Testament of Orpheus

Testament of Orpheus

Outside time and reality, the experiences of a poet. The judgement of the young poet by Heurtebise and the Princess, the Gypsies, the palace of Pallas Athena, the spear of the Goddess which pierces the poet's heart, the temptation of the Sphinx, the flight of Oedipus and the final Assumption. This film is the third part of Cocteau's Orphic Trilogy, which consists of The Blood of a Poet (1930), Orpheus (1950) and Testament of Orpheus (1960).

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:77 minutes
  • Release:1960
  • Language:French
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:artist,   surrealism,   dream,  

The Poet looks back over his life and work, recalling his inspirations and obsessions. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Testament of Orpheus torrent reviews

Morgan B (gb) wrote: I really liked this. Mainly because the design is so strange, but it also has some really eerie symbolism that seemed to strike a chord with me.

Matt G (es) wrote: A Richard Curtis about Hugh Grant in love with a American woman, WOW that's Original (Four Weddings & A Funeral, Bridget Jones Diary), seriously tho, this was a pure charm to watch and one of the best Richard Curtis films i have ever had the privilege to watch. Hugh Grant produces a masterpiece performance (like always) has his heart goes boom boom booming all the way like a roller-coaster for Julia Roberts Hollywood character, plus a surprisingly excellent supporting cast forming of Tim McInnerny (Blackadder), Emma Chambers (Vicar of Dibley), James Dreyfus, Gina McKee and a very young and funny Hugh Bonneville. a roller coaster ride of romance and Richard Curtis is a masterpiece of Rom-coms with this early one pulling out all the stops, truly amazing piece of art in the form of a charming romantic and really funny flick, you know what to expect when Hugh Grant and Richard Curtis join forces and this one is to be admired in all ways. charming and then some.

Filipe C (jp) wrote: There are actually a lot of interesting moments in here and the chemistry between the leads makes the ride somewhat pleasant but the filmmaking... there are not enough words to describe how indigestible it is.

Elaine M (mx) wrote: A small town is quarantined after a truck containing possibly toxic substances overturns, leaving teenage cable TV star Skye and her father stuck with the eccentric locals. Other than that, basically nothing happens in the whole movie- Skye decides to fall for the only single guy left, named Blue (no kidding), even though they hardly know each other and have basically nothing in common. Really you would think a guy named Brendan Sexton III (obviously the best name in the world) would be able to deliver at least a partially interesting performance, but he and Kate Hudson are so bland and annoying that any scene featuring them is a total drag. There are some real pick-ups though- the location for one is awesome, the script is pretty fun, and Casey Affleck is fantastic. Most importantly, if nothing else, watch this movie just to see Christina Ricci swearing her face off and blowing things up with bombs- she and Affleck really make the film. A totally decent movie that suffers fatally from concentrating on the wrong characters...

Graham M (jp) wrote: Pales in comparison to the 1978 version - the build-up is too slow for the length of the film, it gets good for about 10 minutes two-thirds of the way through and then completely falls apart at the end.

Maddy C (kr) wrote: The quintessential definition of a Tarantino classic. Reservoir Dogs is a thrilling and defining directorial debut for Tarantino. With the focus on four main characters Mr. Blonde, Mr. Pink, Mr. White & Mr. Orange you can't help but be gripped by a feeling of intrigue. The use of such brutal violence adds to such a wonderful piece of film with iconic movie moments. Ultimately it is based on a robbery gone wrong but rather than focusing on the robbery itself the movie focuses on the aftermath and the backstories of each character. As the movie unravels and more truths are revealed emotions run high thereby producing some fantastic showdowns and acting performances. You can try to hate this film but by doing so you will only love it more.

Michael P (es) wrote: Hardcore nastyness, make no mistake, the depths of evil traumatising scenes in this movie make the godfather look like a day time tv show. Fantastic acting from all of the cast, but the main aspect fo this movie is just how well it is made, the work of suspense and build up really resonates. The Psychological profiling is so sadistic and complex (credit again) that such a character is not very hard to imagine atall.

Chrisstiana D (br) wrote: I absolutely Loved this movie! Hot !!*

Tony T (gb) wrote: "High Sierra" was the first film that modestly pushed Bogart into stardom, a status which he would later cemented forever that same year with an even better film, "The Maltese Falcon". While not as good as the latter, "High Sierra" is still a classic gangster caper with Bogart as an old-time mobster freshly out of jail who's time and way of doing business has long passed him by. Essentially a man living on borrowed time, the movie detailed his brief fling at freedom and his attempt at every gangster's dream of the ultimate score to set himself up for life which predictably resulted in his eventual downfall. Working from a great script, co-written by John Huston, the eventual director of "The Maltese Falcon", Bogart and Lupino are both excellent in it as the gangster and his moll supported by a typical capable cast from Warner Bros. studio. Not a great film but still a pretty good classic with an iconic ending and a familiar plotline that has been repeated a few times since then......Rating: 7.5/10...... 8)

Sage H (us) wrote: A movie has to be unique in order for me to actually care about it in any sense and more importantly, to watch it again. I have mixed feelings about this particular film. I went for it solely on the fact it was directed by Pierre Morel, who directed one of my all-time favorite movies: Taken. There are a lot of similarities to Taken but not many present in this film. One being that John Travolta's character is basically indestructible sort of like a MacGyver or Liam Neeson who can basically do anything and get himself out of any situation. The film is also set in Paris. Another similarity which was one of it's major pros was the fact that the film moved at a very fast pace and really didn't even feel slow at any parts. I'll admit the first half of this film was completely boring, I couldn't care any less about the character's. I wasn't feeling Travolta's character or the other dude. But once the film reached it's climax, things got intense as hell. The movie did throw me off by a mile and took an unexpected turn and almost felt like one of those movies where two different people directed the 2 halves of it. It kind of even had a lot of emotion going for it at the end which added to it's major twist that basically boosted it's rating by a few stars just for that alone. Travolta's character is unique in appearance and personality and the new guy did an average job but overall Travolta and it's films second part direction earned it a go for me to watch this again sometime. In the end, I am actually really glad I watched it.

Gabriel Arthur P (fr) wrote: Under-rated and fun. Artfully keeps you questioning the sanity of Travolta's character. Free of implausible twists, a nice solid story. Great pay-off.

Claudette A (nl) wrote: During a period in Australia when euthanasia was legal for 6 months. An ok story line.

Liam M (ru) wrote: Eli Roth is human marmite, and you know what...I fucking love marmite. Crunchy, bloody, boney, delicious marmite. Roth revels in the absurdly grim, making you feel bad and doing it with style. This is a nasty little movie that I couldn't help but fall in love with.