In neo-noir fashion El Aura narrates in the first person the hallucinating voyage of Espinoza, a quiet, cynical taxidermist, who suffers epilepsy attacks, and is obsessed with committing the perfect crime.
|Download||El Aura (The Aura) - Fabian Bielinsky (2005).[Spanish-Sub.Spa+En||Other||42||34||4 GB|
|Download||EL AURA [Spanish][sub,Eng][www.hunterbt.com]||Other||28||32||700.87 MB|
|Download||El aura||Other||43||33||4 GB|
|Download||El Aura Vost||Other||27||46||852.35 MB|
|Download||El aura [PAL] [Full DVD9]||DVDR||32||35||4 GB|
|Download||El AuraDVDRip_spanish-CNMX||DVDRip||48||28||699.94 MB|
You may also like
The Aura torrent reviews
Amanda C (de) wrote: A nice little look into the legacy of Jewish comedians. It's not quite sure of it's point, and it might not even have one outside of the impossible task of defining Jewishness. Fortunately director Alan Zweig has a great rapore with his subjects who are themselves interesting characters. That's enough to make an enjoyable talking heads doc.
Marcus B (ru) wrote: There are two issues that I have with this movie and most Chinese movies in general. First, the story flow is for the lack of better word, very 'choppy'. I don't know if it's a cultural thing or simply a result of bad editing skills, but sudden shifts in scenes without apparent connection is distracting. Second (and this is very apparent in this movie), it is hard for westerner without prior knowledge of the story to really take in this tale, simply because the movie assumes prior knowledge. There is very little effort to build up the premise and present the characters, viewer is dropped into the middle of ongoing story arc.From cinematic perspective though, this is a gorgeous movie. Beautiful camera work, lavish battle scenes and astonishing scenery. For those reasons alone, it's worth to watch this one. It's a feast for the eye, but prepare to struggle with understanding the plot.
William Z (au) wrote: To call this a "horror" film is a joke. My initial problems started with the unprofessionalism of the characters in their workplace. I cannot believe that Josh Peck was cast in a horror movie role. My next and biggest issue arises when they first encounter the man. Not only did they have multiple chances to either escape or attempt to subdue the man their great lack of effort and problem solving skills in this situation rendered them useless characters in a life and death scenario. The thin storyline along with weak casting and bad production design attributed to the ultimate demise of this film. I recommend it to no one and if you enjoyed this movie try looking deeper into the movie than just staring at Alice Eve the entire time.
Michael H (jp) wrote: Dark story about ambulance drivers and doctors, ambulance chasers and automobile accidents, and the places where they all intersect.A movie where hopefulness and helpfulness never go unpunished. And it's really good.
Robert S (es) wrote: If you want a movie with an over dramatic cast, poor writing, and the most ridiculous case of brain-washing then this is your movie. The movie starts off with extremely poor acting and very poor dialogue, picks up with a crazy story with a hint of a twist but ends up not really having one, then what should have been the ending where the main character is buried alive but instead gets unburied and has a little unnecessary suspense scene, then to top it off it ends very un-impressive and very un-dramatic. The sad thing is this story could have been very good if put into anybody elses hands.
Vance M (fr) wrote: This months movie review for August 2013 is Drillbit Taylor starring Owen Wilson. This was ok with some funny parts. Owen Wilson is Drillbit Taylor and he helps three high freshmen with a high school bully. I recommend this movie for anyone. I give this movie 3 stars
Elliot M (ru) wrote: Was dreadful, none of the actors from the previous Scary Movies were in this one and this one wasn't even funny. It had Snoop Dogg tho
Jason C (mx) wrote: This movie is confusing, it throws a lot at you. Almost to where it seems it is trying to confuse you more than tell a deep and interesting story. You also get to see where Jared Leto got his laugh for the Joker.
Stuart K (ru) wrote: Directed by Oliver Stone, whose upfront and confrontational brand of film making gave him notoriety. With this true story based on what happened when the Twin Towers fell, it could have been another attack on American politics, but it's not. This is sensitive and very suspenseful tale of survival, and it shows a different side to Stone, one he's been dabbling with ever since. On September 11th 2001, Port Authority Police officers John McLoughlin (Nicolas Cage) and Will Jimeno (Michael Pea) notice a plane flying low over Manhattan. McLoughlin and Jimeno accompany many officers to the scene, and by the time they get there, a second plane has hit the other tower. McLoughlin and Jimeno work fast to get people out of the North Tower, but while they do that, the tower collapses, leaving them trapped in the elevator shaft. Their wives Donna McLoughlin (Maria Bello) and Allison Jimeno (Maggie Gyllenhaal) struggle to come to terms with what's happen, and just hope that their husbands are still alive under the rubble. This is a very good film, and this isn't Stone talking down to us, he's asking us to observe this tale of survival. He could have done a dark expose of 9/11, blaming Bush's government for it all, but he doesn't. It's Stone's most sensitive film to date, and one that shows not everything he makes has to be riddled with anger.
Anthony G (au) wrote: Creepy stuff. Worth checking out.
Ashlee M (nl) wrote: Sounds cool i would c it jstu cuz
Matthew R (nl) wrote: stupid critic's do not know a good movie from bad one. This is a good movie! hits the right notes and very touching and entertaining. Maybe those negative critics need a heart transplant themselves as something missing.
Imane T (fr) wrote: yet another fantesy movie ..
christopher t (gb) wrote: good movie steve omg good job
Andy C (nl) wrote: A horror film that lacks patience in its storytelling and consistency in the lead performance by Kelly Rowan. Rarely has a performance stunk so bad that it destroys the entire production. They cheaped out on the actors and it shows.
Brandon W (ag) wrote: hilarous, u much watch this movie... and its a great movie to watch with friends. similar to clerks, but a little toned down
Ty M (jp) wrote: Better, but still boring.
maye (es) wrote: It has the feel of an erotic B movie to it. It was certainly not that well-made.
Phil H (it) wrote: Based on a play by Eugene Lonesco, this film is pretty odd if you know nothing of the material its based on. I don't know the play a tall so I did find the plot strange indeed and I can see why it was a failure upon release. This is a shame of course as all the sequences with Wilder and Mostel are pure epic comic genius!. Their facial expressions and body language is fantastic and show two men of comedy, one at his peak and one reaching his peak.I admit the whole film is pretty dull and uninteresting ACCEPT for the first 35min of the film. I realise that contradicts what I just said but its true, most of the film is rather bizarre accept for the long start up sequence which introduces the main pair. This start is sheer brilliance with Mostel on epic form and nothing less than a riot with his stuck up, vain, schmuck of a character who beats down on Wilder's timid, shy and weak 'Stanley' character. The best thing is they are suppose to be best friends but the constant belittling of Stanley (Wilder) by his so called best friend John (Mostel) is so damn amusing. Of course 'John' only means the best for 'Stanley' but at the same time he clearly enjoys his superior dominance over his weak frightened friend and revels in the fact he shines when standing side by side with 'Stanley'.The only other sequence in the film that's any worth is the second big sequence where Mostel transforms into a Rhinoceros...yes that's right, but you don't see the rhino of course, this is an old film. No special effects folks this is merely a very simple film based on a play and involves a lot of improvisation basically, that and a lot of imagination from you the viewer. If you like Wilder then you will LOVE this, on the same level as 'The Producers' but obviously forgotten. This also reminds you how amazing Mostel was and how he could of made more brilliant films with Wilder, Brooks and maybe even Pryor...but alas.
Phil H (gb) wrote: This was the first feature length Python movie, an anthology movie that was made up of well known sketches that the crew had done on their TV show, Monty Python's Flying Circus (the first two series). Apparently the main goal of this movie was to break the boys into America, introduce the States to their cult British humour. The film is made up of a variety of famous sketches that had previously been seen on TV but re-shot without an audience and, apparently, with a lower budget. Knowing this actually surprised me because I've always thought this film (and the sketches) looked pretty glossy in a way, the smooth transitions, the more cinematic approach and in some aspects bigger better locations. I don't recall the original series too much as I haven't seen it since I was a kid but I always thought the series looked way more shabby than this.Its actually amazing to read that some sketches or effects couldn't be recreated for this film because the budget was so low! This makes me wanna go back and watch the TV show to see the differences. Anyway, despite those revelations I've always liked this compilation of classic Python material and seen it as (almost) the definitive versions of the sketches, although that's probably because I grew up with this movie rather than the TV show (will somebody please fondle my buttocks!).Watching this today as an adult many things have obviously changed, firstly, I actually understand all the gags now, all the little cheeky lines and quips are loud and clear. Its amusing to watch and remember back in the day when I didn't understand certain scenes or dialog. They totally flew over my head and I only enjoyed them mainly because I knew it was silly and because my dad was laughing. Its also quite shocking and hilarious at how offensive this movie actually is in places, its things like this that, back in the day, were virtually normal, maybe slightly taboo, but generally accepted in comedy. Watching now and its incredible! obviously you'd never get away with it. I'm pretty sure the camp soldiers on drill would be lambasted these days, also certain lines are clearly racist...'did you see who moved in next door?', 'oh yes, black as the ace of spades', 'Oh well, there goes the neighbourhood', blimey!Its also funny to mention as early sketch which starts out with the narration...'In 1970 the British Empire lay in ruins, foreign nationals frequented the streets, many of them Hungarians'. Now is it me or, apart from the fact its Hungarians, the date of course and the sarcasm, this silly statement has actually come true! just replace Hungarians with Polish, Romanian and Bulgarian. Anyway, aside from the awkward, yet admittedly funny, offensive bits, there are of course all the main humdingers that we all know and love. The all time classic dead Parrot sketch with Cleese and Palin, 'nudge nudge, wink wink' with Idle and Jones, the lumberjack song with Palin, how to defend yourself against a man armed with a banana etc...Next to that you of course have the slightly longer skits that form small stories and offered a glimpse into the brilliant future of Python movies that had yet to be made. I actually preferred these at times as they felt more complete, obviously, like tiny comic strips with little tiny story arcs. In this movie the best of which are easily the 'Upper Class Twit of the Year' competition and the 'killer joke', which I reckon could of been made into an entire movie.But wait! who could forget about those off the wall and quite often gruesome little animations from Gilliam. These were a real highlight for Monty Python, I especially liked them as a kid for obvious reasons. The whole concept just added a completely new layer to the proceedings, the teams surreal comedy could be expanded and more risky with the use of adult cartoons, they looked cheap and tacky, but at the same time so very well created. The almost shabby, bare bones, crude methods used for these little animated moments feel very much like a precursor to [i]South park[/i] if you ask me, it definitely seems that way, but the fact that some of the cartoon animations (and the style) have become just as big as the live action sketches goes to prove how fantastic they were. Everybody knows a Monty Python cartoon image when they see one. All in all, even though this film could be looked upon as not entirely classic Python seeing as they remade everything from the original series for the cinema, and to some people that might cheapen or water down their act, the film has managed a cult following. Although, I must say, with all the various incarnations of their famous sketches, they can start to feel tiresome on occasion, I have often found one specific version of a sketch to be the best with many others missing a beat. Anyway being the first Python movie this naturally holds a special place in most fans hearts and its still an excellent spicy little ride. Application forms for lion tamer are available to all those with the proper qualifications only, thank you.