

Jules M (nl) wrote: Attractive American kids go surfing in Mexico, get eaten.The overall quality was much higher than I was expecting from an independent surf-horror flick. It is rather light on plot but makes up for it with imaginative pacing. All in all, a pleasant experience.

Liam M (ca) wrote: A masterful debut. Ever inch, finely crafted noir.

Carlos M (de) wrote: What seems to be at first a predictable and clichd Bollywood romance turns out to be a surprisingly sincere story full of heart and conviction that argues in favor of the importance and necessity of social changes (especially in India), offering a modern view on tradition and progress.

Lanfranco C (ru) wrote: The Romantic West is Inside Us!

Blake P (ca) wrote: There is something about glamour that is so ... unglamorous. Once you get past the pristine mist of designer products, enviably beautiful people, and inexplicable shine (Is it the money? The power? The final hour?), what's left? Someone who carefully dresses their life with opulent panache can never truly be happy; a few too many Benjamins cannot purchase a coherent existence. Look at all those 1950s housewives: while they might have a husband all the other ladies on the block swoon over, while they might have perfect kids, and while they might have the most picturesque house in the county, behind their cherry red lipstick and gleaming manicured nails is a hollow interior. Choose style over substance and you'll be left with a designated look, not a feeling. Sverine (a luminous Catherine Deneuve in her breakthrough performance) is suffering from such problems. She has recently married Pierre (Jean Sorel), a nice enough, handsome enough, rich enough surgeon that leaves her well-off but somewhat fatigued. Her afternoons may as well have tumbleweeds rolling through their mundane rituals, but even when Pierre comes home from work, there is hardly a spark being set off: it seems that once you settle down, you settle down, and if you haven't married a spitfire, you can't expect to be continuously knocked off your feet. Sverine spends most of her days in the grips of sexual fantasy, mostly sadomasochistic and mostly reprehensible. We only vaguely know her background, but Sverine's desires to be punished, objectified, and hated act as the gasoline to her sensuous fire. In a brief flashback, we see her as a young girl disobeying her priest during communion; is it because she is stubborn, barbed, or corrupt? One can hardly say; in "Belle De Jour", she is a maiden of glaze that projects more emotion with her slender hands that her face. In a casual conversation with friends, the very scandalous idea of prostitution is brought up. It's the world's oldest profession, but is it as prevalent as it used to be? An outsider makes it clear that, yes, something so taboo is still alive and strong. The tone of the exchange is hardly serious, but Sverine's dead expression says otherwise. She doesn't want to say it aloud, but the idea of becoming a call girl brings an adrenaline kick like no other. She isn't doing anything important in the afternoon; why not entertain herself (and other men) until her husband brings home the daily bacon? When "Belle De Jour" turned into an international success in 1967, Luis Buuel was nearing 70, an age where most directors should be retiring; but at 67, Buuel is at his most salient and his most stingingly observant. One might initially expect blatant erotica with a film so sexual at its core, but "Belle De Jour" is even sexier than all those immodest "Emmanuelle" moneymakers; it holds the power of suggestion like a little girl clinging to an antique China teapot after her grandmother tells her not to drop it. The film doesn't need, nor give into the urge, to set the screen on fire with slow-motion, sweaty, softly lit love scenes. As audience members, we expect too much; a screen can blur reality until it turns into a massive smudge. We've come to believe that if we're watching an action movie, we're going to see some witless but thrilling bloodshed; if we're watching a film deemed to be erotic, there better be some soft-core movement. But what if the usual frankness was taken away from us, and we had to use our insight to fill in the extensive blanks? No matter how disappointed our inner 13-year old selves become, not showing something that we want to see is much more affecting than pouring sexuality onto the screen like an unstoppable liquid. Yet when a film as pointed as "Belle De Jour" contains so much mystery and so much surrealism, it's difficult to be completely focused on whether Deneuve will show as much skin as we want her to (spoiler: she doesn't). Everything seems to have a double-meaning, an introspective question; our lingering arousals are put on hold in favor of trying to make sense of it all. There are a few times where Sverine exclaims that she could hardly live if she weren't also moonlighting as a prostitute, but there's something about how she says it that suggests otherwise. Is she doing it because she's dissatisfied, because she's disturbed, or is it something else? Personally, I think the authority involved is what turns her on. Her entire life, Sverine has mostly likely been looked at as an untouchable beauty that may as well be an object; people are afraid to approach her, scared that they might somehow morph her astonishing good looks. But as a lady of the day, men are no longer wary of her. She is giving her body to their depressing needs, and where most would feel materialized, she feels empowered. She doesn't have to be known as a surgeon's wife any longer; she is in control of the success of a romp, and being the focus of a man's humiliating passion puts her on a pedestal after acting as an ethereally attractive shadow for so long. By the end of the film, though, it's hard to tell what has been real and what has been fake. Throughout much of its course, the fantasies and the flashbacks are completely separate, and we think we know what is and what isn't reality. But the conclusion (which would be unfair to tarnish), is so unpredictably bizarre that it offsets everything. It suddenly becomes a film, open to nearly anybody's interpretation. That's what has made Buuel's movies last so long; with their abstract themes, it's hard to truly understand what he's trying to say, but he gives us enough content to keep us intrigued long after we've seen them. "Belle De Jour", as simple as it may seem at first, is knotted in its meaning, and the untangling process may take longer than a few days.

Matthew B (mx) wrote: It was a really strange role. I liked the music.

Nate B (br) wrote: "Just learning the business Jim; learning the business." That is exactly what this western is: classic fifties shooter with tense fights and situations, but not perfect. Still, a good movie in the tradition with stereotypical fifties acting and dialogue.

Jim J (ag) wrote: Var det en komedi man tittade p eller? =P haha Vilka missar p sina stllen i stunt och actionscener... vad sgs om ett skott snett upp i himmelen som konstigt nog trffar mitt i brstet p en kille lngre bort som stendr... mlskande kulor kanske? ^^ haha

Amasa G (mx) wrote: There is no doubt that this movie has a strong literary quality to it - a literary quality not unlike the days of old and the romantic writers. There is also a cinematography to this film that really blows anything around its time period out of the water. There are a lot of things that people could get in to about this film - although I'm sure some of them would find it a bit long and this is just another re-incarnation of the "who done it" film. Which I'm sure was fun at the time but few of this modern age have the patience for that kind of thing without some other kind of quality getting them through the film. Another interesting thing is that the main character changes as a person throughout the film (but not necessarily throughout his life chronologically). We as an audience have a different idea about who he is at the end than we thought we did at the beginning. It's as if we learn about him and our view changes of him as the reporters does. This may seem unremarkable but it is truly more fluid and done in such a different way than any other film I have seen.

Wave C (es) wrote: It's actually quite entertain and strong sarcastic , but the story telling wasn't good enought to made an audience felt the same way as the characters

Xavier G (au) wrote: This is exactly the classic movie that Edward Burns does. If you like them, it is fine. I do like them, but it is true that not much new has been seen since The McMullen Brothers.

David M (jp) wrote: A film that should be watched solely on DDL's phenomenal performance. The film gives us an unforgettable character and on top of that, a performance that is impossible to pass up.