Stations of the Cross

Stations of the Cross

Maria finds herself caught between two worlds. At school this 14-year-old girl has all the typical teenage interests, but when she’s at home with her family she follows the teachings of the Society of St. Pius XII and their traditionalist interpretation of Catholicism. Everything that Maria thinks and does must be examined before God. And since the Lord is a strict shepherd, she lives in constant fear of committing some misconduct...

Maria is 14 years old. Her family is part of a fundamentalist Catholic community. Maria lives her everyday life in the modern world, yet her heart belongs to Jesus. She wants to follow him,... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Stations of the Cross torrent reviews

Bob K (us) wrote: 14 scenes, one for each of the Stations of the Cross, in which Maria plays the role of Christ, in this indictment of the effects of religious fanaticism on a young impressionable teenager. The camera barely moves, but our eyes remain affixed to the screen because of the compelling acting, particularly by Lea van Acken and Franziska Weisz, who plays Maria's mother. She and the priest of a breakaway Catholic denomination couldn't be more efficient in twisting Maria's mind toward sainthood, and considering how the original story of the cross ended, you can assume that there's not a happy ending in store.

wild willie n (nl) wrote: not nearly as smutty and fun as i was led to believe - The Seduction i think plays more like a tv movie with the word "fuck" thrown in and some very unsatisfactory nudity. From the makers of the horror flick HELL NIGHT!!

Frank R (fr) wrote: A surprisingly decent film that accurately depicts the ease with which people abandon eir declarations of " love" and "forever" once they've seemingly found the proverbial greener grass. While not well done enough to seriously address the propensity of the populace to easily search for new relationships before ending existing ones or the backlashes that accompany such actions, the attempt at depicting the shallowness so prevalent in relationships today coud have made for a much more realistic film/story if it had just abandoned the unrealistic outcomes that were easier to depict. It really is too bad as this film could have been a statement about the state of love, and more importantly the attitudes of the masses today, instead of the unrealistic, cheesy, and mixed bag of bs that made it onto our screens. It's stuck in limbo as its not particularly funny nor dramatic enough to be enjoyed given the subject matter. Really is too bad...

Shane J (gb) wrote: You no somethings gonna be awful when danny dyer is narrating really badly at the start of the film. To the films credit the empty london scenes are at least impressive. But the twist you will figure out as soon as the 1st guy opens his eyes and gets up,some of the acting really is abysmal and almost everything youve seen in better horror/thrillers.

Craig L (kr) wrote: Nice ideas and a fun batch of effects. But terrible acting and an overall dull affair, mostly due to no real pacing or build.

Ryan K (it) wrote: so this is just another exorcist

Alvaro B (ag) wrote: Freaking awesome film!

BRiana C (de) wrote: While it is thoroughly entertaining, I do not necessarily believe that Inglorious Basterds is a good movie.I did enjoy the abundance of dialogue, because I believe it helped propel the plot forward at a nice pace. What I did not like was the blase perspective the movie took on the Holocaust. Even the entire construction of the german detective troubled me. Tarantine made him too funny, too witty, and too likeable. While I do understand this was a mockumentary of sorts, it made me feel guilty to sit there and laugh during some scenes.As far as arch, I could see none of no character whatsoever in the film. All the characters ended as they began, making them somewhat superficial and shallow. I did recognize some false foreshadowing with the german war hero actor. When he left the theater it almost seemed as if he had a shred of remorse for killing all those people, but any thread of hope that he was going to arc in any way was destroyed once he forced his way into the theater's projection room.I do commend the integration of the various languages throughout the film, as it in no way detracted from the pace of the plot. In fact, in many cases I had to rewind the movie to re-read captions due to the face paced nature of the dialogue.Overall, while I can appreciate it cinematic elements, this movie made me feel guilty for enjoying it.

Miguel G (kr) wrote: First 30 minute are unwatchable but you'll be hooked after that

Joe C (jp) wrote: On the face of it, it's a very simple premise: one woman called Lola must find 100,000 deutschmarks in 20 minutes to save the life of her drug-dealing boyfriend who's left that sum on the subway and whose boss is about to rock up to collect. Combining a lo-fi aesthetic with Hollywood-worthy thrills, Twyker created an extended short, repeated three times as Lola tries again and again to get it right. It's as fast-paced as you'd expect, full of likable characters, and perfectly balances arthouse sensibilities with multiplex action to create a film that's truly exceptional, and all the more so considering the small-scale organization that created it. If Run Lola Run is remembered for anything, it should be for the innovative people who could wring the best from a simple story and a tiny budget

Alaine B (ru) wrote: OK little adventure yarn. Early Christina Ricci.

Calib M (ru) wrote: Ok, i've watched Barry Lyndon just now, my thoughts:I have to say, the whole setting the movie is in, and the time and place it is set, is something i am not interested in at all, it reminds me of my horrible days in history class, the poch people, large dresses, neat wiggs, luxe paintings, silverware, things like that, that's extremely uninteresting to me.(Little nitpicking here: I thought Kubrick overused the zoom-out camera technique, and narration a tad-bit too much for my liking)BUT, i can't possibly deny that Barry Lyndon isnt a grand scale masterpiece, because it most definitely is.What a magnificent, mesmeric slow dance it is, not merely of death but of an ambitious man's inexorable decline.Famed for his perfectionism, I thought the story was fantastically written (as always), the acting was sometimes a little wooden IMO, but most cast members gave everything they couldThe movie had special and tender, but also powerful and emotional scenes, something i always like, the music was spot-on pitch perfect for the timeframe it is set (and i always have a weak spot for pan flute music), and as you, and many others said, the cinematography and the composition of shots were magnificent.Kubrick went to extraordinary lengths to research and recreate the look of the period, taking inspiration from the era's great visual stylists, painters such as Thomas Gainsborough and William Hogarth.Even though i dislike the whole time period it is set in, and everything around it, Kubrick managed to make it interesting and superb.Kubricks love letter to good old 18th century England.

Julie P (it) wrote: The premise to this movie *could* be interesting if the entire movie didn't work to suck so bad that you forget there is a premise at all. ugh.

A F (jp) wrote: awesome sound track. awesome everything.

Michael T (ru) wrote: Snappy little Corman gem.