Heartlift

Heartlift

Pep Munné is an aging plastic surgeon who falls for a young female assistant (Mariana Anghileri) while attending a medical conference. Soon he begins inventing new reasons to spend more time with her. His wife Cristina (María Barranco) begins meeting with a psychiatrist (Jean Pierre Noher) in order to figure out what is going on in her marriage.

Antonio, un prestigioso cirujano plástico español, casado y con dos hijos, viaja a un congreso en Buenos Aires con una asistente personal mucho más joven. Allí, los dos se sienten atraídos mutuamente y, luego de perder el avión de vuelta, se entregan a la pasión. Una vez vuelto a su país, debe decidir entre su esposa y su amante. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Heartlift torrent reviews

Jack G (nl) wrote: This is a sun-drenched, sometimes harrowing piece of filmmaking by someone who has a fairly original way of pointing the camera in a documentary sense (by this I mean like ultra-cinema-verite, like if the Maysles took a couple of bong hits before making a movie about kids selling calendars across the country). This said though, by the end of it, not unlike Springbreakers (this is VERY Larry Clark and Harmony Korine, though it's also clearly the same voice that did Fish Tank as well), I thought to myself... what was the point? But then when you have so many compelling little details it's bound to amount to something. While I'm not sure in American Honey if there is a 'point,' maybe Andrea Arnold didn't intend for one. Not every drama needs a thesis statement, but I was hoping for more by the end of the movie than 'well, they just keep going on, and maybe this character will move on, or not, it's what it is, right?' I'm starting off by saying this since I want to get my gripes out of the way first; for the most part, Arnold's film is worthwhile and special as a document of 2016 while seeming to be a piece of fiction. If there is a point to it all it's... 'hey, this is America, wow, what do you think of it? hashtagTrump, right?'Actually, when I think about it now typing this, it may be another example of current-day American neo-realism (the year before Bahrani did that to an extent with 99 Homes), where we, whether we are familiar with this world of the middle America, with its sometimes okay sections (i.e. those who work in the oil fields, some town) and the much poorer ones, see what the people are going through via some select fictional characters. This is a road movie that has the barest set-up - Star, a young woman who has a nowhere future with a man she can't stand taking care of kids that (I think) aren't even hers, is picked out by a sort-of-not-really-maybe-depends-on-which-way-you're-looking smooth-talker Jake, Shia LaBeouf plays, who asks if she'd like to come along with he and his group to sell magazines - and then takes off into nearly three hours of a narrative that is loose as hell, a series of episodes as Star and Jake sort-of-not-really grow closer, and she keeps on doing what she's always been: being herself, which can work and sometimes, painfully, not.If I were to teach a serious screenwriting class to some younger people, this would be an excellent example of how to make a movie that doesn't necessarily have to adhere to a three-act structure. This doesn't mean that it's without an emotional throughline, at least in some form: we see how Star and Jake have their relationship, which gets tested by the "boss" of the group played by a no-BS (except when she gets away with it, which is often) Riley Keough (she, like Sasha Lane as Star, is so convincing I thought she was like all the other people, likely plucked from the 'streets' so to speak, and actually I found out Lane *was* plucked from the streets, literally, and it's her debut, which makes this as astonishing as something De Sica or Rossellini might do, it's one of the underrated performances of the year). But American Honey serves as a case where you don't have to follow some rigid structure, albeit it takes someone with a unique perspective to make it interesting. Does this mean it's totally unique? No, it's not; we've seen depictions of American youth who have no ties to any family and have made their own familial unit in a f***ed up way (Suburbia now seems like some long forgotten grandfather to this kind of thing), but Larry Clark and Harmony Korine seem more like the closest of kin. The Springbreakers analogy may not be totally fair, however, as the crimes done in the movie are mostly (if not all) done by the loose-cannon Jake, who may or may not use that gun that gets set up pretty early in the story. And unlike that film, the 'don't-give-a-motherf***' world these people are in is anchored by Arnold's attention to details, and that Star is someone that, if we can't exactly put ourselves into as far as the full-blown empathy goes, she serves as someone we can see this world through up to a point, and the camera is often looking at objects and things: the scenery, bugs, water, oil derricks, fire, etc etc. I think the curious visual aspect, how she moves her camera, which can be at times as frenetic as a found footage movie and at other times, with its natural lighting and sense of a place that has weight and grit and raw energy of finding things in spur of the moments, carried me through a lot of American Honey, and it's a film that has a love for little details in the world. Yet the other problem comes that there's simply too much movie here, too much looseness. It's great to see someone who, I'm sure, exercised her final cut without even breaking a sweat, but there came some points where we're hanging just too long, scenes lagging to a point where I found myself saying "alright, Get on with it!" ala Monty Python. That's not a nuanced criticism, but it turned me sometimes into a cranky studio executive.All this said, there are passages in this film that are as affecting and effective as any major drama this year - the little details notion also reminds me of Manchester by the Sea, for example - and LaBeouf is better here than he's been in years, likely taking from the energy that's there with Lane and the other real people to get to the point where he creates his own persona and (as much as he can try) is simply there with everybody else. While I didn't love it, I applaud it and hold it up as an example of uncompromising American independent cinema in this decade (again from the magnificent A24 studio, like the Weinsteins in the 90's only better and keeping the independent spirit in a truer sense).

Alex K (us) wrote: Question: how many sharks is too many?Answer: however many constitutes an avalanche.

Matthew Francis L (ca) wrote: F1 is possibly one of my least favourite things in the world, but I'd heard so many good things about this documentary that I thought I would give it a go. I was not disappointed. This is such a well-paced and immersive documentary, that it's difficult not to be swept along by it and get a real sense of the triumphs and injustices Senna experienced throughout his career. For a sport so steeped in glamour and money, it's all the more surprising to learn how humble the man actually was and how devoted he was to his fans and his country and how devoted they were to him; facts that only add greater weight to the tragedy that ended his short life.

Michael S (fr) wrote: What started as a decent enough character study quickly becomes one of the most god awful and random movies I have seen. The fights and acting are decent, but the story is just so laughable and unbelievable. Even for a movie. Avoid this one.

Chris F (de) wrote: Amazing, I've never seen anything like this. It's hard to describe the experience but I could compare it to constipation. The movie began with what might be perceived as flat characters but slowly unveils itself to be a gem ending with an earth shattering catharsis. Pun intended. Edith was my favorite character. You will not be disappointed. Great late night film, not reccommended for the whole family though.

jwasu r (it) wrote: interesting more the 2nd time around, don't know why. parker is kind of awesome in this role.

John P (nl) wrote: Brosnan and Moore act well together but the generic plot and cliched characters do nothing for their chemistry. Disappointing, but not unexpected.

David E (br) wrote: The reason I'm posting this is that it's the film Tam and I went to on our first date together. Very sad movie - I think it was mildly amusing but I can't remember it at all. I don't think we were that interested in the film, to tell you the truth - it was just an excuse to go out. :)

Oliver S (de) wrote: Gritty, contrast from the world if today was interesting. Depressing.

Greg W (br) wrote: john lennon;s first acting role minus the Beatles

Rachel G (ag) wrote: Another Busby Burkly classic and possibly his most famous. The choreography is amazing! And once again, I love Dick Powell in this.

Ben L (au) wrote: Stripes has some comedy magic, which one might expect from the cast. The real surprise is how many laughs they get from Warren Oates, probably the least comedic actor there. I like these classic tales of a slacker joining the army and somehow bumbling his way to be an unlikely success, and Bill Murray is the perfect actor to fit that role. The physical comedy and the witty dialogue is pretty great. However, it doesn't seem to have enough jokes written to carry the entire run-time. As a result, at a certain point they just start to throw anything against the wall trying to get it to stick. The biggest moment to demonstrate this is an utterly pointless mud wrestling scene. It's as if they were in desperation mode so they said "Just add in some boobs, oh, and John Candy falling all over the place. That'll be funny!" Sadly, it is not. There was no humor in these moments and it completely sidetracks the whole plot. Plus they needed to give a better arc to Bill Murray's character. It would have made him more endearing if he showed just the slightest sign of improvement. I can already anticipate the "Lighten up, Francis" comments this review will get, but believe me for the first 30-45 minutes I was 100% sold on this movie and would have rated it highly. However as it progressed the humor got weaker and the characters didn't change, so I started to check out. It's not a terrible movie, but certainly not one I'd recommend.

Chris H (br) wrote: Straightforward cop film made entertaining by Eastwood.