The Bit Player

The Bit Player

A socio-realist drama-comedy film, it follows a seemingly usual day in the life of LOIDA MALABANAN (Vilma Santos) as she embarks on yet another shooting day of a soap opera as an extra. As the shoot goes on, we get a glimpse of the truth in the ruling system of the production as well as the exploitation of the marginalized laborers like her.

A socio-realist drama-comedy film, it follows a seemingly usual day in the life of LOIDA MALABANAN (Vilma Santos) as she embarks on yet another shooting day of a soap opera as an extra. As the shoot goes on, we get a glimpse of the truth in the ruling system of the production as well as the exploitation of the marginalized laborers like her. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


The Bit Player torrent reviews

Eliabeth S (kr) wrote: It was quite confusing!

Daniel M (ru) wrote: A truly bizarre film wherein nothing truly happens. It has its moments but they are few and far between.

Mikael K (jp) wrote: Lukas is in the final stages of transition from female to male; corrective surgery awaits him with only weeks left to wait. Moving into a new dorm, Lukas is assigned to the women(TM)s ward as he(TM)s not yet officially male. He decides to endure and does his best to fit in with the students, going out, having fun, awkwardly, but with determination. Things get confusing when Lukas meets Fabio, a tough-acting, handsome man who is the king of the local gay scene. He sleeps with everyone, retaining glory and leaving his companions with a social status of a "slut". Lukas- previously exclusively heterosexual- starts to fall for Fabio. Rick Okon does a good job playing Lukas, and an insightful direction guarantees that what is basically your standard boy meets boy? "story gets fleshed out and gains personality. The story is simple, but it explores its themes thoroughly. And it(TM)s good to see a movie that handles transphobia, hypocricy and general intolerance within the gay community, all frustratingly real phenomena. Well constructed, honest and nuanced, Romeos? takes what relatively little it(TM)s got and spins it in the smartest of ways.

Inta K (nl) wrote: nice movie to watch...

Dave J (nl) wrote: Friday, March 4, 2011 (1997) My Son The Fanatic DRAMA Already East Indian descent of more than 25 years while driving a cab builds a rapport with prostitute( Rachael Griffith) and his rebellious son slowly becoming a fanatic! Does a good job on how East Indians are sometimes treated when residing in another country! Showed some interesting things about what is happening in England such as how the cabbies make a little extra money while coinciding with an English brothel! At times the film dawdles too long on certain scenes! 2.5 out of 4 2.5

Edgar C (au) wrote: More avant-garde and experimental than surreal (although I won't deny how strongly the feminism present here inflicted a shock on the morals of the 60s), Sedmikrsky is a furious and hyperactive twist on the French New Wave in the purest Czech style possible with Svankmajer-like editing and visuals. Closely Watched Trains was conquering international audiences but for those seeking something out of the rational and common, visionary filmmakers were secretly emerging for presenting deeper ideas than the ones understood at first glance. 99/100

Josh E (br) wrote: (I submitted this as an English essay)Gregory Doran(TM)s adaptation of Shakespeare(TM)s Hamlet was very well done. I enjoyed both Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation and Gregory Doran(TM)s adaptation equally. However, I felt like this adaptation did the better job of staying true to the play. While it does put a big modern spin on the play, it maintained the story(TM)s original dark and grim atmosphere.This movie was much better casted than the other adaptation. Having a younger actor (David Tennant) play Hamlet seemed to better fit the character(TM)s childish mannerisms. He acted with a great range of emotions. While Kenneth Branagh acted the part psychotically most of the time, David Tennant(TM)s acting ranged from psychotic to tranquil, from joyful to depressed, from hateful to loving. This great range of emotions portrayed in a very off-putting way helped show the character(TM)s emotionally-contradictive personality, which is what Shakespeare likely intended.The minor characters were also very well casted. Gertrude was portrayed as emotionally troubled as opposed to old and bitter, which I felt added more dynamic to the film. Claudius seemed more intimidating and antagonistic in his polite manners, in a devil in disguise? sort of way. The Ghost of Hamlet was acted antagonistically as well. While reading the play, most often the reader(TM)s first impression of the ghost wouldn(TM)t be that of an antagonist. But the way the part was acted was very tour de force, and aggressive in a kind of Raging Bull? demeanor. The portrayal of the Ghost reflects Hamlet(TM)s fluctuating emotions, but also foils his lack of anger and confidence. Also, it was very smart to portray King Hamlet as more directly antagonistic than King Claudius, because it helps the audience focus more on Hamlet(TM)s inner conflict and less on his family affairs. I also thought it was very clever to make Patrick Stewart play both Claudius and the Ghost of Hamlet, because they were physically the same person, but almost polar opposites in their demeanor.This movie had less production value than Kenneth Branagh(TM)s version. However, I liked the lesser production value of this version. It creates a whole different atmosphere. Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation had Victorian, well lit settings that seemed almost too lively and grand. The setting of this version is much colder?. The rooms are smaller and the halls are narrower, giving the movie more tension. It also makes less use of lighting, for a dark and gloomy feel. It also gives the movie more ambiguity and suspense, while only focusing on what(TM)s important (example: the ghost? scenes at night sometimes kept the actors in the dark while lighting the ghost when it makes its appearance, then uses lighting to capture the actor(TM)s reactions). All of this helps to capture the play(TM)s true heart of darkness, which I really appreciated.There was a difference in this version(TM)s sequence of the play(TM)s scenes. Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation was very paint-by-numbers?, in that it reflected the original text in its entirety. But this adaptation(TM)s removal and rearrangement of scenes made it seem more movie-like?, so that the plot is more easily comprehensible and entertaining.What I appreciated the most of this movie is its well thought out use of different types of shots, which all had different purposes. The type of shot that I considered most cleverly executed was the found-footage shot. In this movie, it is in the form of security camera footage. I felt that the use of this type of shot helped to increase feelings of paranoia. My favorite example of this is during Hamlet(TM)s to be or not to be? monologue, where Polonius and Claudius watch him via the security cameras. This scene also made a good use of long shots (shots that last longer than a minute without cuts) and close-ups, which help the audience appreciate the acting more as well as create more intensity. A lot of long shots were used during monologues. The long close-ups in the to be or not to be? scene, matched with the found footage shots, created a really intense and paranoid tone that I really enjoyed and did not expect.Another type of shot that the director implemented that I really enjoyed was jump-edited shots. This is when two sequential shots don(TM)t differ in camera angle, and the subject remains on camera but in a slightly different position. Jump-edited shots were cleverly used during Hamlet(TM)s soliloquies to show sudden shifts of emotions. In one shot he(TM)d be maniacal in his expressions, and it will cut immediately to a shot of him in a sad and melancholy trance. This makes it seem like these two emotionally-polar sides of him coexist, and the intention of this was likely to mess with the viewer psychologically, which I really enjoyed.I also really enjoyed the varied use of static shots and moving shots. In Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation, most shots were moving, making the movie seem much livelier. However, this adaptation consisted of mostly static shots to create a better gloomy atmosphere. The moving shots are only used when something is going wrong. This helps guides the viewer(TM)s emotions. Overall, I really enjoyed this film. The varied acting, the gloomier production atmosphere, the clever execution of different shots, and the more coherent plot sequence all helped to create a wonderful adaptation that is unique in that it stays true to the play not literally, but through artistic elements. This is a wonderful adaptation that deserves more recognition than Kenneth Branagh(TM)s, so that moviegoers can be exposed to the play(TM)s true raw heart of darkness, rather than given blockbuster eye-candy that only captures Hamlet(TM)s words and not its spirit.

Manny C (es) wrote: Hepburn in her most under-rated farce, donning drag and trying to evade discovery by Cary Grant.

Carlos M (ru) wrote: A slow-burning Kubrickian exploration of extramarital sexual desire and jealousy full of symbolism, and it throws us together with the characters in a nightmarish odyssey highlighted by a terrific game of colors using blue and red to suggest menace and unconscious sex impulses.

Phillie E (ca) wrote: The late 90's rejuvination of the raunchy teen movie.