In August 1991 a failed coup d'état attempt (known as Putsch) led by a group of hard-core communists in Moscow, ended the 70-year-long rule of the Soviets. The USSR collapsed soon after, and the tricolour of the sovereign Russian Federation flew over Kremlin. As president Gorbachev was detained by the coup leaders, state-run TV and radio channels, usurped by the putschists, broadcast Tchaikovsky's "Swan Lake" instead of news bulletins, and crowds of protestors gathered around Moscow's White House, preparing to defend the stronghold of democratic opposition led by Boris Yeltsin, in the city of Leningrad thousands of confused, scared, excited and desperate people poured into the streets to become a part of the event, which was supposed to change their destiny. A quarter of a century later, Sergei Loznitsa revisits the dramatic moments of August 1991 and casts an eye on the event which was hailed worldwide as the birth of "Russian democracy".
In August 1991 a failed coup d'état attempt (known as Putsch) led by a group of hard-core communists in Moscow| ended the 70-year-long rule of the Soviets. The USSR
collapsed soon after| and the tricolour of the sovereign Russian Federation flew over Kremlin. As president Gorbachev was detained by the coup leaders| state-run TV
and radio channels| usurped by the putschists| broadcast Tchaikovsky's "Swan Lake" instead of news bulletins| and crowds of protestors gathered around Moscow's White
House| preparing to defend the stronghold of democratic opposition led by Boris Yeltsin| in the city of Leningrad thousands of confused| scared| excited and
desperate people poured into the streets to become a part of the event| which was supposed to change their destiny. A quarter of a century later| Sergei Loznitsa
revisits the dramatic moments of August 1991 and casts an eye on the event which was hailed worldwide as the birth of "Russian democracy". What really happened in
Russia in August 1991... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
The Event torrent reviews
(fr) wrote: I think this franchise is better than MI More organic.
(gb) wrote: It's good movie to watch
(kr) wrote: what can i say sweet and funny=] got to love the franch
(nl) wrote: this is pure crap and there is no reason for Val Kilmers name to be on the cover but to get the 5 people that actually saw it to agree to see it.
(mx) wrote: wat can say but a great movie in my top 10 some say about tha acting w3ll they should shut up bcause they don't kno how 2 act daddy yankee iz 1 of my heros n' has inspired 2 write songs yes reggaeton iz at tha top i could relate 2 this movie and if i do become a reggaeton artist it'z all bcause of daddy i'll represent all of el salvador and i'm half puerto rican
(de) wrote: i heard some critics saying that the characters of this movie were pretty unlikeable.. well, they might be called amateurs but not that and besides, they acted as inmates so they were supposed to be "unlikeable".. except some flaws in the storyline, i pretty much liked this movie.. and the location where they shot most of the film worked as its advantage putting the fact of low budget aside..
(au) wrote: Its only cool asset is Matt Dillon, and even then you're left to wonder just why he settled for such a low-brow feature. The only plausible answer is that he must not have remembered the time he did There's Something About Mary.
(fr) wrote: An outstanding ensemble cast and Paul Thomas Anderson's solid grip to intertwine complex stories makes Magnolia a must-see drama.
(nl) wrote: Sequel made several years later but picks up where the first one ended. Here, the children's behaviour is linked to a mold grown on some corn from the previous years' harvest but no explanation for 'He Who Walks Between the Rows'. Successfully takes Stephen King's ideas down to uninspired levels.
(fr) wrote: So ridiculous, but so much fun. Patty Mullen is soo hilarious and great in it.
(nl) wrote: My son said " now i know why you know how to Shuffle, this dance is old and this aholes are getting famous for something they got from this movie. Lmol. Miss oldschool dance. Love it bring back memories.
(au) wrote: MEDIUM COOL is a terrifying film.The photography is beautiful, set up by the man who would one day be responsible for the inimitable DAYS OF HEAVEN. The result is visceral. It seems so incredibly "real."But MEDIUM COOL occupies this bizarre, hollow land on the spectrum of cinematic "realism." Realism is an abstraction. Never attainable and, at least in cinema, never wanted. By nature, movies present a clearly fictionalized atmosphere where events, people, and influences from reality are inserted. MEDIUM COOL inverts that system by inserting fictional characters into situations constructed from genuine human anger and fear. As far as cinematic innovation goes, this may be the most dangerous.Wexler is fabricating reality. Our culture is so full of corporations, politicians, and interests trying to construct their own portrait of reality. The movies might be the most famous example of this abstraction. However, MEDIUM COOL's danger exists in its presentation. Wexler was a genius. How he thought he could get away with this film I will never know. He inserts Eileen into the climactic riot, helplessly walking against the tide of police officers, clueless about the issues and only concerned with finding her son. His confidence in such direction points to the horrifying fact that he also believes that history is a malleable material. By inserting a fabrication, a symbol, into tangible human danger, Wexler argues for his ability to alter history. That delusion wouldn't be so dangerous if the material were not presented as a veritable document of late-1960's violence and ethics. The counterargument asserting that all cinema is presented such only strengthens this point -- if all films possess the trappings of realism, MEDIUM COOL attempts to create one anew. Ultimately, the moral argument is murky and Wexler's left-wing fortitude is made silly by the bookending car-wreck. The film turns out to be a self-indulgent autobiography on Wexler, himself. He doesn't try to hide his Godardian influence, but it becomes trite and facile with the final hijacking of LE MEPRIS. His obsession with the power of the camera eventually usurps fringe cultural concerns like Racism, Violence, Political Upheaval, and Feminism. They're all there in MEDIUM COOL, but in the end they only exist because of the camera.Much scholarship is made about Cassellis' responsibility as the hero. So many admire his calm inversion of stereotype. He is the archetypal revolutionary hero. Unmoved and unshaken in the face of tragedy (the opening, for example), he is depicted as someone who lives for the camera. As footage of MLK is shown (who was shot that year), he says "Jesus, I love shooting film." Cassellis is Wexler -- a grounded permutation of "heroic" behavior. But with plenty of faults to balance everything out.Maybe the most interesting question is -- why Wexler? why 1968? why distort filmic tradition now? The answer might be revealed when Wexler films a series of Black adults in the ghetto. They make (somewhat garbled) pleas for Cassellis to get in touch with the "real people." What was the late-60's revolution but a demand for individual attention and the premature glorification of youth? In MEDIUM COOL, Wexler makes an impossible attempt to faithfully represent the little man. This brings us back to the terrifying message of the film.All of this is not to say that MEDIUM COOL doesn't have brilliant sequences. If Wexler wandered around with a camera for a year, I would be fixated. The opening scenes at the security base, the final riot prelude (whenever Eileen was absent), and most scenes with Harold are perfect instructions for cinematic suggestions of reality. The pictures are colorful, focused, and energetic and most of the acting is realized successfully. Indeed, as long as the audience has the capacity to understand the fabrication they are seeing, the photography does enough to resurrect the broken ideology into a formal revolution in itself.MEDIUM COOL is a unique study in cinematic representation. Many passages render and preserve a critical cultural paradigm. One only wishes that Wexler might have actually filmed the events without feeling the need to dress them up.53.7
(it) wrote: I saw this movie when it came out in 1964. I was only 7 years old. It is a good kid film.
(gb) wrote: Movies like that if it were made today would have a lot of stupid music and too many shots of the city surrounding the characters of the film you know? They all meet so quickly. I enjoyed that. Today you would need corny lines. telephone rings and bells before the characters meet. I know it sounds like i dont know what im talking about. well i dont. It's hard to review old movies objectively or whatever. I really like mariam hopkins. She was adorable. But a little stuck up. March & Cooper i thought i gotta see more of their movies. Cooper is such a little boy in a giant mans body. It's interesting to see romance and flirting and sex and all that in those times. Ok heres my point. In the middle of the movie they have this pact "no sex" and that was that no montages or silly music. If it were made today it'd be all about 3 people..i dont know im gonna go have dinner.