Saint Ange

Saint Ange

In 1958, in the French Alp, the young servant Anna Jurin arrives in Saint Ange Orphanage to work with Helena while the orphans moved to new families with the administrator Francard. Anna, ...

An horror film of Pascal Laugier is released in 2004 follows a young woman whose pregnancy is underground. In 1958, she comes to Saint Ange Orphanage where she is a servant and work with Helena. She meets an orphan named Judith who has mental issues and they befriend after Anna discovers that Judith can hear the voice of the invisible children. They investigate the secret behind the orphanage. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Saint Ange torrent reviews

Per H (mx) wrote: nnu en After Dark skrckis och precis som med dom andra s r det hyfsat intressant. Denna gng handlar det om ett fngelse (vrldens nst otckaste stlle fr en skrckfilm) dr ett tv-bolag spelar in en dokuspa med ett x antal deltagare, ett fngelse med ett blodigt frflutet. Typisk lgbudget skrck med halvdana skdespelare.

Daniel M (nl) wrote: If you like A Clockwork Orange, I can't imagine you'll dislike this movie.This movie is a masterpiece from start to finish, there's never a single dull moment. Tom Hardy's Bronson is one of the most out of control, entertaining anti-hero's you'll ever see.

Ebba R (ca) wrote: Hollndsk psykologisk thriller som baseras p sanna hndelser. Lysande Jan Decleir frn Karaktren och Antonias vrld och Jeroen Krabb frn Jagad! Ges ut av Njutafilms i Sverige under vren 2008.

Thomas D (ca) wrote: I love Chamber of Secrets. To me, it's the last Potter film to make me feel nostalgic towards the series. Don't get me wrong, I love all 8 films, but there's something about the campy and all around goofiness to Chamber of Secrets that makes it all the more endearing.Even though it was filmed merely months after the first film was released; Harry, Ron, and Hermione feel like they have grown so much since their first outing at Hogwarts. I guess that's the feeling you get when you watch the films within days of each other. With that said, we are jumped right back into the fold as Harry is back with his muggle family in England when a house elf, named Dobby, appears and warns him to never return back to Hogwarts. Being that it's the confident and curious Harry Potter we're talking about, of course he makes his way back to the school within a few scenes.Much like the first film, we have plenty of entertaining side missions for the trio to go on which included; a flying car, taking a potion to disguise themselves as Slytherin, following spiders into the dark forest, and of course some Quidditch. All of this makes for a brisk 2 hours and 40 minutes of wizard fun. But the film isn't short on its eerie reveals, adventurous thrills, and dark storytelling.Chamber of Secrets brilliantly balances all of that though. Seeing Harry venture into the secrets of Tom Riddle's diary is some terrifying stuff to see as a kid, as is seeing various victims picked off in Hogwarts due to the Chamber being open. And to me, it holds up to this day. There's definitely a more childish tone to it all, but these are 12-year-olds after all.This film was also a test for Harry, and particularly Daniel Radcliffe, to show if he can truly carry a film or not. Hermione is sidelined for the last 40 minutes or so and Ron is just about scared of anything they come across. If there was ever a question to that proposal, Chamber of Secrets definitely put that to rest. The first film is great, but this was Harry and Radcliffe coming into their own as character and actor respectively. From here on out it's a much darker and relentlessly thrilling take on the character, so I'll always be partial to the lighter tone Chamber of Secrets presented.+Balances goofy and gripping scenes well+Chamber fight+Unsettling reveals+Plenty of entertaining missions for the trio9.0/10

Rob S (au) wrote: Small Soldiers is one of those B movies which you would probably skip if you heard the premise of it. I revisited it today since it was on the Encore Action channel at the cabin I am staying in, and I can say there's a reason I did not remember much of this movie since watching it in my childhood.So the premise is basically this: take Toy Story, mix it into a live action film, separate the toys into 2 rival gangs who fight each other, and finally, make the toys dumber and more aggressive than they were in Toy Story. Oh, and make it PG-13, because if there's any way to improve a movie with a premise which should be kid-marketed, it's by making that movie PG-13.While the CGI is poor and the "action" of the film doesn't necessarily entertain me, Small Soldiers has some good thematic material, although it is somewhat typical of an action film of this nature. A good amount of the thematic material has to deal with not surrendering, fighting/violence is not the answer, and so forth. A good one that goes beyond the typical themes in action films is that a line is revisited: "Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it isn't there" or something along the lines of that.The way they set up the premise for this film was pretty strange; two toy engineers came up with two different sets of toys - one alien, one a group of soldiers - and their boss had the great idea of making the two sets rivals. Then, the guy who created the soldiers ordered microprocessors for both sets of toys, which happened to be used by the military, which meant the toys became very dangerous once activated. They became a type of artificial intelligence, though one side character described it as being more like "actual intelligence." To avoid the entire nation being terrorized by the aggressive "commandos," the film conveniently made it so that one kid who worked at his dad's toy shop would be able to "test" these toys before their actual release. This kid is, of course, the main character of the film, and of course he got his own romantic subplot with a young Kirsten Dunst.This film was a little bit of an upset in my opinion - they could have waited a few years until CGI was a bit better, they could have made this more kid-friendly which probably would have made it much more profitable, and the plot was somewhat sloppily put together. This film has a good aesthetic and passes for a good B movie, but it is not a film I would revisit often.

Andrew C (jp) wrote: Suspenseful and thrilling. A good political spy movie.

Shadow L (de) wrote: I remember watching this film in the theater. Quite good concert film and about their kickass album The Joshua Tree.

Kathleen H (mx) wrote: I have seen worse but it was just so poor from the start that it seemed like even the actors wanted to give up. Some good plot ideas but just not very well put together at all or explained very well.

Nicholas G (mx) wrote: I don't think this movie is as good as Chaplin's other work. Not a bad movie by all means but I just could not watch this movie in one sitting. Several scenes are funny and are very iconic but a lot of others were unnecessary.

Leena L (jp) wrote: Not sure I had ever seen this before and this time saw only 2/3 of it. What a cast of current stars! I have to admit, to my great shock, that 1) Ethan Hawke is slowly starting to grow on me (MINUS the mustache), 2) Men playing guitar do not even come close to growing on me and 3) Ben Stiller was annoying even back in the early 90s. Did he have his teeth done or something???

Luis A (us) wrote: Perhaps because I saw it at the film festival, but it surprised me how entertaining it was.