Paper Heart

Paper Heart

Paper Heart follows Nick and Charlyne on a cross-country journey to document what exactly "love" is. Interviewing ministers, happily married couples, chemists, romance novelists, divorce lawyers, a group of children and more, the determined young girl attempts to find definition and perhaps even experience the mysterious emotion.

Charlyne Yi embarks on a quest across America to make a documentary about the one subject she doesn't fully understand: Love. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechersSize
Download   Paper Heart.2009.DvdRip.Xvid {1337x}-NoirDVDRip6150700.11 MB
Download   Paper.Heart.LIMITED.BDRip.XviD-SAPHiRE no rarBDRip3139712.96 MB
Download   Paper Heart 2009 720p BluRay x264 DTS-WiKi BOZXBRRip35284 GB
Download   Paper.Heart.BRRIP.MP4.x264.720p-HRBRRip49402.21 GB
Download   Paper.Heart.2009.LiMiTED.SWESUB.DVDRip.XviD-DVD-UploaderDVDRip41431.37 GB
Download   Paper.Heart.2009.LIMITED.BDRip.XviD.SWESUB-KickFootBDRip2836701.29 MB
Download   Paper Heart.2009.DvdRip.Xvid_toAVI-Pt BrDVDRip2731508.35 MB
Download   Paper.Heart.2009.x264.AC3-WAFOther30311.37 GB
Download   Paper.Heart.2009.x264.DTS-WAFOther49291.37 GB

Paper Heart torrent reviews

Ola S (de) wrote: Last days of the German occupation of Paris and the city is to be destroyed on Hitler's orders, by General von Choltitz. The Swedish consul Norling visits him trying to stop it and a verbal duel begins.It's obvious this is a filmed theater drama and it's not sure that is for the better. The dialogue needs a living audience, because the lines aren't really strong enough to stand for themselves. Niels Arestrup however is quite good, succeeding in making a German general, who is not like all the too common comic characters we've seen countless of times in the movies.But Volker Schlndorff, the German film icon from the 70s, has done better.

Sophia Q (mx) wrote: Shoaib Mansoor. That name alone brings along massive expectations. The man is a genius and you expect anything he touches to be extraordinary. I waited for this movie to release on DVD for 5 months (very impatiently, at that) before finally getting the chance to watch it. Did it live up to the hype and was it worth the wait?Absolutely. The storyline can be described as nothing short of "intense." The moment the movie begins to unfold, the audience is captivated. You're almost scared as to what will happen next, but completely intrigued at the same time. The movie touches upon several social issues, but does so without being preachy. Out of the cast, Humaima Malik delivers the best performance. She is amazing and proves that she can play a variety of roles. While she has already proven herself on television, she shows that she is a strong force in the Pakistani industry. Manzar Sehbai is great as Hakim Saheb, an overbearing, oppressive figure. He's a natural in his role and that's not due to his own nature, but due to his talent. Atif Aslam and Mahira Khan were both adorable in their roles, though their roles weren't as long as I would have expected, considering their star power. Still, despite that, they were both very good. Iman Ali made her appearance in the 2nd half of the movie, but made her appearance felt in a handful of scenes. She looked beautiful and played her role with dignity.If you haven't seen this movie, you're missing out. It's miles ahead of anything released in the subcontinent this year. That being said, it's not up to the standard of "Khuda Ke Liye," but those are high standards to meet. It's still a must-watch!

danela h (gb) wrote: Cheesy action flick with some Global Warming issues that don't really get dug into. This flick is pretty much a cover story, it doesn't dig deeply into any of the characters or ideas brought up. Pretty much just Bruce meets girl while being a Tornado chaser, girl wants/has to shut down their little operation, Bruce gets girl kinda story. 4 out of 5 stars~ Exactly what I expected when I rented it! This might prove that I'm a little biased and or hypocritical considering I gave the other cheap action movie a lower score, but hey-this is Bruce Campbell we're talking about! Honestly, what do you expect?!?

Private U (jp) wrote: This was too short! There was plenty of material to fill up at least an hour - 40 minutes is almost shameful. Aside from that, what we do experience is breathtaking and inspiring as documentaries go. The extras are amazing also, yet they don't make up for the fact that IT WAS TOO SHORT! I could have spliced together video and still shot clips, thrown in a narrative, and extended Phillip Glasses mezmering music into at least an hour if not hour and a half feature. Considering the rovers are still alive and kicking and soooo much footage and data has been discovered and transmitted over the YEARS, this should have clued the people in at Disney to make this a real full length doc. What? Are they worried about audience attention span? Oh ye of little faith and imagination! People are more sophisticated and educated today Walt!

John A (nl) wrote: Watchable TV Movie From Writter David S. Goyer (Blade Trilogy & The Dark Knight). Very Camp And Very Cheesey, A Good Story Executed Terribly. The Hoff Is Great As Fury, But Some Of The Other Parts Are Overacted Especially The Part Of Viper. A Shame That It Was Not Turned Into A TV Series, If It Was It Would Be Great (On The Cheesey Level).

Chris M (mx) wrote: Mr. Magoo may not be my favorite cartoon, but it's leaps and bounds ahead of this idiotic movie!

Rebecca M (jp) wrote: One of the worst movies I have ever seen. Could possibly rank as mild pornography--with several topless actresses and sex scenes-- as this "player" goes from house to house making his "visitations." Would NOT recommend.

Jos M (it) wrote: Lo original es que recorre por eventos de la historia espaola, divertida.

Sammy F (ag) wrote: This movie never gets old. Just have to like it for what it is.

Greg S (de) wrote: A detective who looks kinda like Bruce Lee tracks a counterfeiting ring in Hong Kong. Pretty standard kung fu stuff, distinguished mainly by an unusual amount of nudity.

Anders A (fr) wrote: Following the demon path, set to walk through hell, towards the path of revenge. Beautiful sword fighting and persisting its mystical thematics, making it a entertaining and worthy classic.

Will D (jp) wrote: Decidedly unthrilling war escapade, for some reason it's hailed as a masterpiece.

Terry I (ag) wrote: charming, compelling with excellent performances that transcend the creaky, melodramatic plot. leigh does more with a reaction shot than most do with a page of dialog!

Edith N (ca) wrote: Bait and Switch Theatre Apparently, the Swedish government at the time had censorship rules that forbid the portrayal of the supernatural onscreen. This is mind-boggling to me, but there is also the slight issue that it means that the film shouldn't have been made at all; no censorship seems enough while still keeping the basic story intact. However, Selma Lagerlf, author of the original novel, is one of the great lights of Swedish literature, and she was too important to challenge, even in the name of censorship. Which I suppose is an example of Sweden's being more sensible about such things than the US, given that Joe Breen didn't care who wrote the original book if he thought it was offensive, and his office didn't even have the force of law behind it. But anyway, the movie got made because you didn't dare made Selma Lagerlf mad, and censoring her plot would have done so. At least, that's what IMDb tells me, and if I'm going to start disbelieving them now, what's the point? According to legend, Death attends each person's end in a carriage steered by a shadowy driver. For the driver, a day is as a year, and the driver must keep the duty for what then feels like three hundred sixty-five of them (366 in leap year). The driver, you see, is the last person to die each year, whosoever dies on the stroke of midnight, New Year's Eve. (In a bit of a clever marketing ploy, the film's initial release was on New Year's Day.) And this year, the man who is last to die is David Holm (Victor Sjstrm), a wicked man. Across town, a woman is dying of tuberculosis that she caught from him; she is Sister Edit (Astrid Holm), and she wants to know that David is living a better life because of her. Only he isn't and doesn't much care. So Georges (Tore Svennberg), who has been driving Death's carriage for the last year, does his level best to make David understand the suffering he has caused over the last year and before. You see, when I read the plot description on the Criterion release, I thought I was going to get an eerie supernatural tale. Instead, what I got was a morality play. (Can someone who speaks Swedish tell me if "Salvation Army" is the correct translation of the organization Edit works for?) We are really supposed to be wishing that David would only see the value of Edit's prayers and stop being evil, even though it's quite obvious that he didn't--after all, we're getting the whole story in flashback. However, I was hoping that we'd move on to what I thought of as the real story, the story of Death and the carriage and what it's really like to be the driver of that carriage. I didn't care about Edit, who was frankly getting what she deserved. She said she didn't care if David's clothes were infected, and I'm sure, if you'd asked her, that her response would have been that God would protect her. Well, God's protection from tuberculosis is the knowledge of proper sterilization, and she ignored that. Part of why I got so frustrated about the focus on David and Edit's story is that the special effects were really quite impressive, given what the state of the art was at the time. I've seen special effects that looked more primitive from movies made fifty years later with a sizable budget. I'm sure part of that is that B&W covers a number of sins that Technicolor does not, but the effect of the carriage is impressive. I would have liked to have seen them play with that some more, but instead, there's all that flashback and David's long-suffering wife (Hilda Borgstrm), who doesn't even seem to have her own name. I will admit that I don't in general care much for supernatural thrillers, and what I was rather more hoping for was a supernatural drama, but I felt cheated by the morality play. Though I'm sure that the budget if they'd continued that level of special effects would have been astronomical, and I guess we're back to what the original book was about, and I haven't read it. In the end, the real problem is that I didn't have much sympathy for anyone. David Holm was such a cartoon villain that I wasn't interested in seeing him redeemed, because he would have no personality left whatsoever. His wife made the sensible decision of walking out on him and taking the kids, and she is expected therefore to bear responsibility for everything he did after that, though only by him, so I'm not sure what the author thought on that subject. Edit keeps going on about how she loves him, and I don't think it's supposed to be Pure Christian Love. Which is all the more ludicrous because she only met him once, and he was horrible to her. It's the kind of behaviour that gives women a bad name when men believe it. And there's this weird bit where David's brother (Einar Axelsson) kills a guy in a fight but they want to send David to jail for it instead, and I don't understand that at all. Even if it's because he was a bad influence on his brother, the law just doesn't work that way.

Ray B (br) wrote: All I can say is the money spent to make this movie was a waste of money. I just wasted 1 hour and 37 minutes of my time that I'll never get back.

Edith N (ag) wrote: Oh, Dean Stockwell I don't know if it's just me; maybe it is. However, although Orson Welles did a lot of acting, more acting than anything else, in my head, he's still a director. An [i]auteur[/i], if I may be pretentious enough to use the word. After all, of the three Oscars he was up for in 1941, he didn't win the one for acting. (I'll get back to you on whether he should; I haven't seen [i]Sergeant York[/i] yet.) He should have beaten John Ford for [i]How Green Was My Valley[/i], too. But even in their Hearst-swelled blindness, the Academy could not but acknowledge the brilliance of that script. (There is a strong argument that Welles didn't actually have as much to do with the script as he claimed he did, that he basically just stole the credit. However, I don't know how strong that argument is, and I think his touch in the movie is unmistakable, even if Herman J. Mankiewicz did most of the work.) This movie has reminded me, though, as I think I need to be reminded every once in a while, that even cinematography and writing, lighting and sets, would not have been enough had Orson Welles just not have been able to act. This is not his best performance, but it's still very good. Judd Steiner (Dean Stockwell) and Arthur Straus (Bradford Dillman) are Totally Not at All Leopold and Loeb. You can tell, because they, um. No. They're Leopold and Loeb. You can tell, because they kill a neighbour named Paulie Kessler, who is Not at All Bobby Franks. They do this in part because of ridiculous Nietzschean philosophy, which has led them to believe that they are Supermen in the Nietzsche sense--not in the Siegel and Shuster sense. Oh, sure, there's ransom money involved, but wouldn't it be cool to show that they could commit a murder and just get away with it? I mean, obviously, they wouldn't be showing anyone but themselves, but still. They'd always know, and they'd always get to be smug about being that much smarter and cooler than everyone else. Besides, emotions like fear and guilt are for lesser mortals, not for these guys. Only it turns out they really aren't all that much smarter than everyone else, because of course they get caught. It is then down to Not at All Clarence Darrow Jonathan Wilk (Welles) to save them from hanging. So why all this "Not at All" business? Well, you see, Leopold was still alive. There wasn't anything he could have done about Hitchcock's [i]Rope[/i], which really was Not at All, inasmuch as the crimes and timeline are completely different. The characters are pretty obviously the same, of course, but we can all safely pretend that they are not. You can't pretend that with [i]Compulsion[/i]. The clues are even the same. I'm pretty sure the Girl (Ruth Evans, played by Diane Varsi) is invented, but clearly, nothing else is. And with Leopold alive to be aware of the movie, Leopold was alive to sue. On the other hand, it was difficult for him to prove libel, especially given that Welles's closing speech is essentially word-for-word what Darrow said. I think the not-quite-rape scene is added, because again, I think the girl is added. But he wasn't going to get anywhere claiming that the movie had made him look like a heartless killer. As it happens, his invasion of privacy suit didn't do much better. Not since he'd recently published an autobiography! No. Not anywhere near as good as [i]Rope[/i]. It may well be one of the best of director Richard Fleischer's works, but since he directed, among other turkeys, [i]Amityville 3D[/i] and the 1980 [i]Jazz Singer[/i], he had a lot to make up for. I'm also certainly not going to claim that Dean Stockwell never made a turkey in his almost-200-item career. Certainly Welles can't make that claim! (Even the number of credits; to be fair, Dean Stockwell got started younger and did a lot of TV.) And, you know, there's a bit of scenery-chewing from the both of them. (I would like it very much, by the way, if someone explained to me the 1999 Orson Welles version of [i]Moby Dick[/i]. I have chronology issues.) Still, Stockwell does an excellent job of someone trying to be what and who his philosophy tells him he should be. (They leave out the psychosexual stuff and really just seem to blame Nietzsche.) He has a lot deep issues that aren't touched, and everyone around him who's really looking at him seems to know that. Welles, meanwhile, conveys Wilk's disdain for his clients coupled with his passion for abolishing the death penalty. I focus on them, incidentally, because I remember the actors. I have a certain amount of difficulty in categorizing this film--though, as I've complained about before, it's not my job anymore. It's not a mystery; we know they did it, when, why, and how. It's not suspense, especially for those of us with the knowledge of what we're talking about. IMDB lists it, among other things, as a biography. True, but we're all duly pretending it isn't. "Crime" and "history," two of our other choices, seem the best bets. The crime, of course, is undeniable. I forgot, though, that it was a period piece. The clothes, I believe, were correct, but the man's suit hasn't changed terribly in the last hundred years or so, barring outliers like the leisure suit which don't count anyway. Cuffs and lapels and things, but the general design. And the women, well, aren't terribly important to the story. I honestly can't tell you what the character of Ruth was wearing most of the time, and Mrs. Straus (Louise Lorimer) just seemed to be wearing generic Old Lady Clothes. In fact, about the only two things which brought back to me that the movie's set in the '20s were a jarring scene featuring the Charleston and the repeated mention of a Stutz Bearcat. I will also note that the idea of a pair of college graduates, however young, as "just boys" seems antiquated from at least a criminological perspective.

Tigress (de) wrote: A very intelligent movie, enjoyed every moment. Paltrow plays her role brilliantly, and Anthony Hopkins shines, even though his appearances are sparse throughout. The character played by Paltrow is a complex paradox, unraveling throughout the film in a beautifully perfect, yet imperfect, way. The film is tense, in the best way possible, and definitely worth watching at least once, although one might want to view it a second time, just to see all the pieces falling into place if anything was missed the first time.

bill s (ag) wrote: Politically incorrect,childish gross out romantic comedy,,,,, and I didn't stop laughing even as the credits rolled.

Asa B (ca) wrote: A couple of laugh out loud moments don't compensate for a frankly awful movie.

Stephen C (br) wrote: For those in the know its my belief That director John Frankenheimer was the link between the old Hollywood studio system and the movie brats who followed in the 1970s.Several of Frankenheimer films made in the 60s are rightly regarded as classics of there time and even his lesser works have plenty to keep most folks interested.The story here is of course the lives and loves of several drivers competing in the F1 Grand Prix's.James Garner is the American driver with a point to prove after causing a massive shunt at the start of the film .Garner did most of his own driving and he really could of had a career as an F1 driver.Yves Montard is great as the driver who ahs seen it all and just wants to survive and Brian Bedford plays the driver with a unfaithful wife and the shadow of his dead brother playing havoc with his career.The truth is these domestic issues take away from the films best quality and that the racing consequences .Even in todays real of CGI Frankenheimer and Saul Bass really give you a terrifying insight in to how deadly F1 was in the 60sThe Monza sequence alone is pretty hair raising and its to the directors credit that all the race featured feel different despite the fact its just cars going round a track.Saul Bass works alongside the director and his montages add plenty of excitement to already heady mix of thrills and spills.So if you can bypass some iffy script problems this one is a real podium finish .