Le révélateur

Le révélateur

A 4-year-old child is the element from and around which the action develops, and brings sentiments and emotions to light. The French word "révélateur"/developper describes the product to develop or "reveal" film negatives.)

A 4-year-old child is the element from and around which the action develops, and brings sentiments and emotions to light. The French word "révélateur"/developper describes the product to develop or "reveal" film negatives.) . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Le révélateur torrent reviews

Cheryl C (ca) wrote: didn't totally get it

Karl H (au) wrote: Much like the movie the Craft did for Wicca and other nature-based, non-deified religions, this movie does for Gothic subculture, approximately 20 years after the style had it's height in the US, and 5 years after it fell out of fashion with the mainstream. This film takes what people think about Gothic culture and tries to spin a yarn of murder and evil. You can tell from the preview, that although they knew how to put together an interesting preview, auditorily, they failed to realize that the production values were clearly cheap. The writers clearly only knew that Goth was en vogue for many club goers, and figured they could paint an elaborate tale surrounding people who like to dress in dark clothing, and look different, to make it sound like they are amoral and nigh possessed. The fact is that films like this are propaganda and the reason why Goths are misunderstood to begin with. The horror, from the preview, revolves around three rules: embrace the darkness, kill your fear, and live for death. (In reality, Goths don't live by rules, as a rule, that's the whole point of being Gothic. The reason most Goths see not to live by rules is because in a society, those rules have to be broken and exceptions given. There are fair rules, like don't sexually abuse kids, or don't exceed the speed limit, but the ones that Goths break are taboos, which have lost meaning except for their own enforcement. IE the rule that says men can't wear makeup or skirts, or that tanned skin is beautiful. In these, it comes down to personal choice. Other mores exist that are seen by Goths as holding people back from being themselves: any sexual deviancy is a sin, art/literature/music should only be pursued by professionals, but none of these involve death and murder.) Living for death is against almost every Goth's ideology. They show Goths slitting throats, slaughtering people, and licking the blood. Once again, misrepresenting reality, since Goths, in general, don't drink blood, it carries diseases, but the image of a Goth chick licking a bloody dagger sells DVDs, for its obvious phallic symbolism, and shock value. The preview shows homosexual behavior, and consuming drugs as a part of being Gothic, and of course, such decisions are those entirely of the individual. As if murdering people, taking drugs, and girls kissing one another was entirely due to Goths. That would mean that, except for the murdering people, every college student in America was Gothic. It's easy to see why they call the company Brain Damage, because just by watching the preview, I felt like I had received a partial lobotomy. Update: I found this movie to watch for free online, and watched it from beginning to end, with breaks taken to vomit from the horrible writing. After watching this film, as a Goth, the only throats I wanted to cut were the filmmakers. (THERE ARE SPOILERS FOLLOWING THIS SENTENCE.) The plot revolves around a young couple, Chrissy and Boone, their names do NOT matter. They go out to a concert at a generic club, the Dungeon. (Why not just call it the Gloom Room?) While Boone goes to get a couple of glasses of Absinthe (more generic stereotyping, as most Absinthe is expensive, and most Goths are poor or middle class), Chrissy bumps into a girl in front of the stage, and then sees her again while they're waiting to use the restroom (as if any Goth would give a care about using the men's room, instead). She offers Chrissy a drug called white light, and of course (being a 2 dimensional character) Chrissy jumps at the chance, and agrees to meet the girl, who reveals her name to be Goth, out behind the club with her boyfriend (as any Gothic kid would, even though Goths are typically smarter, and many don't use narcotics, aside from the odd Marijuana smoker), where they are promptly robbed by a couple of generic thugs, and they are about to rape Chrissy, when Goth steps in and talks like a wannabe super-heroine, fighting the thugs, and taking our heroes in the back of her van (it's never really revealed who's driving). There they pass out after taking a hit of white light. It's after this that she lists the three rules from the preview, discussed in the first half of this review. After Goth picks up a random guy named Alex, on his way home down a dark alley (where do these idiots live?), and rapes him at knife-point (about the only realistic thing in this film), Goth takes kicks Alex out, and takes Chrissy and Boone to a whorehouse, so that she can make Boone have sex with a fat woman. On their way in, Boone tries to convince Chrissy to leave with him, but she's convinced that Goth killed her sister. The girl at the desk calls "security," after warning Goth to leave (would a real secretary at a whorehouse even bother to warn someone?), and what follows is another lamely choreographed fight scene, followed by a scene of Boone making violent love to a fat woman. From there, the rest of the story revolves around Goth wanting to turn Chrissy on to the dark side, and the bad dialog had me bleeding out of orifices at this point, so my hearing got fuzzy and my vision got blurry; but Goth makes Chrissy kill a different fat hooker, this time in a motel room, while some old guy promises to give Goth some money he owes her. Goth then wants her to kill another Gothic couple at a different club, and Goth ends up killing them, I guess, but Chrissy takes the chance to try and kill Goth, as revenge for her sister. Goth knocks her to the ground and KOs her with a kick to the head. She wakes up in the van, outside of a house. She goes in, kills everyone, and passes out again, then we're back to the opening scene, and Boone ends up dying in her arms. She walks outside, and Goth reveals that she didn't kill Chrissy's sister, and that she's somehow possessed to cause chaos, and has indoctrinated Chrissy to take up the mantle. She kills Goth, and in the next scene, she's wearing Goth's clothing, with the same tribal tattoos, and is luring in another Goth couple. I will give the writers some credit. They tried some classic storytelling techniques by starting the story near the conclusion, and even throwing in a supernatural twist. However, having the revenge element set up from the beginning, only to have it turn out to be unsubstantiated only serves to disappoint the viewer. By making the antagonist's actions ones caused by some kind of demonic possession only washes away any motivations that the characters have to be opponents. The girl-girl kiss scene is nothing more than a tease in both the preview and the movie for the clearly-intended-sophomoric viewers masturbatory fantasies. This would account for the abundance of topless women in the film. I'm guessing the leads were underage, though, so no "mosquito bites" get flashed. Boone's character, rather than being a reliable confidant to help Chrissy, is nothing more than a whimpering simpleton, without even the ability to help Chrissy in her conflicts within herself, and against Goth. His big scene comes after Goth rapes Alex, where Boone tries to advocate Gothic culture as being different from what Goth tries to exemplify. Chrissy, despite being the protagonist, doesn't carry herself across the screen, with her struggles, and her conflicts simply don't go through any kind of resolution. In fact, she barely talks, which provides no exposition (exposition is a running flaw throughout this film) as to her state of mind. We don't even get vivid flashbacks, apart from her smoking a joint with her sister, which is at the beginning of the movie! I should also add, that the actress who plays Chrissy is not made to look any younger, even though it's supposed to be two years after her sister died. As a tertiary character, I find Alex to be the biggest insult to the viewers intellect. A young man is walking down an alley, sees a girl, who offers to have sex with him, and he just goes along with everything, out of supposition that he's having a lucky break? It doesn't occur to him that she has an ulterior motive when she wants him to get in the back of a van with the windows covered, and skulls all over the interior? Then he's shocked when she pulls out a knife and threatens to mutilate his genitals. At what point is a guy not supposed to think (because not all men think with their libidos), "hey, something isn't right here. people don't talk to you on the street, kiss you, and tell you to get in their van, unless they want something from you that you don't want to give." As this scene came to an end, I felt sorry for Alex as a victim of rape, but also that he was an incredibly stupid character. Then I realized that the filmmakers were raping me of my time. When the first scene with a fat hooker came up, I started skipping over parts, to just avoid any further bad writing. Goth, despite the actress's compelling performance, fails to deliver anything, due to bad camera angles, poor lighting, mind retching dialog, and bad blocking. The filmmakers clearly had an idea of how to package a movie, as the preview has decent dialog, and the cuts are well made (despite the poor quality footage) in the preview; and even the poster looks compelling. But all of these cannot deny the fact that this is a really bad movie, made by amateurs, possibly in high school. I'm sure that they had good intentions, and if they liked it, and the actors and the friends of all involved liked it, that's fine, but that does not mean that I should see it on Amazon or eBay as a serious film. At best, it's an attempt at a slasher film, not unlike the poor quality horror films of the 1950s-70s. The budget is clearly limited, and the locations are limited to where the filmmakers could get away with filming at night. I think that if you wanted a comparison, you could go with Ed Wood, but the filmmakers would have been proud to have put together a film like Glen or Glenda, Bride of the Monster, or even Plan 9 From Outer Space; in comparison to Goth. Perhaps the first thing the screenwriters should have practiced was giving the versions of the script a run through, to see how the dialog held up. So in summation, don't watch this movie; don't buy this movie; do everything you can to forget this movie, and you may live a happier life for the lack of it.

Jenny N (us) wrote: this movie is a lie. it says it is gory, but alas! there is no gore. i hate movies like this that lie. don't see it. please. spare your excitement.

Melissa G (fr) wrote: The movie had a great message but it wasn't very good.

geekygrl (fr) wrote: this had a great theme and was interesting to watch. i was just about convinced by the end part that he really was from mars... i might wanna own this...


Eric D (it) wrote: Well, I definitely liked the first half better than the second half. I really liked the film when it first started but as it went on it had me rolling my eyes at the sentimentality of it all and how it was trying to pull the viewers heartstrings. Also it was very predictable.

Scott W (mx) wrote: Very weak narrative, boring characters, and a confusing story. The special effects are all this movie has going for it and still hold up rather well today.

Josh A (gb) wrote: It seems less spontaneous and more over the top than Borat, but much of it is still hilarious and shocking. It nearly starts to take itself too seriously towards the end, but never quite crosses that line.

Michael T (fr) wrote: Pleasant enough (if implausible) romcom.

Justin T (ca) wrote: An all star cast performs in this classic '90s thriller. Somewhat overacted and though the plot is improbable it does offer some entertainment value.

Colm M (es) wrote: True b movie but not wild wild bad, it wad the 80's after all

Steve J (mx) wrote: PATHETIC! No wit, no style, no suspense. There's hardly even any gore. Glenn Ford looks embarrassed, and well he should be, since this is one of the absolute worst things he ever did as an actor. Director J Lee Thompson, an accomplished filmmaker with a number of excellent movies to his credit, must've really needed a paycheck to consent to direct this load of garbage. Who actually WATCHES this shit?!