Hester Street

Hester Street

Steven Keats plays a Russian emigre who prides himself on the way he's molded himself into a real Yankee in the USA, though the world he lives in, New York's Lower East Side in the late 19th century, is almost exclusively populated by other Jewish immigrants. When his wife (Carol Kane) finally arrives in the New World, however, she has a lot of assimilating to do. This causes the tension which drives the movie along, though it maintains a fairly light atmosphere most of the time.

It's 1896. Yankel Bogovnik, a Russian Jew, emigrated to the United States three years earlier and has settled where many of his background have, namely on Hester Street on the Lower East Side of New York City. He has assimilated to American life, having learned English, anglicized his name to Jake, and shaved off his beard. He is working at a $12/week job as a seamster, the money earned to be able to bring his wife Gitl and his son Yossele to America from Russia. Regardless, he has fallen in love with another woman, a dancer named Mamie Fein. Nonetheless, he is excited when he learns that Gitl and Yossele are indeed coming to America. His happiness at their arrival is dampened when he sees that Gitl is not "American" looking like Mamie and has troubles assimilating as quickly as he would like. Except to Mamie, he tries to show a public fa├žade that everything is fine at home with Gitl. But can their marriage survive these differences, and if not, will Gitl be able to manage in this new... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Hester Street torrent reviews

Faris A (gb) wrote: It's so boring watching a film where All the Characters are useless.

Casey B (fr) wrote: Dabbles in a few too many cliches but the wonderful cast makes sure they are easily forgiven.

Ryan P (fr) wrote: Not the best production of this musical, but the songs are still very fun and the visuals are memorable.

Brett A (br) wrote: Funny and yet interesting plot,

Gavin M (es) wrote: This movie is one of the most daring and powerful movies of the 1990's. It's one of those pinch yourself movies because you literally can't believe what you are watching. Paul Thomas Anderson has literally created a landmark in cinema. This is a dangerous movie to not be missed by all movie buffs. Mark Wahlberg literally shines in his star making performance as role as Dirk Diggler is definitely one of his all time best performances. It's right up there with "Fear," "Three Kings," "The Departed," and "The Fighter." But I am gonna be so bold as too say that "Boogie Nights" is definitely his all time best movie, as you can literally feel the fumes coming off this film it's that powerful. But we also cannot forget the other amazing performances in this film, especially from Burt Reynolds who plays the famous 70's porno director Jack Horner. It's one of those performances that isn't over the top, but you are so drawn to Burt Reynolds the way you are to Wahlberg and everyone in this movie for that matter. But Reynolds looks and acts the part of a major porno director all the way through. It earned him a best supporting actor nomination for his work and he definitely deserved it as he really keeps the film in balance throughout the entire film. The rest of the cast is like a directors dream come true, as literally everyone was starting out at this point or had already established themselves to a degree, but this movie made them all superstars as everyone gets their 15 minutes of screen time in this film. You have Julianne Moore who is disturbingly really good and effective in this as the coke addict porn star, who has fallen into the dark side of the porno industry and has lost touch with her son and because of that, she feels the need to act as a mother to everyone around her including Wahlberg because he's the new hot star in the porno industry. You also have Don Cheadle, William H. Macy, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Heather Graham, John C. Reilly and Thomas Jane who all equally give solid and very memorable performances. This movie for me really has depicted the porn industry in the 1970's like no other, and even though it goes into the 80's quite a bit, it's still a really fascinating movie on the 1970's as Paul Thomas Anderson really did a fascinating and flawless job at making this film feel like a true 70's movie. I almost want to say that this is the best depiction of the 1970's, even though I know it does go into the early 1980's, but it's the music, the look, the style, the direction and the awesome performances from everyone in this film to make "Boogie Nights" for what is today in cinema, as it truly is a work of art and movie making at its total best!

Sara R (it) wrote: An interesting character study. Buscemi is great as always.

John B (nl) wrote: Wow! Susan Hayward really blows the lid of this before-its-time film. Hayward's character is just full of surprises as a survivor seemingly willing to do anything in order to live. Great acting.

Rudy M (de) wrote: '30 minutes or less' is an action comedy that doesn't pretend to be more than that. I like that. There's plenty of action in this movie and more often than not it's funny, with a few big misses here and there.The story is veil-thin, of course. Jesse Eisenberg plays Nick, a mundane pizza delivery driver, who gets tangled up in the ridiculous web of two wannabe criminals (Danny McBride and Nick Swardson). Nick asks his former best friend Chet (Aziz Ansari) for help, even though their relationship has just strained.I'd seen this movie in a theatre a few years back and I thought overall it was funny. Re-watching now, I cringed a few times when the characters uttered some really, REALLY bad jokes. Fortunately this stuff stops after about 8 or 9 minutes.After that it's a lighthearted action comedy which doesn't take itself too seriously, thank the lord. There are some funny moments, some funny references and eventually a story that ties up loose ends. What more could I expect from a movie like this?Pros: Funny, well-paced, lightheartedCons: Some overt immaturityVerdict: This was enjoyable

Bheema D (mx) wrote: I'll use this opportunity to compare the 2nd and 3rd movies in this series, "Beneath the Planet of the Apes" and "Escape from the Planet of the Apes," specifically structurally. We'll use the analogy of a plotted chart. Beneath the Planet of the Apes would appear for it's first 45 minutes or so as something low to the ground and flat, that being retread and repeat of the original film. From then on, Beneath became one of the most unexpectedly weird movies, which would be represented by a massive and thin spike on the chart. Now, that might signal a bit of a red flag to some people, but it's a lot better than how Escape from the Planet of the Apes went down. This chart would be represented with an uneven series of waves. Sometimes it's really good, sometimes it's really lame, sometimes it's really weird, sometimes it's thought-provoking, sometimes it's emotional, sometimes it's boring, and these are not nearly equal chunks of screentime, but unfortunately that "boring" part applies to most of the ending, minus that last little clip. While Beneath wasn't exactly successful at repeating the original's greatness, it's better than Escape, which abandons what made the original good and going for a way more mainstream film that only gains credibility and that "78%" it may or may not deserve from the strength of the Cornelius and Zira characters.

Anna C (ru) wrote: This film is so bad that is good! just like a '70s b-movie, who knows... maybe some day it will become a cult!

Erin O (nl) wrote: Yes, it's '60s melodrama. But it's also a pretty good - and relevant - commentary about war, not to mention a great role for James Stewart.