Snow Flower and the Secret Fan

Snow Flower and the Secret Fan

A story set in 19th century China and centered on the lifelong friendship between two girls who develop their own secret code as a way to contend with the rigid cultural norms imposed on women.

A story set in nineteenth-century China and focusing on the life-long friendship between two girls who develop their own secret code as a way to contend with the rigid social norms imposed on women. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


You may also like

Snow Flower and the Secret Fan torrent reviews

Alejandro O (ru) wrote: El mejor retrato de la gran y desconocida fotografa se revela en este documental meticuloso al desenpolvar cada caracterstica humana de Maier.

Ronald B (kr) wrote: good flick starting out then it drags,then it's up again,like a roller coaster,then is drags again,expendables 1 was the best so far and 2 the worst so far,3 second best if not consistently so,it reminded me of 2 different director's on the same film,when it dragged it wasn't horrible and when it was running fast it wasn't great,but it was good

Sean N (nl) wrote: Watched it twice... gripped me from the start.. well scripted, well directed, acting excellent... gives an authentic feel to the reality of those times, the toughness of the men and the dangers they faced with a ruthless enemy snapping at their heels... dyer was very credible... and the whole film is put in context throughout... who needs Hollywood budgets when our boys do a great job with the budget they have.

Sushila N (de) wrote: I loved the book Elegance of the hedgehog and it was a pleasure to see the film. I must admit this is quite often not true as films often are unable to convey the nuances and emotions that a book can. This film was quite true to the book even though it really could not convey the wonderful lyricism of the language that this book was written in. Thank goodness this film was made by French, there was no compromising and it really is worth watching.

Cameron J (es) wrote: Wow, Martin Scorsese can make a short music documentary after all. Instead of spending three-and-a-half hours talking about someone's life and career, we only have to sit through two hours of... a documentary on one concert. Seriously man, "The Last Play at Shea" was not only covering a Billy Joel concert, but also his life and the history of a baseball stadium, and even it was only just a little over an hour-and-a-half, which, actually, was too short, yet eitherway, the fact is that Scorsese is going to figure out some way to make a rockumentary relatively longer than you think it should be... only for it to come out seeming reasonably tight. Hey, as much as he loves the Stones' song "Gimme Shelter", maybe this is just him trying to compensate for not directing the documentary "Gimme Shelter", which of course makes this film a great companion piece to "Shelter", because that film was also pretty much something hurried out there for some alterior motive, because if that film had no other point, it was "Go buy the record!" Actually, looking at it that way, Scorsese has no need to compensate for not making the "Gimme Shelter" documentary, because as much as he's crowbarred in the titular song into some of his most highly regarded films, a reasonably big chunk of his career has been dedicated to selling the song "Gimme Shelter". Another big chunk of his career has been making music documentaries, an aspect in his body of work that I know he doesn't emphasize too much, yet most of his music documentaries run about half as long as his career has spanned. Hey, he does them fairly well, and this film is no exception, so I'm not going to complain too much about his making documentaries, though I'm certainly going to complain about aspects within the documentaries, themselves. The opening to the documentary, in which we see Scorsese preparing the concert and the band preparing for the concert... with Bill Clinton, takes much too long and is riddled with excess footage that, after a while, will have you checking your watch, and after an extra while, leave you to fall out of the film before it's even kicked-off. Once the concert commences, however, oh boy, you better believe that, after a while, you're going to be begging for some more excess behind-the-scenes footage. I love a good concert, which is of course why they invented concert films and TV, because it really is like going to a concert, except for the fact that, as put best by Daniel Tosh - though in reference to actually going to a baseball game (Something I wouldn't be caught dead doing, even it is what kills me) -, you're stting really far away, it's super hot and nothing is in HD; not to mention the fact that a bunch of obnoxious people are drowning out the music and blocking out the band that you payed almost as much money to "see" for one day than you do to see them and whatever or whoever else in the world you want in the comfort of your own home each month. That said, this is an awesome concert and awesome presentation of the concert, yet the problem is that the production is too well translated for cinematic audiences, boasting a red hot theatrical intensity that would work consistent wonders if they were to go in and out of the of concert. The problem is that the film will spend way too much time focusing on the concert, to the point of making it overbearing, and when they do incorporate third-party footage, it's so brief, yet just long enough for to drive unevenness within the film. This documentary, such as it is, if a bloated one indeed, and after a while (How many times have I said after a while?), it's hard to not get burned out, though, to me, never to where you fall out. The film gets to be chaos, but it's always controlled chaos, with extreme competense and raw entertainment value, both on the stage and in cinematic translation, thus making the final product rewarding, especially when it comes to style. Again, the theatrical stylizing of the film doesn't completely gel with the relentlessness of the concert footage, making it a bit overwhelming after a while (Ah, I said it again), and yet, come on, this is Robert Richardson doing the cinematography, and I've always felt that the guy could shoot a concert and make it look absolutely breathtaking. Well, sure enough, the cinematography on this non-film is phenomenal, with Richardson's trademark masterful manipulation of color and lighting that doesn't simply take your breath away, but really grips at you, pulling you into the flash and dazzle of the concert experience, making this presentation a deeply immersive one, and the sound design certainly doesn't hurt. Something else that doesn't hurt the quality of the concert experience is simply the fact that, well, it's just a really good concert, Sure, certain songs are weaker than others, with Jack White accompanying one of, if not the weakest performance, and I mention that, because it's "such a big surprise". People that's sarcasm, because that more thick-necked young Johnny Depp-looking "rocker" ruins everything (except "Walk Hard", when he had that awesome cameo as Elvis), yet outside of his appearance, on the whole, The Rolling Stones are as good as they've ever been, which may not be saying the most in the world, seeing as they're actually not the best in the world. Oh, hush up, people, they're really good, but they're not that blasted good, though you wouldn't have guessed that from seeing this testament to their still having it, because they're still rockin' and a-rollin' Ba-Ba-Ba-Ba-Barbara Ann (Oh man, I'm too old to be this young), and jumpin' Jack Flash, it's a gas-gas-gas to see them go at it, even if it does get to be too much aft...- following a releatively extended period of time. As for the archival footage and that one behind-the-scenes bit at the beginning, they're slam-banged in, yet give the film some texture and character, spicing up the dish perhaps more than diluting it. Again, the film stands to be more comfortable in its flow, with less theatrics and more evenness, yet the final product still comes out well worth the watch, whether you're a Stones fan or not, as it still stands as quite an example of awesome concert filmmaking. As the lights die down, you're left exhausted by the sometimes overwhelmingly intense theatrics in the production over the unrelenting concert footage that's being broken up by occasional and brief third-party footage - almost entirely archival - gives the film some unevenness, yet more than that, you're exhausted by the general high quality of the prevalent concert footage, made all the sharper by top-notch technical value and some nifty intercuts of the aforementioned problematically uneven, yet still fairly texturing third-party footage, thus leaving "Shine a Light" to stand as a thoroughly entertaining tribute and testament to the still very much alive rocking abilities of The Rolling Stones, even with its faults. 3/5 - Good

Navin B (ru) wrote: Very sensitive movie and I liked it much much better than Brokeback Mountain in which I was pretty disappointed in Ang Lee.

Rebecca L (br) wrote: A relatively wholesome teenage movie, compared to what we get these days

Anthony P (ca) wrote: Not as good but I still enjoyed it.

Marcus W (br) wrote: The documentary is far too tolerant and refuses to look at this from any other direction.

Arvindra J (fr) wrote: Yeah, I have no idea why I watched this...

Chris P (ag) wrote: The best thriller I have ever seen. I've seen lots of thrillers...