They Were Not Divided
The film begins in a WW II training depot of a British Guards armoured regiment where recruits from many walks of life learn to survive the strict discipline and training together before going into battle in tanks. There is a cameo appearance by the real Sgt. Major Brittain who was famous in the British guards regiments.
- Stars:Edward Underdown, Ralph Clanton, Helen Cherry, Stella Andrew, Michael Brennan, Michael Trubshawe, Rupert Gerard, John Wynn, Desmond Llewelyn, Anthony Dawson, Estelle Brody, Rufus Cruikshank, R.S.M. Brittain, Christopher Lee, Alvin Floyd,
- Director:Terence Young,
The film begins in a WW II training depot of a British Guards armoured regiment where recruits from many walks of life learn to survive the strict discipline and training together before ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
They Were Not Divided torrent reviews
(jp) wrote: I was aware that in the world, there existed the profession of "sommelier". It baffled me a little at the time, wondering just how exactly is it possible that someone get paid not only to drink wine, but to tell others what wine to drink. That, of course, is as simplified of a definition of that job as you can get, as I now know. Somm opens of up the world of wine, in the same way that other engaging documentaries have opened up the world of crosswords or spelling bees. What a good documentary does is take a niche culture and make it accessible to the casual viewer and that certainly happens here. Essentially, Somm is a sports documentary about wine. We watch the Master Sommelier candidates train tirelessly, take the field for the exam and pass or fail. Some have their Rudy moment and some go home empty-handed. My only gripe, and it's small, and a bit ridiculous, is that the music doesn't always seem to pair well with the film. Overall though, the director has chosen his subjects well, and along with great editing has created a well-paced film that is absolutely packed with information you never even knew you wanted to know.
(ag) wrote: Give it half a star as I didn't fall asleep. Woeful movie - won't be rushing to watch another Justin Donnelly classic!
(fr) wrote: Filled with intense action and violence, along with beautiful scenery, killing season sends a thought provoking message. Sure there were a few moments where one should have killed the other, but the two leads give some of their best performances and are provided with an excellent script. Worth a see!
(br) wrote: A cast filled to the rafters with fantastic actors...all in service of a terrible script. It tries way way way too hard to be profound and winds up being maudlin, stiffling some good laughs and generating next to no genuine emotion. Even the score beats you over the head. An infuriating waste of talent.
(de) wrote: One of my favs. Matt does such an amazing job in this one and the story makes me smile, cry-do the emotional rollercoaster!
(it) wrote: I never thought I would see hip hop and ballet go together so well, but they really made the story flow. Channing Tatum and Jenna Dewan really had a great connection that even lasted past the set to marriage in real life. Amazing movie.
(au) wrote: I loved this movie, along with the book it was adapted from. Strong performances from the female cast the film feels a little polished and lacking the grittiness that made the book so striking. Astrid is meant to shock us and maybe appall us with her rebellious actions, whereas due to length constrictions in the film the audience is given a cut back version of this girl's life and so never fully sees the life she exposes herself to. None the less this is still a great film about one girl's journey and the people she meets and loves along the way.
(de) wrote: You know that feeling when you just finished a marathon? You finished in the 10th percentile, but you don?t give a damn, you finished damn it, so screw your ex-girlfriend who said you?d never amount to anything. Well, I don?t know that feeling either, but I think that?s the feeling I?d have after completing Stntang. Seven long ? but highly gratifying ? hours were spent on the couch, eyes glued to the picture mover (but not in succession, I had to keep my sanity somehow.)Stntang is comprised of 12 chapters (to call them vignettes would be an understatement). The first six moving forward story wise, but following taking on another person?s POV. Until doubling back, and following the same people only in reverse. The structure borrows from (OMG!) the tango: six moves forward, six moves back. It?s very interesting, can only be taken true advantage of in a film of this length. It?s the only way you really get to know the characters.One such chapter in particular really struck a cord with me. Felfesl?k (Those Coming Unstitched) follows Estike (Erika Bk) around on a short tale of betrayal and death. Being coerced by one, who we can only assume is her older brother, she?s lead to believe planting money underground and watering will grow the money tree. She returns a few days later and discovers the money was taken, and used by aforementioned older person. Her face to discover the betrayal, without reason might I add, truly saddened me. Of course she can?t fight back, so her only way to cope is to inflict pain on a poor cat. And that?s a key issue in the film: bullying. The bigger powers take advantage of the little, for no reason whatsoever, only because they can. It?s quite reminiscent to the Bush Doctrine, except America always has a ?reason.? I?d never go as far to say that America?s evil goes as far as the Soviet Union?s, but it sure as hell gets close. I?d hate to digress into some rant about America and our perverse concept of American Exceptionalism, but I can?t help but to find some allegorical similarity whenever a film takes on politics. It kills me just to think of Dragan Marinkovic?s satire The Bizarre Country (1988, Yugoslavia). If you can manage to find a copy, I highly suggest that film. Anyway?It?s hard to be coherent when writing about a film you?re still digesting, but I do know this: Stntang is a film experience that can?t be matched. There are moments of boredom, do not get me wrong, but that?s more to do with Tarr?s need to stay stagnant on a particular shot, and all I want is for him to move on. I know why he does it, and frankly, commend his bravery, but after five hours, sometimes all you want is for things to progress. Save for that little complaint, this is a damn fine film, and deserves all it?s deification.
(ca) wrote: I watched long time ago and I am looking forward to watch it again. In my opinion it has some strong scenes but it is a great movie
(au) wrote: Quite a poor movie to say the least..... Certainly not worth the time to watch it.
(gb) wrote: I know Cassavetes' style is an acquired taste, and pushes the boundaries of cinematic narrative devices (thereby attracting lots of detractors), but I find his work to generally be sharply observational and endlessly fascinating. Husbands (his first of many collaborations with Ben Gazzara and Peter Falk), though, marks a point in John's career where his style reached and erroneously rammed up against its logical conclusion. His scenes take time to develop -- here, they take too long; he promotes the small idiosyncrasies in people to inform and push along his character development -- here, the moments are too small and tedious; he loves showcasing the suburban malaise of middle-aged men -- here, their plights are void of proper context, thus rendering their tumultuous behavior meaningless.And then there's Cassavetes' emphasis on improvisation. Most of the time, he uses it to great effect -- here, it seems like on more than one occasion, the silence exists not to punctuate a piece of dialogue, but to meander while the actors think of what to say next. Interestingly enough, Cassavetes decided to cast himself as the third friend, a role that is closest to a mediator, a relatively gentle middle ground between Gazzara's pent-up-to-the-point-of-explosive rage and Falk's snarky overconfidence. Together they are meant to convey some sense of stranded masculinity, caught in the crosshairs of the encroaching ethos of counterculture love and their perceived need to remain stoic and impenetrable, but they just come across as childish. I know Husbands is supposed to be his critique of unchecked masculinity and the misogyny that accompanies it, but as a time capsule rendition of men being boys, the film certainly has an inherent intrigue, but it is not one of Cassavetes' strongest films.
(kr) wrote: Too hilarious to not deserve a sequel