Meru

Meru

Meru is the electrifying story of three elite American climbers—Conrad Anker, Jimmy Chin, and Renan Ozturk—bent on achieving the impossible.

In the high-stakes pursuit of big-wall climbing, the Shark's Fin on Mount Meru may be the ultimate prize. The movie is about three elite climbers who struggle to find their way through obsession and loss as they attempt to climb the mountain. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Meru torrent reviews

Eliabeth R (ca) wrote: A mi me gusto aunque no tiene buena critica, una familia que esta huyendo de lo que se supone una infeccin vs invasin (nunca descubres que es) y al final nada de lo que pensaste, es, jaja adoro ese tipo de pelculas :D

Katie H (mx) wrote: well-acted, good plot, emotionally charged. I was really pulling for the brothers. I recommend everyone giving it a chance.

Sean D (it) wrote: I think I found this one more boring than 2 even though there is more depth to the story. Or not. No, it's definitely more dragged down. The 3rd story is weird and reminds me a lot of the game, Dead Space. It wasn't my cup of tea, but it may be for others.

Richard M (es) wrote: why go why? ok they needed the money

Skyler B (es) wrote: I have never asked myself "what am I watching, here?" so many times during any film before. Never again will I come close.

Brooks C (nl) wrote: When one takes influence from many acclaimed filmmakers and has a keen sense of how to approach his/her idea one can safely assume that the result will turn out favorably. My motto towards this standard is: Anything can be done well if done right. Alejandro Jorodowsky's Santa Sangre does look like a surreal, exploitive movie on the surface. I would agree on it being strange and surreal, but exploitive: not really. The movie starts off in a mental institution. A traumatized ex-circus performer, Fenix begins to trace his childhood of being a magician in his parent's circus. His dad is a skilled hypnotist and knife thrower and his mother is an aerial acrobat who can perform while hanging from a wire that holds her hair only. His mother gets involved in a religious cult where they worship an armless girl who was raped and had her arms cut off. They hail her as saint because they believe that the blood that was shed by her permeates that same spot. When the shrine is destroyed she discovers her husband's secret affair with the heavily tattooed lady and castrates him with acid. He cuts off both of her arms like her idol in response and commits suicide. As Fenix regains his sanity through accidentally being exposed to sin and vice he escapes from the institution with his armless mother's help. He goes back to his old lifestyle of being a performing magician with his mother. As he lives among society he begins to discover his mother carrying over her vengeful nature through him and strange things start to happen. The story is much like Psycho except is told in a style one would expect from someone like Frederico Fellini were he to direct such a movie. It also reminds me of J-Horror movies in how the story has elements of religion, folklore, magic, and a manifestation of one's personal struggles. The plot is mostly told in an avant-garde style and is broken down in chronological segments. While starting off in a mental institution we get a flashback of Fenix's childhood, the people he met, and how he comes to be. The next segment shows his developing life as an adolescent going back to his old life as a street performer through the influence of his mother. The next segment shows his life as a young adult. He adopts his fathers skill of hypnotic knife throwing, but begins to discover his mother's domineering edge over his life. Fenix meets his old friends along the way and the most active of them is a deaf-mute girl named Alma. If one has seen Mamoru Oshii's The Red Spectacles chances are: one would most likely draw parallels. Alma is to Fenix as the woman in red is to Koichi Todome. Alma is more like Fenix's guardian angel and his key to redemptive salvation. The only difference is that Alma and Fenix share a romantic subplot and there is no mystery behind her. We see in the first segment that they met one another as kids in the same circus tent. I really loved how this movie not only interweaves almost every event into another, but also how it uses creative backgrounds and active settings to help expose every character detail. One example being the parade scene that goes on during the part where we're shown Alma being prostituted by the tattooed woman who was also her strict circus trainer. Another is where Fenix finds himself in a graveyard suffering guilt while there are ghost-like women arising around him. The movie does brilliantly at interweaving creative backgrounds in an attempt to explore the human condition. After learning Roger Ebert's views on this movie and seeing it for myself I can safely say that I hold his opinion in high regard. I haven't seen any of Jorodowsky's earlier films, but Santa Sangre was a great starting point for me to his style of filmmaking. Even though Santa Sangre presents itself as an exploitation movie it's not exploitive in the sense of how we've come to expect the genre in this day and age. Ebert said that this movie isn't about exploiting evil in celebration, but exploiting it in a confrontational sense. I may not agree with everything Ebert says, but I daresay he made a believer out of me with this movie.

Joe H (ru) wrote: Gibson when he was still an absolute hero. And Pfeiffer is smoking

Dawn S (it) wrote: Embarrassingly dumb. My wife walked into the room while I was watching it the other day and I was embarrassed by how ridiculous it was. HOWEVER...its sooo bad that I find myself watching it whenever its on. It truly makes me laugh

Nate T (kr) wrote: Hawks handles Film Noire well... Everyone is in top form. On Blu-ray.

Stephen B (au) wrote: Leon de ce film, un film qui se veut intelligent ne peut tre fait par des cons.On gardera simplement le jeu philosophal qui n'en est pas tout a fait un puisque confront aux ralits de la situation soumise.

Brandon S (fr) wrote: A different Bond film; an art house Bond film, which, as a fan of both the silliness of past Bond outings and the character depth of this film's predecessor, I didn't think I wanted. Turns out, I did.

b d (nl) wrote: Review (1~5)#Content: Script 4 | Acting 4 | Cinematography 5 | Film Editing 5#Visual: Costume Design 4 | Makeup & Hairstyling 4 | Scenic Design 5 | Lighting 4 | Visual Effects n/a#Sound: Score & Soundtracks 5 | Sound Editing & Mixing 5#Overall (1~10): 7

Edith N (jp) wrote: More Afraid to Take a Stand Than Its Characters Apparently, all concerned claim this movie has nothing to do with the Rosenberg case. This is a ludicrous claim; what else can this movie be about? Oh, it's certainly not a completely biographical version of the story. Not even just in a "names changed to protect ourselves from lawsuits" kind of way. The Rosenbergs had two sons, Robert and Michael, and they're both still alive. They also went the sensible route of filing a Freedom of Information Act request to get information from the government about their parents' case. However, since there aren't a lot of married couples who have been executed for espionage, and since the circumstances are extremely similar, what else can this be about? Anyway, as time goes by, fewer Americans even know who the Rosenbergs were. That ignorance of our own history strikes again. Not that this movie made enough of an impact on culture that it would remind anyone of anything. Daniel Isaacson (Timothy Hutton) has just found out that his sister, Susan (Amanda Plummer), has attempted suicide. He firmly believes that this is mostly to do with their parents' execution on espionage charges when he and Susan were children. Paul (Mandy Patinkin) and and Rochelle (Lindsay Crouse) were young Communist activists in love, and they were raising their children with Communist ideals. Of course, the problem there is when they were doing it. Paul comes home from the War and runs a little radio repair shop, and even as time passes and Communism becomes a scarier and scarier word to the average American. They are tried, convicted, and executed for "giving the Soviets the secret of the bomb." Years later, after he is a husband (to Phyllis, played by Ellen Barkin) and father, Daniel still can't come to terms with what happened to his parents. Susan tells him how proud she is to be the daughter of her parents, but it may be what has caused her problems. Or it may not. Susan is never developed much as a character except inasmuch as she is shown to be completely dependent on her brother. She's definitely shown to be freaked out by what happened, in no small part because of the reactions from people at school. (There's a reason the real Rosenberg boys took their foster parents' last name.) However, we never know enough about her to know if she's traumatized by life, mentally ill, or both. Based on what we see, I lean toward both. Maybe it's more clear in the book, but in the movie, Susan is a cipher. She's someone for Daniel to project his feelings on, but really, that's everyone. Tovuh Feldshuh plays Linda Mindish, daughter of Selig (Joseph Leon), who is the man who turned the Isaacsons in. She is also the person who knows what Daniel is really looking for, and she knows she's pretty well it. He wants someone to blame, and since her father is now senile, and since she and Daniel didn't get along as children, she's it. The truth, whatever it is, won't change that. And that's really the problem with this movie. We never know the truth, and we know that Daniel never will, either. Now, we are told, and it's true, that the idea that the Soviets "stole" the secret of the atomic bomb is a flawed one on several levels. What's more, even if it weren't, there's no reason to believe that Rosenberg/Isaacson had it or could have understood it. It doesn't take much to come to the conclusion that, guilty or not, these were not people who should have been executed for what they did. Especially given the arguable nature of "time of war." However, what Daniel is looking for, he won't find. Can't find. He's looking for someone who to pin the blame on, not just for his parents' deaths but for every wrong in his life. What's more, I think Daniel is projecting so much of himself that there isn't much to him left but desperation and regret. He imagines a life other than the one he leads, and he puts so much of himself into it that he isn't living this one. Still, Hutton is doing what he can with what he is, and so are the others. There's an extremely embarrassing scene wherein Paul lectures Daniel about wanting Wheaties just because of the baseball player on the box. He goes on about how the baseball player, I forget who it is, is no better than any other worker, because he doesn't own the team. In his case, the means of production. What's more, he's selling himself so that Daniel will want to buy Wheaties instead of wholesome oatmeal. (Ilan Mitchell-Smith, who plays young Daniel, makes the perfect expression of distaste at the very thought.) Not even Mandy Patinkin can pull off that dialogue. However, he does a fine job of playing the youthful, then not-so-youthful, idealist. Timothy Hutton carries of the intensity of a driven man, though I think he also imbues it with a sense of having forgotten what drives him. And, of course, Amanda Plummer always seems to end up playing crazy characters, so it's not anything difficult for her.