With the intimate feel of a documentary and the texture of a Vermeer painting, In Vanda’s Room takes an unflinching, fragmentary look at a handful of self-destructive, marginalized people, but is centered around the heroin-addicted Vanda Duarte. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
In Vanda's Room
The film follows the daily life of Vanda Duarte, a heroin addict in Lisbon, and the community she lives in.
You may also like
In Vanda's Room torrent reviews
Stephani B (fr) wrote: Would have a higher rating if the ending wasn't such a disappointment.
Bill K (jp) wrote: Aussie sociopaths abound! in this tense and sometimes confusing thriller. Teens attempt to blackmail the last person anyone should ever try to blackmail and get into lots of trouble over it. A big downer is the shaky camera during action.
William M (ca) wrote: Crazy different mixed up and somewhat satisfying. Not a traditional movie but entertaining all the same. 5 stories in parallel with unexpected results.
Massie B (de) wrote: not the best. but it was the first.
Jacob P (jp) wrote: An interesting story, but there just isn't enough suspense in here to be an amazing thriller.
Luis Enrique R (nl) wrote: CLASSIC, just by readin' the director's list U love the film.
Joey F (jp) wrote: This is my first Woody Allen movie, so I will refrain from making comments about his general skill as a director/writer since it's entirely possible that he's made some great stuff. This one however, I didn't enjoy almost at all. The dialogue and writing in this is insufferable. It's so long-winded and whiny that I seriously contemplated giving up about 20 minutes in. On top of that, Woody Allen's character is one of the most irritating, rage-inducing people I've ever seen put to screen. You get the impression that you're supposed to laugh to yourself at how paranoid he is, but ultimately think that he has good insight into the world and people. Actually though, literally everything he says in the whole movie is annoying and pretentious. On top of that, he never shuts his stupid face. 90% of his... ahem... "jokes" are just, "Wow. Look at how this guy is still talking and talking. Isn't that hysterical." The only thing that kept me going was the constant breaking of the fourth wall which, yeah, I'll admit is incredibly creative and well done. I recommend looking up those scenes and not watching the whole movie. So yeah not a fan.
Riff J (us) wrote: Not as good as part 1 but that should in way disuade the viewer from giving this gem a try. Thanks in large part to the wonderful performances delivered by the big stars (kudos to Rachel McAdams for brilliantly holding her own when showcased with the Downey Jr/Law combo). The 3 of them really bring their tale of adventure/mystery to life.The major knock on part 2 is that it doesn't have the suspense/tension created in part 1. But then again, it's not always fair to view/grade movies relative to their predecessors simply due to the fact that the bar was set so high in part 1.