Sangue chiama sangue

Sangue chiama sangue

In a frontier town between the USA and Mexico, Sancho and his gang assault a monastery, kill a few monks who try to oppose the invasion of the sacred building, and go away with a precious ...

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:97 minutes
  • Release:1968
  • Language:Italian
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:greed,   revenge,   catfight,  

In a frontier town between the USA and Mexico, Sancho and his gang assault a monastery, kill a few monks who try to oppose the invasion of the sacred building, and go away with a precious ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Sangue chiama sangue torrent reviews

Summer M (de) wrote: I found Seve The Movie to be an amazing inspirational story about the legendary golfer Seve Ballesteros. I am not a golf fan and honestly don?t know much about the sport but that never took away from upstanding and enjoying the film. Seve the Movie could be enjoyed by anyone, you don't have to know anything at all about golf because it touches on universal themes common to all of us. Viewers will see Seves determination to succeed, his passion for the game, and how the love of his family drives him to never give up. Most viewers can relate to these themes and will find joy from watching this film.

Claudette A (es) wrote: This was an interesting movie, giving us an insight into Chinese culture and how important sisterhood friendships were to women. Nice to see Hugh Jackman in the film too.

Scott M (nl) wrote: Rachel Weisz and Jeremy Renner are so wonderful together. Please make another movie with these two! Love this movie. Hate all of Matt Damon's Bourne films. He sucks in them.

Conner F (es) wrote: Death of a Ghost Hunter trudges slowly along with an overly predictable plot that more exhausts the viewer than entertains. It tried to be clever, it tried to be twisty in a way that would make Shyamalan proud but it failed. After being WAY to slow in the beginning it finally reaches a climax which should in turn bring on the conclusion. I was mistaken. The movie continues on WAY past it's expiration. It treats the viewer like a kid eating glue all alone in the back of the classroom. We are not as dumb as we look. I understood the point, I got the message but NO! It needed to be sure I understood. It repeated and repeated and NEVER ENDED! And then just as I got so pissed off I was about turn it off, the credits rolled. How's that for a twist ending? 1.5 stars still feels generous....

Robert D (nl) wrote: A very different performance from Zach Galifianakis, but too bad the story never really reaches far enough to show off it's true potential.

Shelbe L (gb) wrote: Simple yet powerful, educational documentary! Recommend to everyone!

Bryce F (ag) wrote: Granted, the animation was good, some songs were okay, and it did have it's good moments, this just can't compare to its predecessor.

Nathaniel R (it) wrote: yes it was a good movie to watch around my nephews...i enjoyed it

Johnny T (mx) wrote: Third entry in the Critters franchise and it's clear right from the opening minutes, that the filmmakers have run out of ideas. Critters 3 is notable for being the acting debut of Leonardo DiCaprio. By this time, the third entry has become stale, uninspired drivel. Suffers from an anemic, episodic plot, weak special effects, and most damning, membership in a virtually worthless film genre - little monster comedies. "Critters 2: The Main Course" seemed to have wrapped things up pretty neatly by the end of the film. All the critters were killed, there were no more eggs, Charlie gave up space-travelling and bounty hunting to get demoted to town Sheriff, and everybody lived happily ever after. But no... it was time to cash-in once again, even if it meant going straight-to-video with a plot that doesn't make any sense. Is this the one in the apartment or the one in space? Does it matter? VERDICT: "Hit The Exits" - [Panned Reaction] These are some of the worst films ever made. These films do everything wrong and do it worse than bad. Audiences should never see this film under any circumstances! (Films that are rated 0.5 or 1 stars)

Alan P (nl) wrote: I had a lot of fun watching this as a kid. I Guess you'd have to be a New Orleans Saints fan to appreciate it! LOL

Joo P (fr) wrote: I was just a lad of ten when I saw this 1973 BBC production of "Jane Eyre" for the first time. Michael Jayston and, above all, Sorcha Cusack made an everlasting impression on me. After all these years, to be able to see her again as Jane is... all joy! To acknowledge how well both these actors did portray their respective characters from Robin Chapman's fine script and under Joan Craft's competent direction, allow me to transcribe here the following excerpts from Charlotte Bront,'s immortal novel: From chapter XIV (Jane about Rochester): - "[...] he rose from his chair, and stood, leaning his arm on the marble mantelpiece: in that attitude his shape was seen plainly as well as his face; his unusual breadth of chest, disproportionate almost to his length of limb. I am sure most people would have thought him an ugly man; yet there was so much unconscious pride in his port; so much ease in his demeanour; such a look of complete indifference to his own external appearance; so haughty a reliance on the power of other qualities, intrinsic or adventitious, to atone for the lack of mere personal attractiveness, that, in looking at him, one inevitably shared the indifference, and, even in a blind, imperfect sense, put faith in the confidence." From chapter XVI of the novel (Jane about Rochester and she): - "[...] I knew the pleasure of vexing and soothing him by turns; it was one I chiefly delighted in, and a sure instinct always prevented me from going too far; beyond the verge of provocation I never ventured; on the extreme brink I liked well to try my skill. Retaining every minute form of respect, every propriety of my station, I could still meet him in argument without fear or uneasy restraint; this suited both him and me." From chapter XXVII (Rochester to/about Jane): - "[...] You entered the room with the look and air at once shy and independent: you were quaintly dressed - much as you are now. I made you talk: ere long I found you full of strange contrasts. Your garb and manner were restricted by rule; your air was often diffident, and altogether that of one refined by nature, but absolutely unused to society, and a good deal afraid of making herself disadvantageously conspicuous by some solecism or blunder; yet when addressed, you lifted a keen, a daring, and a glowing eye to your interlocutor's face: there was penetration and power in each glance you gave; when plied by close questions, you found ready and round answers. Very soon you seemed to get used to me: I believe you felt the existence of sympathy between you and your grim and cross master, Jane; for it was astonishing to see how quickly a certain pleasant ease tranquillised your manner: snarl as I would, you showed no surprise, fear, annoyance, or displeasure at my moroseness; you watched me, and now and then smiled at me with a simple yet sagacious grace I cannot describe." In these three passages of her novel, Charlotte Bront, gave to all readers a crystal-clear synthesis of how she imagined Jane Eyre and Edward Rochester; and it is exactly this we have the exquisite privilege to contemplate in the 1973 BBC production of "Jane Eyre". Please, believe me: in no other production (not even in the rightly praised BBC 1983 production, with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke...) you will find these characters portrayed so faithfully to the novel and so perfectly on screen as in this one! Michael Jayston is a great, truly great Rochester; Sorcha Cusack, with that beautiful round face, those lovely eyes and that velvet voice, is a Jane from the other world; and the connection between them is way, way far beyond simple "chemistry" or "physical connection": it is genuine empathy - just like the connection there is between their respective characters. The portrayal of the secondary characters is made in much the same way. The performances of young Juliet Waley, as young Jane, Tina Heath as Helen Burns, and Isabelle Rosin as Adle, of reliable veterans John Philips as Mr. Brocklehurst and Megs Jenkins as Mrs. Fairfax, of glamorous Stephanie Beacham as Blanche Ingram, and of "Leslie-Howard-like" Geoffrey Whitehead as St. John Rivers, are all very good and quite close to what can we read in "Jane Eyre". The real marrow of Charlotte Bront,'s novel: this is what one can get from this, the 1973 BBC production of "Jane Eyre". Nothing of real importance is missing here - above all, God. The final lines said by Sorcha Cusack, taken out of the last chapter of novel (sadly missing in all the other TV and movie versions...), are a sort of resume of Charlotte Bront,'s faith in God: after helping both Jane and Rochester going through their ordeals, God blesses her supremely and judges him with mercy; so, there is reason to believe in God. Just like the novel, this TV production is a story told by Jane's own point of view: it's a "flash-back". The use of narration through Jane's "inner-voice" is as effective here as it is old in the History of English Theatre (and Cinema, for that matter): it harks back to William Shakespeare, who used to make his characters turn to the audiences and speak out their intimate thoughts. Drama and humor, suspense and surprise are all very finely balanced in this BBC production of "Jane Eyre". As for the humor, I don't mean to be rude to those reviewers whom have written here criticizing Sorcha Cusack's performance, but I'm afraid they simply don't grasp British humour - particularly, the "understatement", which is present in almost every line of many of the intimate dialogues between Jane and Rochester (both in the novel and in this production). Every time I see Sorcha (with a naughty smile) saying to Michael (with a wicked grin): "Won't she [Miss Ingram] feel forsaken and [pause!] deserted?", I roll myself with laughter! That's Bront,'s humour at its best! What a cracker! It should be noted that this is neither a "romantic" nor a "gothic" production of Charlotte Bront,'s novel. In fact, I'm not even sure that "Jane Eyre" is a true romantic or a true gothic novel. As far as I remember, it was Jorge Luis Borges who stated that it could be classified as one of the predecessors of the so-called "Magic Realism" in Literature. Indeed, between "Romanticism", "Gothicism" and "Magic Realism", I personally find "Jane Eyre" much closer to the latter... and, judging solely from what we can watch in this TV production, both Robin Chapman and Joan Craft fond it the same as I do. I've seen the DVD release of "Jane Eyre" (1973) so many times since I bought it that I'm seeing it now in bits and parts - specially those witty ones with Jane and Rochester. That's how good this production really is! To my mind, in a scale of 1 to 10, the 1973 BBC production of "Jane Eyre" deserves 9.9. It would get a clear 10 out of me if it had (as it should!) at least fifteen episodes; but, since it was a "low budget" production, it has only five - and, because of that, the "gipsy scene" had to be pruned up to the point of becoming just a hilarious scene, and the character of Rosamond Oliver had to be simply tossed off. Nevertheless, it is the best of all screen versions there are of "Jane Eyre": the most faithful to novel, superbly tight and paced, very well put up together, with first class performances and Elgar's Introduction and Allegro for strings, Opus 47 (1904-05), as the musical background. In short, it is a sublime piece of Art. Don't miss it!...

Brandon T (br) wrote: A fun film that all Batman fans without a stick up their backside can enjoy

Tim S (ru) wrote: Gator is the 1976 sequel to the moderately successful White Lightning from 1973. Starring and also directed by Burt Reynolds (his first directorial effort), the movie follows up on the character several years later. I didn't care much for the first film, mainly because I felt it took itself too seriously. And while some do feel that the sequel is superior, both films feel as if they're on the same level for the most part. The main difference is that Gator feels more clunky and not quite as ironed out as its predecessor, but on the other hand, there's more to connect with this time around. Reynolds' character is given more sufficient motivation for his actions and the characters are less one-dimensional. Even Jerry Reed's villainous character seems to have a little more going on upstairs than your usual bad guy character in these types of movies. However, the story and the way that it carries itself out doesn't seem to flow very well, mainly because of a lack of a solid tone. It's not sure whether it wants to be lighthearted or dark and brooding. There's an even an attempt in the middle of the film to have a love story, which feels just as out of place as the ending of the film. It all feels forced and unnecessary most of the time. A budding, tacked-on love story mixed with southern-fried hijinks, murder rampages, and a lifeless plot makes for a very uneven film.

Paul D (ru) wrote: Steve Carell seems to be closer to a Leslie Nielsen imitation (a poor one), than Don Adams, but this modern movie update is nothing like the television series. It's both too long, and too unfunny.

JAGT P (mx) wrote: Gothika, while not a good film, it is not horrendous either, and even though the development is all messed up, it has some interesting plot, concepts and great acting. Probably underrated, probably not. Give it a try.

danny n (ru) wrote: Absolutely...the Worst movie I've ever seen. Everything about it is terrible, and I mean EVERYTHING. Don't bother even watching this movie. Seriously.

Nha H (mx) wrote: Not much of a comedy.

Ryan O (br) wrote: This is an amazing film that really capitalized on the independent film movement of the 90's. Peter Fonda should have won the Oscar.