The Countess

The Countess

A 17th century Hungarian countess embarks on a murderous undertaking, with the belief that bathing in the blood of virgins will preserve her beauty.

A 17th century Hungarian countess embarks on a murderous undertaking, with the belief that bathing in the blood of virgins will preserve her beauty. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


The Countess torrent reviews

Eric H (mx) wrote: This Laos set effort balances crowdpleasing fantasy with a rich sense of place, and mostly pulls that tricky balancing act off. Australian director Kim Mordaunt was a former documentarian who spent a lot of time in Laos, and the film significantly benefits from someone so intimate with the country - the setting is one of tradition, natural beauty, superstition, corruption, class conflict (ironic for a Communist state) and dangerous unexploded bombs left over from 20th century wars. It has an affection for its characters, but features a bittersweet realism lacking in a couple of other comparable efforts (Slumdog Millionaire, say). The tale itself - the journey of a young boy trying to shake off his grandmother's claim that he's cursed - does have a fantastical feelgood vibe, but it's more justified given the complex and at times quite provocative film that surround it. A happy ending feels more 'earned' when the preceding narrative is one haunted by death and complex social contexts. It does come across as quite unevenly paced at times, and there's not a whole lot to any of the characters (performances are strong). Or indeed the main story: you've seen it before - most recently, it's reminiscent of Beasts of the Southern Wild and The Selfish Giant (that particularly packs a greater punch). But above all it's refreshing to see generally unexplored cultures and settings portrayed so vividly on the big screen, and with a documentarian's eye ensuring it isn't bogged down by the often troubling shortcuts many Western filmmakers take when dealing with 'exotic' locales.

Chan L (es) wrote: great art direction. good.

Briana H (ag) wrote: Love love love Nick but holy shit this was a big fat disappointment.

Vaibhav W (gb) wrote: A death row inmate's life is intertwined with his custodian's - pretty good plot if it wasn't for the extremely slow pace of the film.

Melvin W (br) wrote: Chelsea on the Rocks is a film that sounds like it should be an interesting and worthwhile film. Sadly, Abel Ferrara takes a setting and completely makes a mess of it. The film is so unfocused and unclear, that it ends up being story after story, in no particular order. It's unorganized to say the least. We, at times don't know who's talking or what in the fuck they are talking about. Unless, you recognized the person talking, good luck knowing who they are. There's no writing at the bottom telling us who they are. It's just endless "interviews" with people speaking about their personal experiences with the hotel. At one minute we will be hearing about the night of Sid and Nancy. The next minute, we hear about a guy having a stroke. Then we hear about the owner questioning a kid. Then about all the dealers. Then about ghosts. Alright a lot of shit happened in the hotel, I get it. Pick a fucking subject and go from there.I was extremely excited to watch this movie, but that initial excitement was gone after the first 15 minutes. For awhile, I thought the pointless interviews were just introductory stuff that Ferrara would dive deeper into later. Nope. He had no intention on letting the viewer have any idea on what was going on. He also had no intention on teaching us anything about the hotel. But worst, he had no intention on making a documentary. This is more like a lazy collage of video. Pointless.I respect Ferrara as a filmmaker. He's made some worthwhile movies in his career, but I have absolutely no idea what he was doing here. He's got an endless amount of people talking about their experiences, from Ethan Hawke to Milos Forman, with no clear idea on where he wants the movie to go or what he wants to say about it. An interesting subject is completely slaughtered here, and is instead made into a boring stream of consciousness.

Martin S (us) wrote: Hmm what can I say about this movie, its a 4 hour gore-mentary. The director has been kind enouh to divide it up in two parts,so you only have to watch 2 hours of torture in one sitting. It is supposed to document some of the experiments performed by the japanese unit 731 during WW2, but ends up just being a celebration of the directors fetish for cruel sadistic torture. So yeah I recomend it as a date movie.

Reini U (de) wrote: It should be forbidden for over-simplistic films to cite the geniously ending song of Funny Ha Ha by Bishop Allen. What an annoyance

Jackie W (ca) wrote: Surprisinly I actually liked it. No Kidding. It got kinda annoying at times with Eloise but the movie overall was very funny. I like her friend Bill. His a good actor. Julia Andrews as always also did a great job with her actoring. She was very funny. Good Christmas movie!

Lyle M (de) wrote: It's about as good as a modern day western gets..

Murder C (au) wrote: A mysterious collector of stories named Aaron Quicksilver (Christopher Lloyd) tells two stories of horror in this TV movie set in the style of "Tales From The Crypt" and "Creepshow". The first story (written by Stephen King) involves a man, a hitchhiker and some walking chattering teeth and is pretty boring and just ridiculous, however it's the second story (written by Clive Barker) that is so over the top ridiculous that it gives this movie it's rating, I mean it's about human hands rebelling against the rest of the human body! You have to see it to believe it, and you should see this so you know why you shouldn't see it.

Adam B (gb) wrote: Amazingly awesome and super radical!!! This is also Nicole Kidman's best movie. What a flick to watch on MLK day.

Jordan H (ru) wrote: Great movie with great sword fighting scenes. However the story is a little hard to follow and the ending is not the greatest.

Mvelase P (ru) wrote: This little unassuming film wil knock you back with how funny it is. Though not an entirely original story it does it's job and entertains, and who won't finish this movie not loving "the mane with no nose," punchy Maxy Stoltz?

kingmason7 (ca) wrote: raw and brutal. independant film must-have with a indy film darling in Harvey Keitel.

John R (au) wrote: 110101: Great mix of classic western actors and decent cinematography makes for a fun film. Could do without the Charlton Heston posing. His acting is really stiff.