A young couple marry in France in the 1940s and the film follows the arc of their marriage over the next decade. As France recovers from the trauma of the war, the wife finds herself ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Roses à crédit
A young couple marry in France in the 1940s and the film follows the arc of their marriage over the next decade. As France recovers from the trauma of the war, the wife finds herself ...
You may also like
Roses à crédit torrent reviews
Max Y (ru) wrote: Very good except it just ended to suddenly
Dimitrios R (ag) wrote: Its a fair movie with some funny moments,Liked it!
Erica F (fr) wrote: I want like 2 hours of my life back. This turned into a mystery science theater experience for my fiance and myself as we laughed at every scene with it's almost offensive level of cliche horror choices.. and this is coming from an Executive Producer / Producer of films. I would have toss this script back.. The bad boy in the rolling oat fields must have been black humor..... otherwise, i feel bad for everyone involved.. and by that i mean the viewers
Jamie I (ag) wrote: I forgot I was at a Coen Brother's movie until one of the characters (I won't say who) got shot in the face. John Malkovich has a drinking problem. Of course to the Mormons everyone has a drinking problem. One of the best lines of the flick. In summation everyone is sleeping with everyone else. This is explained to JK Simmons. He also says something to the effect of "let me know when this makes sense." His role in the film is tiny but he has the most profound statements. He describes the events of the film as a "clusterfuck." I'm sure you know that the lot of this movie revolves around CIA files but the massive fornication plays a role too. Amid all this there are two trips to Dermot Mulroney's new flick Coming Up Daisy. This film, of course, doesn't actually exist but it makes for one hilarious cameo. The flick is funny don't get me wrong but it's still a Coen Brothers flick so it's full of WTF! And sadly this review is jumbled, just like the movie. This movie easily reminded me why I love Brad Pitt. I think the man can be typecast as your hot action hero type (much like his wife, they are a hot action hero family) but this movie reminds you once again of the man's range (see12 Monkeys, that's Pitt's Oscar nominated role FYI). In Burn After Reading Brad Pitt's Chad is a music loving gym nut who prefers to bike places. Maybe you've seen his silly little dance in the trailer. This type of character is why I love Brad Pitt. Because he plays dreamboat well but in my opinion he plays nutter a little better. Burn After Reading is funny don't get me wrong but plenty of audible gasps escaped my mouth. So I guess if you like that OMG feeling with your laughter watch it. In the end I leave it up to you.
Zachary F (it) wrote: An entertaining film full of action and gore, with some odd dialogue and about 30 minutes too much of run time.
Matt H (ag) wrote: Weak, familiar story, has the strange world building problems of "Cars," and none of the characters stand out at all. There's a design/concept problem here as well, the robots aren't human enough, or aren't personified enough in those regards. Weak kids jokes, random and not well done references to much better movies, some weird flourishes don't help, either. Robots is almost the definition of mediocre, except it's barely able to exist on that level.
gustavmarkovic31 (jp) wrote: god this movie is the dogs. mary kate and ashley are such idiots for making these films. the swarm of annoying crap films will not cease.
Weston W (ag) wrote: one of the first films i ever truly hated. saw it multiple times in its awfulness
Ralph R (au) wrote: This is a booger factory for yard gnats.
Rebekah C (ca) wrote: ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????BTW?????????drama????????????????????????????????????????drama?????????????????????youth????
Captain T (kr) wrote: "God is not here today priest."
Rudy M (mx) wrote: Haunted High or "Ghostquake" is the compelling story about troubled Halloman High School janitor Ortiz, who is investigating the mysterious death of his sister Marisol, who was killed by a cult half a century ago. Set to the authentic backdrop of a buzzing high school, this story is told in a haunting and chilling fashion. Err, who the hell am I kidding. Ghostquake is right up there with the most abominable abberations of crap you and I have ever seen. So who's responsible for this utter pile of shit? Written by Anthony C. Ferrante and directed by Jeffrey Scott Lando, this is a real "gem" in the truest sense of the word. Lando has been making TV movies that get IMDB scores between 3.0 and 4.2 (for 2010's 'Goblin'). Why anyone funded any of his movies after his horrendous debut 'Insecticidal' in 2005, is beyond me. Ferrante is a real renowned writer, racking up classics like 'Boo', 'Para-Homeless Activity' and, seriously, 'Sharknado'. He hasn't managed to write a movie with an IMDB score of 5.0, but got close with 2012's 'Leprechaun's Revenge' at 4.6. Ferrante is also dabbling in directing. The IMDB scores of his last four movies go down from 4.3 to 2.5. You get the idea here. His co-credited writer Paul A. Birkett also seems to have a fascination with sharks, doing the screenplay for the 2013 TV movie 'Ghost Shark'. It has a rating of 3.8 on IMDB and you should really read the plot of that gem for shits and giggles. But back to the movie at hand. If you were on the promotional team for this movie, you'd get a bonus for the first paragraph of this review. It's all a matter of perspective, really. And my perspective, 'viewer', is one you'd best stay away from. Danny Trejo plays the janitor in this movie. His first line is 'Where are you going, boy?' and it's the best Mr. T impersonation this generation has seen. This 'story' is set in a high school. It's haunted by a former principal and cult leader, who uses dark magic to trap students and teachers to feed on their souls. His grandson is one of the students and he inadvertently wakes his demonic grandpa from the dead. Somehow they left his body in the school after he caused a bloodbath 50 years ago. Long story short: almost everyone dies by the hands of the demonic principal or his henchwoman. Not that you get to see their actual deaths, they are all bloodless and insinuated. All special effects, from plastic frogs to beams of light, are so horrendously amateurish that it's an insult to everyone's imagination. Just as I am finishing this review, I realize that I will be the first to review this movie. No professional or audience reviews are available on this site as I type. Hell, they don't even have the movie poster. If that's not enough of a warning, I hope this review is! Pros: It's only 84 minutes including the credits. Cons: All of the above Verdict: I want my 84 minutes back!
Brian S (ru) wrote: "Horror" is a low-budget Satanism-and-undead flick with a lot of heart that tries hard and succeeds occasionally but ultimately doesn't quite cut it. There's good imagination at work here, but the resources available to the filmmakers didn't allow them to live up to their goals.That's too bad, because "Horror" has a lot of potential. Five young people in institutional uniforms in a van have committed some sort of unspecified crime involving the shooting of a security guard (I assumed it was a bank robbery), take mushrooms given them by a reverend, and arrive at the reverend's home. Meanwhile, the reverend and his wife are Satanists who are getting ready to do something nasty with their daughter. Grandpa was also a Satanic priest; he may or may not be dead. Grandpa is also infamous mentalist The Amazing Kreskin and, while he can't exactly act, he does seem to be having a lot of fun doing his schtick in this setting.There's a little bit of blood and gore here, but it's not particularly prevalent. There are also zombies about in a few scenes, though the prosthetics are obvious and cheap-looking. The movie has a disjointed, dream-like quality that often makes it hard to follow and sometimes makes it hard to tell whether the apparent continuity errors were intentional or not. Someone will frequently be wounded, or even turn into a zombie, in one scene, only to be perfectly well in the next. Writer/director Dante Tomaselli appears to be intentionally trying to stay completely away from any linear narrative, or even rationality. It almost works, but not quite, though the sense of confusion would probably add to the horror if the rest of the movie worked better. It doesn't, though. If the acting was better, the make-up was better, and the editing was better overall, this would have been a solid and original horror flick.As they weren't, "Horror" is a mediocre film at best. The fragmented, albeit occasionally genuinely scary, scenes never quite knit together into a finished product.
Dave W (gb) wrote: Mind blowingly choreographed, great characters, gritty, funny, amazing action sequences and completely unique, even in addition to the idea of the first person pov. For those who thought it was simply a Go Pro attached to a base jumper's head, I don't think you were really watching. The continuity and preparation of the scenes took loads more foresight, timing and physicality than a regular staged set. I'm hoping the Academy recognizes this and we see the filmmakers win a few awards for their groundbreaking efforts.Yes, it was raw, violent and for some the camera work nerve grating... maybe you don't like the story. I get it. But this wasn't a polished, generic cookie cutter flick. Don't go in looking at it as a real movie, go in looking at it as art and experimentation. I figured I was going to hate this as I'm not a video game fan, especially not a first person shooter gamer, but I appreciated it to no end. There was so much more to it than I thought... including a musical dance number by a host of clones. So fun and so absurd.Watch this as a student of film, not as a mindless popcorn munching viewer. This takes chances like Memento, American Psycho, Donnie Darko, Strange Days, The Road Warrior, Reservoir Dogs, Sin City, Deadpool, etc etc... it's gritty cinematic history. A totally original labour of love.Once again, screw you critics. You're becoming simpler and simpler every year. ~'