The Lazarus Child

The Lazarus Child

A road accident leaves seven-year-old Frankie Heywood gravely injured and deeply comatose, when she is hit by a bus, and her twelve-year-old brother Ben severely depressed and traumatised ...

A road accident leaves seven-year-old Frankie Heywood gravely injured and deeply comatose, when she is hit by a bus, and her twelve-year-old brother Ben severely depressed and traumatised ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

The Lazarus Child torrent reviews

Lauren T (es) wrote: I <3 the show.. It was a good movie.

Anh H (es) wrote: uhm.. nope. Not a very good film on temptation of adultery. The best part could only be that sandwich with a perfect runny yolk, and that's it.

Terri H (es) wrote: No thankyou - Not interested.

Jeffrey M (nl) wrote: "So what. I mean everybody's fucked up. Nobody wants anyone to think they are, but everyone knows anyway"--Tommy (Steve Buscemi)Trees Lounge is a unique sort of character study, in that it doesn't necessarily revolve around one specific theme, but instead focuses on a culmination of them, including alcoholism, loneliness, angst, and sets it in a believable world. Buscemi does a great job as both the lead actor, and as a director. I appreciated how the film incorporated the characters, and gave us relatable situations, while still maintaining a sense of humor, albeit a dark one. In that way the writing is strong, having an authentic feel for character dynamics. This is helped by the strong supporting cast, notable Chloe Sevigny, who plays a convincing adrift teenager, hopeless infatuated with the equally lost Buscemi.I thought the story itself could have used more back-story, however. We never fully got an appreciation for why exactly Tommy ended up the way he did, and so we never relate to his character arc, or lack thereof, in as meaningful way as one would hope. The same can be said of the other story-lines as well. However, taken together, the story-lines do complement each other well. Ultimately, the film depicts its world well, we get a strong feel for the sort of hopelessness and confusion that pervades in it, while at the same time staying engaged with its enjoyable charm. Overall, it's a strong, finely acted, indie drama, with some interesting things to say.3.5/5 Stars

The Wandering Flame (br) wrote: Good cast, but was a hit-n-miss

Jonathan F (br) wrote: A bit slow, but you can see the care and craft with which it was made. The final passages, in which Gavino finally stands up to his father, are quite moving.

Donald W (ag) wrote: The plot of this movie was stolen for the movie Thelma and Louise but it's not as good. It stole its plot from Bonnie and Clyde. They just made the Clyde character a woman. Claudia Jennings robs a small town bank with a stick of dynamite in order to save the family farm. A bank teller who was in the process of getting fired for being late to work too many times joins her as her partner and the two go across Texas robbing banks. However Texas in this movie looked like California with lots of palm trees. Most of the cop cars in the movie were old beat-up California Highway Patrol cars. They started out in a cool looking 1955 Chevy. They dumped it quickly and used a series of beat up old cars for the chase scenes. They did have a cool 1966 blue Mustang. The movie is really just one car chase after another with stops in between to allow Claudia Jennings to get nude. The acting was bad. They seemed to be trying to copy The Dukes of Hazard TV show. The TV show had better acting and better car stunts. The only reason to watch the movie is for the nude scenes. The banks they were robbing were always in small towns. There was a time when small towns had local banks but after the bank failures of the 1980's most small towns lost their banks.

Kashan P (mx) wrote: Hotel Rwanda boasts two exceptional lead performances that give heart to a true story so horrific (albeit so amazingly told) it might be easier to pretend said story did not happen. But then the majority of humanity did do that, didn't they?

David C (gb) wrote: For all of its success at being something unique, a movie that consists almost entirely of two men talking to each other over dinner, "My Dinner With Andre" is also quite masterful in its use of some of the basics of storytelling and screencraft. It is particularly adept in its use of callback. One of the first things Wallace Shawn says to Andre Gregory when they meet at the restaurant, a long-delayed meeting Wallace tells us he has been dreading, is that Andre looks great. Andre replies that he feels terrible. Much later in the film, at a point when this early exchange might have been forgotten, Andre tells Wallace a story of the one person in a crowd who told him he looked terrible when everyone else had been blindly or artificially telling him he looked wonderful. Wallace reacts in his usual manner, with the pained squint and forced smile of someone who is not sure whether the person he is talking to is sane, and who is trying to decide whether to react honestly or with polite artificiality.The conversation between them is sufficiently strange to provoke that kind of reaction from Wallace, who for most viewers is surely the more relatable of the two with his love of simple pleasures like coffee and electric blankets and his skepticism of Andre's new age mysticism, but the way their back-and-forth escalates is smooth and comprehensible. There are clear themes established through early repetition. Nazism recurs again and again in Andre's dialogue, probably because its brutal enforcement of homogeneity is the antithesis of his utopian vision of complete individual autonomy. The theater is a recurring topic of discussion and an allegory for life, and the two men's close familiarity with specific directors, plays, and artistic schools provide a grounding that keeps their real concerns-life and death and the roles and performances of everyday existence-from becoming formless abstractions. The movie is a unique and arty experiment, yes, but the script is tightly-structured and that structure is adhered to even as the actors steadily ramp up the intensity of their performances.It is Wallace, as the stoic everyman, who has his foot on the pedals, rather than the more freewheeling and dynamic Andre. For a long time, Wallace's desire to avoid confrontation leads him to react with bemused, fearful, and puzzled silence to Andre's increasingly odd stories and claims of spiritual breakthroughs. This is the uncomfortable, strained conversation that Wallace dreaded at the beginning. Wallace's fear that the dinner would be awkward leads him to behave in just such a way to ensure that it is, through his non-committal or non-sequitur responses that only lead to awkward silences. But what Andre is offering him, he slowly realizes, is the chance to have a conversation that is honest and therefore not a chore. When Wallace begins to react as his own genuine self rather than as an accommodating version of himself, and to tell Andre "what I really think about all this," the conversation becomes more rapid, more elevated in pitch, but also less pained. It's a slow build over the course of the film until Wallace is almost shouting in the middle of the posh Manhattan restaurant, a setting which by this time is almost forgotten. The conversation, now two-way, has become all-absorbing.The editing, too, is an area in which the great care it took to produce the film belies an adjective like minimalist. Cuts often come mid-word or at least mid-sentence, and this creates the impression of an unbroken conversation instead of one achieved in several takes on different days. There are several camera positions, but zooms are also used when a story of Andre's is particularly emotional and his voice begins to quiver. This helps to generate sympathy for him and to overcome our Wallace-like incredulity. The timing of the cuts also works to create humor, particularly in the early going when we see Wallace's reaction to particularly outrageous pronouncements by Andre.This film is an unprecedented flight of fancy, but it flies by the grace of a deceptively controlled script and production. It gets down to the brass tacks of existence, not cheaply, but through the creation of two distinctive and likable protagonists. Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory are attentive to the needs of the audience and proficient with the tools of their medium. They are masters of art.