The Walls of Malapaga

The Walls of Malapaga

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:89 minutes
  • Release:1949
  • Language:Italian,French
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:dentist,   ship,   fugitive,  

. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


The Walls of Malapaga torrent reviews

Caroline W (it) wrote: nice movie good actors

Sammy M (es) wrote: So Undercover is a watchable film but fails to reach it's potential because of the bad acting and crappy script. 2.5\5 Okay.


THEdjpluto (ca) wrote: With Insidious, James Wan establishes himself as horror's finest new director. This is the stuff nightmares are made of.

KelleY B (mx) wrote: Futuristic, martial arts movie .. in German .. need I say more? Nothing too deep, but great entertainment.

Nathan B (ru) wrote: Let me preface this review by saying that I'm honestly not entirely sure what the intentions of the filmmakers were and so can't say whether or not they accomplished their desired end.As much as can I enjoy "informational" documentaries in the vein of Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock, I often tire of constant statistics, skewed interviews, and the voice of narrator which constantly attempts to jam their views down your throat by revealing the supposed "REAL truth."This film, by contrast, features no such narration. There are no flashy graphics or stats and very few formal interviews past the initial setup. Instead, the filmmakers tried to take a decidedly objective approach to documenting the events portrayed, thereby allowing the viewer to come to their own conclusions about the preceding.The basic premise of the doc is as follows: a church in Texas uses the Halloween season as an opportunity to open their own brand of haunted house, in which each room is dedicated to a portrayal of either sin-filled life of eternal damnation.For me, the movie was often very difficult to watch. It hit an emotional chord that was largely based on personal experience. Let me explain.In the town where I grew up, the vast majority of the population fell into one of two categories: honest Christians and dishonest Christians. The ones I call dishonest attended church irregularly and rarely discussed their faith outside the walls of the sanctuary. They would watch movies and listen to music that weren't overtly Christian, were friends with people of different faiths and different sexual preferences (and believed these individuals could simultaneously be members of the church), would drink, smoke, have premarital sexual relations, play subversive games, use profanities in their speech, attend parties, and even go so far as to read occultist literature such as 'Harry Potter' and 'Lord of the Rings.' Their actions and intellectual pursuits outwardly contradicted every word in the Bible they professed to believe in, and yet they still had the audacity to call themselves Christians. Their lack of integrity and willingness to uphold double standards was absolutely mind boggling. That is why I call them dishonest.They were also by and large what I would call very good people.This film is not about them. This film is about the honest Christians. The kind that constantly pray, attend multiple weekly services, speak in tongues, sing asinine worship songs with hands raised and eyes closed, regularly cry during "movements of the spirit," wear shirts that turned them into tacky billboards for the Almighty, not approve of any lifestyle that didn't match the one they preached (which they would, be it in the classroom, social event, or streetside), and were actually convinced that the Bible contained nothing but one-hundred percent literal truth (6000 year old earth, talking snakes and shrubbery, present end times, and all).Because of their single standards and correlation between what they professed and practiced, I call them honest.This is the kind of person I was. As such, watching this movie, seeing how ridiculous, frightening, and imminently dangerous the attitudes and actions of these people of undeniable integrity were from a third person perspective while still understanding on a very personal level why they did what they did proved very disturbing. Most of my current friends would probably watch this with a smirk, easily dismissing the people it follows as crazy. Indeed, it would be funny if it wasn't so scary.But the truth of the matter is that many of the people it covers are neither evil nor simple-minded. They are simply living their lives as they see best given the context of their view of reality. Though their words are full of hate, irrationality, and intolerance, they are coming from hearts that want to show what they believe is the greatest kind of love. I know this.I remember preaching fire and brimstone, trying to scare people into giving the entirety of their minds and bodies to an invisible dictator (college chums will be kind to remember 'Twisted City'). I remember finding my only comfort in a silent master whose standards I could never hope to live up to. I remember wanting to share that joy and salvation. I said I believed and I meant it. I've never been one who has been cool with saying one thing and doing another. I believe in singularity of purpose. I believe in honesty. So do the people within this film. That's what makes them so tragic and dangerous.This isn't likely to be a movie that is going to switch your mind one way or another. If you believe as strongly as I once did, you may very well see what the characters are doing as inspirational. If you're a liberal atheist (who, I have also learned from experience, can easily fall into many of the same intolerant traps as the people in this movie), you'll likely watch with cynicism bordering on scorn, but you just may get a chuckle or two out of it. If you're anyone else...who knows?So, in conclusion, I'm not sure to whom I would recommend this film, if anyone at all. Proceed at your own risk.

Dean M (de) wrote: Enjoyable fluff concentrates on writer Ian Fleming's exploits during World War II and his work with British Intelligence. Jason Connery, Sean's son, is quite good as Fleming, bringing the right amounts of humour and derring-do to the character.

George B (gb) wrote: A very unusual cinematic experience. Patience definitely needed. There are some really slow parts that drag for miles. But there are also some very interesting lines and sequences. It's the kind of movie that doesn't go away.

Aj V (kr) wrote: This movie starts out pretty good, but as it goes along, you can tell it's a poorly made low budget movie, and then it all ends horribly. It really could have been much better. I don't recommend this movie.

Lauren H (mx) wrote: My mom used to say that to me when I was little.

Bengt W (ca) wrote: Glittrande eskapism medan vrlden brinner. Det slr vl inte direkt gnistor mellan Rita och sedvanligt pinntorre Fred men filmen har tillrckligt med driv och underhllande bifigurer fr att vertrffa frutsttningarna.

Irene S (jp) wrote: another woody Allen film about two friends who decide they are going to be the last gigolo in Brooklyn. its twisted, funny and honest.

Greg W (gb) wrote: another lost review with flixter losing so many I sometimes wonder if I did review/rate it but this one I KNOW I did right after seeing in the theater-grrr

Jon P (fr) wrote: Gangster grit meets noir nostalgia in this claustrophobic John Huston chiller. The film is intimate and simple: sullen characters are stuck inside a creaky hotel during a storm, whilst Edward G. Robinson chomps cigars and breaks faces with words. Huston positions his stars and stories wisely, and squeezes every last drop of anxiety out of this sweaty scenario.Claire Trevor bagged the 1948 Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her turn as Robinson's drink-deprived moll. But it's Robinson who really steals the show, running rings around a handicapped Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall, and dishing out grimaces that'd cause cage fighters to recoil and weep.Key Largo is some of Huston's finest and most atmospheric work; a tense crossover flick not easily forgotten.