Alexis Damianos's final film (of three) came twenty-four years after his EVDOKIA, which many consider the greatest of Greek films. THE CHARIOTEER begins in 1941: Hniochos, a student, is captured by the Italians and imprisoned. In prison he learns the first hard lessons of life. He escapes and becomes a guerrilla.
- Stars:Vasias Eleftheriadis, Alexis Damianos, Thodoris Polizonis, Dimitris Tragas, Vicky Protogeraki, Yorgos Voultatzis, Vassilis Stoyannidis, Margarita Mandaka, Kostas Gazetas, Konstantina Andriopoulou, Paninos Damianos, Kleio Makri, Yula Gavala, Giorgos Marinos, Efi Papatheodorou,
- Director:Alexis Damianos,
- Writer:Alexis Damianos
The story of a Greek from 1941 on. Hniochos, still a student is captured by the Italians and imprisoned. In prison he will take the first hard lessons and acquire a life stance in the light of energy. He escapes and becomes a guerrilla. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
The Charioteer torrent reviews
(us) wrote: Really impressive how this story could be told with absolutely no star cast and minimal songs. Abhishek Kapoor, after Rock On, has proven once again that he is perhaps the most underrated director in the industry.
(nl) wrote: I was already predisposed to liking the subject of this documentary; for his publishing success, his efforts on behalf of the First Ammendment, and his love life (prior to the 1980s). That said, I came away from this movie with even more admiration for Hugh Hefner. After detailing a little on Hefner's beginnings in Chicago and the creation of PLAYBOY magazine, the documentary focuses almost entirely on his efforts as a political activist and iconoclast. In his time Hefner has done much in support of civil rights and desegregation, gay rights, women's rights, he published writers blacklisted during the McCarthy Red Scare, his magazine even published Ray Bradbury's classic "Fahrenheit 451" when no other publisher would touch it for being too controversial. All of these things were done quietly and with virtually no fanfare and little acknowledgment. It's amazing the good and just things one person can get away with doing when everyone thinks your only interests are publishing photos of naked women and sex. Bravo to the man.
(ca) wrote: i want to wach this movie online but i can't fine it just it traler.
(es) wrote: Life is beautiful. It really is. But sadly, A Beautiful Life never really shows us. Despite how hard it tries. A Beautiful Life is a Chinese romance film about a lonely, flirtatious materialistic girl, named Li Peiru, who tends to drink too much and is responsible for an affair with a married man. And one day, in her drunkedness, barfs on a loyal but lonely police officer named Feng Zhendong. He quickly falls in love with her, even after learning about her relationship with a married man. And from there the story goes. POSITIVES The only positive things I can say about A Beautiful Life pertain to the first half. The first half is such a good watch. Such a good watch. It really is. It is funny, mesmerizing, and engaging. I was very much caught up. It is just so down-to-earth. I cannot explain it. It is just awesome. Andrew Lau's camerawork here is one of the smoothest I have seen. And it completely helps in telling the story. Not many films these days do that and do it this well. So that is a huge accomplishment. And there are a handful of good shots that I found beautiful, some are included in the second half. So the second half has that going for it. The writing in this portion of the film, by Theresa Tang, is quite good. Which is typical. Asian writing is usually very well written. The writing here is another giant aid in making this half so pleasurable to watch. Whoawhoawhoawhoawhoa ... TANG? Excuse me, while I go make some Tang. ... Okay. Back. Another enormous praise to the first half, and to the film in general, but will have to elaborate more on in the negatives, is the performances. Every single actor and actress in this film was perfect. Every single one. And the one truly worth noting, is that of the leading lady, Qi Shu. As soon as the film started, her performance was outstanding. Seriously. Within her first very minutes, I was already thinking about how good she was. I do not know much about Chinese actresses, or actors, but she has got to be one of the best ones. If not, then the best. And if she is not, I got to see more Chinese films. The leading actor, Ye Liu, also throws down more than a pretty solid performance. It does not even seem like he is acting. I really saw him as a lonely, loyal police officer. Not a Chinese actor playing a lonely, loyal police officer. Which he is, but, you know what I mean. And he is not an unattractive guy, either. ; ) When you put those two actors and their portrayal of their characters together, you get kind of a "huh?" thinking to why they would be together, but you still want them to be together and you want to embrace them. They are cute together. And I do not use that word often. Now, I feel like the film purposely wants you to have that "huh?" thinking. I did not mean that in a negative way. Hence why it is in the positive section of this review. NEGATIVES Moving on to the second half of A Beautiful Life. And this is where a potentially amazing film gets tossed over the shoulder. Even though most of the plot summaries and synopsis you will read about this film will give you the twist that leads to this switch, I am not going to. Because it is giving a spoiler. It really is. But just believe me when I say it comes out of nowhere, randomly. And the film follows a downward path into typical cheesy, fake moments that never stop coming. Then they patch each one up, which makes it pointless. One after another. The twist would have been fine, if it did not come in just over halfway of a 131 minute film. If the twist was the core of the film. But it is not. Like I said, it is pretty random. Comes out of nowhere. And so does its preceding events. Like I also have already said. If you have already seen the film and reading this review, do not think I do not understand the point of the twist, because I do. I get it. But read the above paragraph again. It should not have came in so late. It should have been the center of the film that everything revolves around. About the preceding events after the twist, it is not only the events themselves, it is also how they are presented. The film tries to shove emotion and feeling into our chests. And I hate that. Especially when it is so obvious that they are trying to make us feel something. Let us feel something on our own. That being said, this is not just a selective or personal attack on A Beautiful Life, so many movies and films do this. So fricken many. And because of how this film does what I just said it sets out to do, it makes the performances look weaker and seem phony. But luckily, since the first half really established their characters and performances well, I did not let this get to me. Despite how horrible the screenplay got. The dialogue did not turn bad, though. Just the story. A Beautiful Life could have also used good cinematography. The film could have at least looked beautiful visually for not just one half but both. For any romance film, I believe, cinematography is one of the most important things, if not the most, needed to engage viewers and to enhance the beauty of characters, themes, and story. Instead, though, the cinematography used was the kind you would see in a standard comedy. It is just kind of ... there. Only to be there. Ya know? And that is all I really want to say about A Beautiful Life. It is just a shame to see they had a potentially great romance film, which we do not see much anymore, on their hands that they decided to throw away. Ugh. Two mangos out of four. Only because of its first half, really.
(mx) wrote: The problem with this is not that it's underrated, but that no one has heard of it. One of my five favorite movies: it's a beautiful, poignant and fucked up story of first love and drug addiction. Yes, there are subtitles and it's a little slow at times but you have to give it a chance.
(kr) wrote: oh this movie was good
(jp) wrote: On pure enjoyment factor this has to be Griffith's best, maybe not technically the best but more enjoyable than all the rest (with Way Down East being about even). The story is compelling as we watch the two sisters perils unfold and believe it or not but the guillotine scene kept my heart racing (so I guess you could say it is the earliest adrenaline pumping movie as well). The French Revolution scenes seemed a bit excessive with the celebrating and could have been cut down quite a bit to make the movie shorter, but all in all I actually really enjoyed Orphans of the Storm.
(us) wrote: "Bend it Like Becket"! I stretch, but Beckett Media is a sporty publication, although this film is much older than David Beckham himself, so the pun still falls ferociously flat. On top of all that, this is a religiously-charged historical epic based on a French play, so it's anything but sporty. Well, at least it's less cheesy than "My Fair Lady", and while that isn't to say that "My Fair Lady" isn't good, it is to say that this film shows why the Golden Globes has a Best Musical category, because you'd think that the Oscars would be all over this. In 1963, the Golden Globes, not simply nominated, but awarded "The Cardinal" Best Picture-I mean, Best Drama, and in 1964, this film took home that same sort of bacon that the Catholics are actually allowed to enjoy, so for a while there, the Jews who undoubtedly make up much of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association were getting into Catholicism. One does have to give these two films credit for figuring out how to make subject matters dealing with Catholic archbishops interesting enough to be the basis for epics which, well, are still of varying intrigue. Hey, "The Cardinal" was compelling, and this film is pretty good, too, although it stands to be tighter, and more original, for that matter. As a '60s period melodrama set in olde England, this film could have been either unique or formulaic, and it ultimately falls somewhere in between, having some refreshing elements, in addition enough derivative aspects to be rather predictable, anchored by familiar character types who actually stand to be more recognizable. Immediate background development is a little lacking, making the unlikable traits of the leads fairly glaring, and although gradual exposition is plentiful, the performances are more nuanced than the characterization whose degree of depth is inconsistent, but generally somewhat thin, as a supplement to the melodrama more than the humanity. Melodramatics are certainly unavoidable in this adaptation of a stage interpretation of 12th century English affairs of political, religious an human natures, and storytelling is generally sound enough for you to buy into the histrionics, but their familiarity makes it easier to feel their contrivances, which aren't even extreme enough to really flare up the intrigue. This olde English romanticism is no longer relevant and is plenty dry, and it would be embraced more if it wasn't overplayed in the form of minimalist dialogue, with plenty of dramatic weight, but little action behind it to reinforce a sense of consequence, and keep momentum going. As things stand, there's something kind of flat about the direction in certain places, for although there is enough inspiration to the storytelling and acting within this intimate drama to keep entertainment value adequate through sound intrigue, when kick falls, you really can't help but feel the length of this talkative and wandering affair which runs two-and-a-half hours. The film is a little too long to not have much go on, and with considerable competence, it engages through and through, though one's investment just has to be challenged by moments of familiarity, expository shortcomings, melodramatics, and pacing issues which threaten the final product's reward value. This reward value is ultimately near-firmly secured, because as much as the film tries your patience, it engrosses more often than not, at least aesthetically. Actually, the aesthetic value of this film isn't especially outstanding, but it is solid enough to play some respectable role in reinforcing engagement value, with Laurence Rosenthal turning in a conventional, but grand score, while Geoffrey Unsworth's cinematography carries enough sweep to its lensing to make up for some shortage of flare to relatively briskly defined lighting and coloration. Unsworth's grand eye at least gives you a well-rounded feel for Maurce Carter's art direction, whose orchestration of John Bryan's production designs and Margaret Furse's costume designs sells the time both lavishly and realistically, and therefore playing an instrumental part in immersing you into this melodrama which thrives on its intimacy. Sure, the intimacy of this drama minimalizes the scope of this pseudo-epic, making it hard to deny the excessiveness of the two-and-a-half-hour-long runtime, just as conventional occasions and moderate underdevelopment make the histrionics harder to deny, and yet, this study on how great men of a romantic time interpreted politics, religion, peasants, each other and, most of all, themselves is thematically rich, with high intellectual and dramatic potential to be done justice. Peter Glenville's direction has flat spots to really slow down momentum, but where it could have been drier and duller, its thoughtfulness falls over enough consistent dramatic material to carry a subtlety and grace that draw upon the intellectual value of this melodrama, broken up by resonant moments of delicate tension which secure the engagement value of the directorial storytelling. I suppose Glenville's direction doesn't hit quite as many missteps as Edward Anhalt's writing, although this script may do a greater justice to Jean Anouilh's classic story than the directorial storytelling, rich with glowing dialogue to sustain entertainment value through all of the overt chit-chat, while characterization manages to be just meaty enough for nuanced performances to compensate for expository shortcomings. Indeed, if nothing else makes this character melodrama so compelling, it is the across-the-board strong performances in a gifted cast, from which the leads stand out, with Richard Burton being unevenly used, yet consistently engrossing in his subtle, convincing portrayal of a man of sophistication and faith who respects and challenges the questionable aspects of a loving king, while Peter O'Toole steals the show in his dynamic, intense portrayal of a man of great power and corruption who is initially charismatic in his sleaze, but grows to be a wreck when his humanity is stressed to him through betrayal and a fear of his own mortality. These two leads and their electric chemistry are the heart and soul of this intimate epic of little dynamicity, but considerable intrigue, driven by inspiration on and off of the screen which make the final product a rewarding trial for one's patience. In conclusion, there are occasions of conventions and some unevenness to the depth of characterization, while melodramatics keep too consistent to be ignored in the draggy telling of an intimate story of limited urgency, but through grand score work and cinematography, immersive art direction, sophisticated direction and writing, and effective performances, - the most powerful of which being by the solid Richard Burton and the outstanding Peter O'Toole - Peter Glenville's "Becket" rewards as an intimate portrait on the conflicts between men of religion and humanity and men of royalty and corruption. 3/5 - Good
(ca) wrote: & he had a vey interesting TV series.
(ru) wrote: It's very thought provoking, suspenseful, entertaining.
(br) wrote: Not as good as Rammbock, but still a pretty good zombie flick!