Nazarín is the priest who leaves his order and decides to go on a pilgrimage. As he goes along subsisting on alms, he shelters a prostitute wanted by the police for murder. He is released from suspicion and she eventually catches up with him when she escapes imprisonment. Another woman joins the duo and soon the ex-priest is learning more about the human heart and suffering than when he wore robes.

Nazarin is a priest, attempting to living a pure and honest life strictly according to Christian principles - but others only show him distrust and hatred, apart from the local prostitute... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Nazarin torrent reviews

Sven S (fr) wrote: weird, but still enjoyable

James R (fr) wrote: This one is not gonna be for everyone. If you've never seen a Terrence Malick film then this one might be a bit too much for you. There's beautifully shot scenes like literally some of the best cinematography I've ever seen, but man is there little to no plot that is easily presented. Malick likes to leave a movie bare to show you what it's about. it's up to the viewer to figure it all out. Very art house like. The movie is about Neil (Ben Affleck) and Marina (Olga Kurylenko). Marina is a Ukrainian woman living with her ten year old daughter in France. She meets Neil and they fall madly in love. Neil takes them back to the states to live with him in Oklahoma. Soon enough things start going bad and Marina leaves the country. Neil then meets up with an old friend Jane (Rachel McAdams) who has her own ranch. Neil starts a romance with her, but things don't work out. He goes back to France and brings Marina back and finally marries her. Although, they are together Marina feels isolated and lonely in Oklahoma and just never feels like she fits in. There's also a priest in the film named Father Quintana (Javier Bardem) who is questioning his faith and interacts with Neil and Marina sparingly. Overall, I enjoyed aspects of the film (mostly cinematography), but man I wished this was more structured. I know what I was getting myself into with the director, but I never connected with any character and just really didn't care what happened by the end. Overall, only film buffs will want to give this one a look. Everyone else should probably stay away.

Dean G (de) wrote: A slight drop off from the 1st two movies, but still very enjoyable. Obviously it had less budget. I hope we see more of Riddick in the future.

Ian M (jp) wrote: It looks like it has really bad reviews, but I still wanna see it!

Alexander C (ca) wrote: Worth watching want to see!

Denver F (fr) wrote: a tv movie, but what a movie! "sometimes you're just not as cool as you think you are"

Ken D (de) wrote: The buzzsaw was great.

Bradley K (br) wrote: I feel conflicted about this. On one hand, Walter Hill has created a visually rich and musically engaging old-school(though not at the time) action flick. Nolte and Murphy gave incredible chemistry and SF is treated as third star. However, it is extremely hard to get over how incredibly racist, sexist and just plain offensive the ideas are in this film. It is certainly a product of it's time, and that in itself is fascinating, but it has certainly not aged well. What was once risqu (C) now comes off as being simply mean-spirited.

Marilee A (ru) wrote: I'm sure this was just as Disappointing to Universal Pictures, it was suppose to be Magical, it wasn't.I had missed my Gene Kelly & was excited to see him, he went back to retirement & hid.I did want to Roller Skate afterwards though

Michael T (jp) wrote: Artistic devotion in spite of sensual mutual attraction. A heavy movie for its time and still so today in our freer sexual societies.

Luca D (ag) wrote: E' una commedia all'italiana classica fatta bene, ma non di certo un capolavoro. Anche il fatto che ci sia Tot mi pare sia un modo per strizzare l'occhio al grande pubblico e il livello delle battute (e della critica sociale) non a livelli altissimi.

Karsh D (jp) wrote: Swashbuckling vampire hunting film with slick one liners and heaving breasts. Marvellous.

Thomas W (jp) wrote: First-time feature documentarian director Matthew Cooke's 'How to Make Money Selling Drugs' is about exactly that. There is no clever misdirection, grand illusion, trick or outright lie ... it is about making LOTS of money while selling drugs. In what has been described as a "shockingly candid examination", Cooke interviews a cross-section of "insiders" - dealers, big pharma lobbyists (ka-ching!), prison employees etc. -- who know this world of secret deals and cutting and mixing as few others who have survived to tell their tales. While the documentary deals with unsavory subject matter, Cooke keeps the footage rather PG-13 and his style and format becomes most engrossing. He starts the viewer out as a little Joe Schmoe selling drugs to his high school class and teammates before escalating his "business" over the course of a relatively short amount of time into a multi-million dollar, international conglomeration complete with mules (some very unfortunate souls) and chefs and high profile clientele. While Moore shows the audience how frighteningly easy a global market can be obtained (which brings in the BIG bucks), he never once glamorizes the trade without depicting the harsh realities (cops, fights, bad deals, death) that are never more than a few steps away at any given time of day. In order to not boggle down the mind of most viewers and to keep the film fresh and interesting, Cooke breaks his film into segments one might come across in an "Idiot's Guidebook". It is made clear that just about anybody can sell some drugs but it is NOT a wise profession. It is an interesting watch ... which might sadly influence some pathetic copycats who are both dangerous and dumb.