The Saint of Fort Washington

The Saint of Fort Washington

Matthew, a young schizophrenic, finds himself out on the street when a slumlord tears down his apartment building. Soon, he finds himself in even more dire straits, when he is threatened by Little Leroy, a thug who is one of the tough denizens of the Fort Washington Shelter for Men. He reaches out to Jerry, a streetwise combat veteran, who takes Matthew under his wing as a son. The relationship between these two men grows as they attempt to conquer the numbing isolation of homelessness.

Matthew, a young schizophrenic, finds himself out on the street when a slumlord tears down his apartment building. Soon, he finds himself in even more dire straits, when he is threatened by... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

The Saint of Fort Washington torrent reviews

Julia B (ca) wrote: Absolute waste of time, could only watch first 30 min hoping it is going to get better....nope,did not happen.Boring,boring,boring!

Kenneth B (ru) wrote: Five Across The Eyes is a film which was made for a reported $4,000 and boy does it show. The premise is that there are 5 teenage girls driving home from a football match but they're lost and they bump into someones car, they then panic and drive off without leaving so much as a note or even attempting to finding the owner. Once he discovers what has happened, the owner of said car is none too happy and decides to chase them down.It sounds like a workable enough concept however this film is so fundamentally flawed in pretty much every department that FATE (hows that for an acronym?) is barely even watchable. I'll acknowledge the minuscule budget again however if I were to go out and make an incomprehensible film with my camcorder and then sent it out to various film-festivals I wouldn't expect anything less than a critical pasting regardless of how much money I did or didn't spend or how many 'non-actors' I used, so here goes. First thing's first, the dialogue is terrible, I was going to write down some examples but there became too many. It's just inane, as are the characters, and I used that term loosely. Of course the dialogue isn't helped by the pitiful acting on display. These are 'non-actors' and from what I can see only one of the cast has actually done film work since this, according to the imdb anyway. The reasons for this are clear to anyone who has seen this film, however just because they are 'non-actors' it doesn't mean their acting has to be quite this atrocious. When I was a student I made a short film and I used drama students, the result was that a cast of technically 'non-actors' could actually act quite well and thus it was probably the strongest aspect of my rather clunky ten minute film. What I am saying is there just isn't any excuse. It's not even like there are any redeeming features, the camera work is so shockingly bad that it is nearly impossible to see what is going on. It is a grainy handheld camera which spends most of the film inside the car. In theory this should help to create a claustrophobic atmosphere but it is nothing more than an annoyance. There are scenes where they girls think they are free of danger only to see a set of headlights appear in the distance. It's a good job that we are informed of this verbally because the picture is so grainy and downright indistinguishable that we cant see anything for ourselves. In fact it's difficult enough to make out the people in the car let alone whatever might be outside. Then there are the scenes when the girls are panicking within the car and the camera goes berserk pointing indiscriminately in every direction regardless of where the 'action' is actually happening. It just sucks the will to live from within everyone who is watching it, well mine anyway.The fact that this film has a DVD release which appears to be the on par with any other 'horror' films is terribly misleading too. There are various kudos from supposedly respectable websites and references to certain nominations for certain awards, the Razzies no doubt. This is nothing more than a hodgepodge and is one of the most excruciating films I've ever experienced. Avoid, if only for your own sanity.

Susan B (ca) wrote: Essential viewing. Unfortunately, it left me with little hope that corruption on this level can be stopped or controlled.

Ray D (it) wrote: Beautifully-shot, terrifically-staged succession of scenes where people take breaks from being awful to one another to make art, proving that Anthony Hopkins can play a self-involved lout just as well as he can a cannibalistic serial killer. The film raises a sort of interesting question--how much does the way in which we view an artist, and their personality defects, impact the way we view their art? Then again, there are other, better movies that raise the same questions in a more compelling way.

Charlie G (us) wrote: Funny kinda. Nice twist. Loved the ending.

Rob H (jp) wrote: cute idea with Shelly Long doing a credible comedic stint

Ryan B (nl) wrote: This film is very interesting to watch. However, I'm not completely sure what everything means quite yet. On the one hand, this seems like a film that would be loaded with symbolism and deeper meanings, but in an interview, Werner Herzog, the director of the film, said he is incapable of seeing things in terms of symbols or metaphors. This is really confusing because the film is very vague and doesn't tell you exactly what it means. I'm not saying this is a bad thing at all, I love films with deep symbolic meanings that you need to interpret yourself, but after hearing what Herzog said, that makes me feel like the film is just vague for the sake of being vague. I am not at all passing this off as bad, I enjoyed the film quite a bit, but this is one of the films I need to re-examine in a few years when I've had time to let it sit.

Cyrus F (us) wrote: The first one with gritty seventies new york, and the godard film that kept proclaiming it was made in cuba are worth of the price of admission. The two hippy freakouts are far less interesting.

Zhanyi J (de) wrote: Another heart breaker from Mizoguchi. Words can't describe the social impact this film has on Japan. Go watch it yourself.

John R (us) wrote: 161009: Viewed the trailer. The scene of the train crossing a flaming bridge is cause enough to seek out this film.

Scott R (ag) wrote: Interesting story about Indian colonization by the British, based on Kiplings poem. It was lighthearted with grant and co. Then fighting the forces of the heathen religion of Kali. But it was cheesy and melodramatic. I did smile a bit though.

Carlos M (ag) wrote: Although technically competent and with wonderful performances by Hopkins and Hounsou (who should have been nominated for an Oscar too), this is a bloated and misstructured film that has an alarming tendency to give in to melodrama and is not as strong as it could be.

Orlok W (us) wrote: No, *I* am Ensign Albert Poopdecker, RN.......