Horses of Gettysburg
Horses of Gettysburg celebrates the forgotten heroes of the Civil War and their critical role in shaping the United States of America that we live in today. Directed by Mark Bussler, producer and director of EXPO - Magic of the White City narrated by Gene Wilder and Gettysburg and Stories of Valor narrated by Keith Carradine, Horses of Gettysburg is a special edition 2-DVD Box Set in the CIVIL WAR MINUTES series.
Humans have relied on horses since the dawn of time, but there is no stronger bond than between a horse and rider on the battlefield. Narrated by Ronald F. Maxwell, director of the epic ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Horses of Gettysburg torrent reviews
(ca) wrote: nice film! Sebastian Koch is great!
(mx) wrote: A tense and entertaining financial thriller. Richard Gere is at his very best for the first time since "Chicago".
(ca) wrote: Written and directed by Peter Mullan, who won critical acclaim for turning to directing with Orphans (1998) and The Magdalene Sisters (2002)), returns for this gritty coming-of-age film. Mullan said of this film, "It's my Goodfellas", he's not far wrong, only this is very autobiographical and shows what life was like growing up in 1970's Glasgow, it has some good performances in the film and a good script. It starts in the early 1970's, and schoolboy John McGill (Conor McCarron) is a brilliant pupil, excelling in every subject at school, but his family have a dark stigma attached. His brother Benny (Joe Szula) is a violent thug who has been expelled from school, and his father (Mullan) is an alcoholic. Even when gangs threaten to beat John up, once they realise who his brother is, they leave him well alone. But, this begins a downward spiral for John, as he becomes close to Benny's gang, and he ends up living a life of violence. But, when Benny is arrested for a violent assault, John's life as part of the gang spirals out of control. It should be a miserable film, but it's not, and it's well made and Mullan makes the most of this side of life, it's compelling but it doesn't become depressing. It's gripping, and you end up wondering what will happen to our hero, and will he continue on his downward spiral, or make amends and do well in life.
(ru) wrote: If you liked the first one you will love this one. Sex, blood, and glory! Perfect guy movie
(br) wrote: Hard Candy had lots of potential but the execution is a massive disappointment. The brief opening scene was unfortunately the highlight of the film, igniting a wide grin across my face. But that grin quickly faded until I was begging the film to wrap up. The first thing I noticed was the camerawork. It's a mild complaint given the remaining flaws but the cinematography felt far too cramped. It gave no sense of location or space, and the editing made the initial conversations between Page and Wilson feel awkward and disjointed. I have few gripes about the stylistic look of the film although one particular fast-paced sequence feels very poorly done, bursting from out of nowhere and offering more intangible camerawork. The biggest problem with Hard Candy is the script which has various flaws within itself. Similar to the camera, the movie is constantly in your face. There is absolutely no subtlety in its storytelling, forcing it to sound preachy and unintelligent. Every detail is made to seem so obvious and every line is written in such a way that the most simple themes are practically shouted at the audience. At first I thought Ellen Page was just giving a very bad performance but now I realize that the script is (mostly) to blame. She still did a fairly mediocre job in my opinion, often over-acting and bringing out the film's unrealistic nature even further. But Page's character is the worst part about the film by far. The filmmaking issue that Hard Candy suffers from is that we don't care about the characters. At first Page's character Hayley seems like a good protagonist - a shy, innocent girl who may be smarter than she looks. And when combined with Wilson's antagonist, Jeff - a pedophilic creep who might not be in complete control - we have the potential for a good, thrilling story. Unfortunately Hayley becomes a two-dimensional psychopath with hardly any backstory or motivation to her actions. Her dialogue is condescending and quite annoying. I feel like Brian Nelson, the screenwriter, was trying so hard for Hayley to seem cool and hardcore that he forgot the audience needs to connect to her emotionally. Combine her completely insane actions, unrealistic dialogue and complete lack of character development and you get a hero we can't root for. On the other hand, Jeff is actually given two scenes in which he discusses his past, one of the scenes being a sort of relief from Hayley's monotone personality. He's a questionable villain with a backstory, a motivation and multiple demeanors. He feels real! I found myself caring about him, not Hayley. That is...until he proved to be nearly as stupid. His actions later on in the film made my attention drop even more. So to put things simply: we don't know who to root for because both characters are unlikeable and fail to create an emotional connection. The film felt like a bad play half the time, with dialogue and scenes going nowhere, repeating the same thing over and over. Finally, the film promotes itself as a thriller. Unfortunately there might be only two minor thrills throughout its excruciating duration. The problem in this particular area goes back to Page's character. As I mentioned, she has no character development. She never learns anything, she never changes. In addition, she is practically in control of every situation in the movie - the reason it's not exciting. There's nothing on the line, nothing to hold our attention and seemingly no threat to her character. The film could have easily been creative with the premise but it goes nowhere. The only redeemable factor in this movie is Patrick Wilson's performance which was actually pretty impressive. He brought a good variety of emotions and delivered many scenes/monologues with great control of his character. Too bad the rest of the movie was awful.
(us) wrote: its no computer boy but not bad
(kr) wrote: Casey Affleck and Matt Damon decide to take a trip into the desert and they get lost. This is the plot, and there is also hardly any dialogue, and no meaningful dialogue. And yet the movie manages to be almost 2 hours long. I had to fast forward through some parts. However there was some nice camera work and scenery. Very boring film.
(gb) wrote: beatiful...................
(ru) wrote: Good story with an early eco-friendly message. Baby beavers stole the show... sooooooo cute!
(gb) wrote: Overly long for such a straightforward plot. Wonderful photography along the trail. Wayne and Clift superb acting. But I really disliked the narrative intrusions and the disjointed feel of scenes hurried or skipped altogether. SPOILER ALERT But I loved the undercurrent of sexual roles, where the girl is really on the outside despite what she wants. Thank God she didn't end up in one of the leading man's arms at the end. And what's it between Matt (Clift) and Cherry (that's his first name BTW, not a nickname) who when he lays eyes on Matt immediately leaves his job to join in with Matt and Tom (Wayne) and keeps admiring Matt's beautiful gun, and in the end dies defending him (did he realise now that Tom was back on the scene he didn't stand a chance?) As the girl says at the end, they (Tom and Matt) should marry each other.. Anyhow, anyone studying the depiction of gay sensibilities on screen during the Hays Office time would be interested in the overtones in this movie
(ru) wrote: A very safe and overall middling tale. It's colorful and has some good moments, but doesn't have the expected punch of most Batman narratives.