Muxmäuschenstill

Muxmäuschenstill

A pseudo documentary study of an archetypal German who tries to model his world according to his ideas of law and (sexual) order.

A pseudo documentary study of an archetypal German who tries to model his world according to his ideas of law and (sexual) order. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Muxmäuschenstill torrent reviews

Juli N (us) wrote: The MOST boring and uncreative revenge scene in Takashi Miike history!

john r (ag) wrote: [size=7]gothika[/size]has to be one of the dumbest movies i have ever seen [size=7]envy[/size][size=4]read gothika [/size][size=7]jeepers creepers 2[/size][size=4] a awful movie that somehow was worst than the first one in every way [/size][size=4][/size]

Evan H (mx) wrote: This over-the-top movie is pretty funny to watch!

Luciano G (fr) wrote: Freedom is the most important thing for prisoner Papillon. and his longing for freedom is stronger than longing for living.... excellent roles created by Steve and Dustin....

Juan Diego L (mx) wrote: Es buena, me agrada el ambiente del oeste, se me parece a "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" por tener como los 3 personajes principales, ay momentos donde no se siente tan larga la pelcula y hay otros donde si se siente, y la historia a veces es un poco confusa.

John A (us) wrote: What a sad film. It's characters spend the entirety of the run time in the haze of a fog, literal and figurative. All of them have gotten themselves into some kind of trouble, yet none of them seem to know what to do next. That leaves only fleeting moments of love or fear to pass the time until death, separation, or some other tragedy. And yet, we somehow empathize with Gabin's soldier and Morgan's mysterious beauty. Carne's camerawork is beautiful--the cuts really seem intentional in this film.

Elijah B (nl) wrote: By far, this is my favorite Stroheim film. I'm not a fan of his earlier directorial attempts, but maybe that's because the copies that remain are fragmentary and I'm missing the better parts. I tired to like Blind Husbands and Foolish Wives, but his stories are social commentaries of another culture and another time, which is all alien to me. On top of that, comparing these films (excluding queen Kelly) to his "masterpiece", GREED, it seems that he doesn't care for the central part of the plot but wants to focus on the scenes in which he is acting. If the tudios were going to cut his films as much as they did, why did they not leave more of the minor details of the central plot? Why did they cut the heart of the film only to leave the scenes with Stroheim? The only relevance the scenes have is to illustrate his fights with the studio (Universal) and his triumphs, which had to be achieved by starring himself. However, QUEEN KELLY is, by far, his best partially surviving work, next to GREED. The cinematography is excellent, the story is superb, the acting could not be better (in fact it's the best performance Seena Owen has ever given---a complete transformation from her eralier screen work, such as VICTORY) and the music is stunning. Tully Marshall gives his best performance (compared to the other films with him that are available on home video) and is truly the creepiest character to ever grace a Stroheim film. I can't say much for the guy who plays the Queen's fiancee'. I think John Gilbert could have done a better job. But he fits in with the rest of the film well enough. I just wish Swanson, wionderful actress though she may be, could have aloowed Stroheim to finish filming this magnificent work. All that remains of the film is one third of the plot. Swanson got angry at Stroheim for using her money (she produced it) to film excessive takes and retakes and finally to have her character sink from convent girl to the lowly proprietor of a African brothel, that she fired Stroheim and the film was released with an ending she made herself, having Kelly commit suicide and a Romeo and Juliet-like ending was tagged on. YOU MUST SEE THIS FILM. It is so very important to film history and otherwise, it's very entertaining.

Domonkos B (nl) wrote: Scattered, dull, couldn't care less about the main characters.

Simeon T (gb) wrote: One of the mysteries of my life is how I somehow saw this movie in the theaters twice. It is also interesting that it isn't amongst the worst movies I've seen. It should be by its very nature, but it is just too forgettable to be anywhere near as bad as something like Man of the Year, Matrix: Reloaded or Angels and Demons. So while it isn't SO bad, what it also absolutely isn't is a female empowerment fable, unless female empowerment is measured by giggles.

Sarah G (ca) wrote: Wow! I never rented it but always saw it on the shelf of our local video store. Recently decided to watch it and was surprised at how good it was. It was not your usual slasher movie which I thought it would be.