This documentary, set in the Lower East End of Vancouver's downtown core, is a pretty honest account of life on the streets in urban Canada. It is aimed at educating high school kids on the dangers of addiction to hard drugs and is the brainchild of a group of city police officers who videotape their interactions with local homeless personalities. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Through a Blue Lens
Documentary film produced by the National Film Board of Canada. Shot on Vancouver's Downtown East Side, the film follows interactions between police officers and drug addicts and documents ...
|Download||Through a Blue Lens (1999)||Other||46||45||693.2 MB|
You may also like
Through a Blue Lens torrent reviews
Narae P (gb) wrote: Just like Blair Witch 2, an insult to The Blair Witch Project.
Richard D (nl) wrote: Young Joanna moves to London from the country, attends art school, and has all sorts of Swingin' London experiences. You might characterize this film as "episodic", but that really implies that more happens than really does. Donald Sutherland puts in an early screen appearance as a lisping British aristocrat. His accent is terrible, but his performance is eccentric enough to make it work. The last half hour or so of the film is devoted to our heroine's relationship with Calvin Lockhart, which has to mark this as one of the first films to feature an interracial relationship and to devote a lot of screen time to it. I liked this film ... it's colourful, playful style and Genevive Wate's quirky performance in the lead ... for about half an hour, and then it's general pointlessness wore me down.
Paul D (au) wrote: Eerie parody of depravity in the unusual but effective style of director Jan Svankmajer, although not to everyone's tastes.
Andy W (it) wrote: At least 30 mins too long, this is a sluggish drama that should have got the ball rolling 30 mins, instead of 65 mins in. Byrne and Linney are good but seem mis-cast - they look out of place. The opening scene is great, but its a simmering pot that never boils. Imagine the Robert Downey Jr. segment of Short Cuts extended by two hours. Has a lot of potential, never really hits its stride.
Edgar C (jp) wrote: Innocence is an astounding and masterful animated film full of beauty, complexity, unparalleled action sequences and some of the same lovable characters we saw in the first entry. Innocence relies on the most outstanding animated special effects you will ever have the pleasure of seeing you, but do not let the visual style blind you.93/100
Mayank F (it) wrote: govinda's era...........a bollywood comedy classic
Kevin R (ca) wrote: Don't expect marriage to be uninterrupted pleasure A German spy has infiltrated the English militia and is in the process of returning secrets to Adolf Hitler when his boat is caught in a storm and crashes on a small island. A small family resides in the light house on the island and initially helps the spy. The wife falls in love with the spy, but when she discovers his background, their relationship is strained. "The word surrender is not to be found in the German vocabulary." Richard Marquand, director of Star Wars: Return of the Jedi, Until September, and The Legacy, delivers Eye of the Needle. The storyline for this picture is a nice blend of World War II drama and horror thriller. The acting and action sequences were outstanding and the film contains a perfect conclusion. The cast includes Donald Sutherland, Kate Nelligan, Stephen MacKenna, and Philip Martin Brown. "These planes are made of plywood." I have been DVR'ing Donald Sutherland movies religiously since reading a reference to his characters in a recent novel. I will say some of my favorite Donald Sutherland pictures are placed during the World War II era (Kelly's Heroes, The Eagles has Landed, and Eye of the Needle). This movie starts a little slowly but has an ending that reminded me of The Shinning. This movie is definitely worth your time and a classic thriller set in an interesting time period. "I am going to the house of death, said the swallow." Grade: A-
Ethan L (mx) wrote: An enjoyable ride when more musically inclined, but the more serious it gets, the more the film's energy wears thin. B
Arash X (nl) wrote: Fassbinder's austere & stark debut, Feel the coldness & the blankness & of course beware of a jealous whore!! I actually liked this a bit better than Godard's Breathless
Steve G (fr) wrote: Quintessentially French. One of those films where you're not sure if you just watched something brilliant or useless. The set decoration may be the most interesting I've ever seen. But the notion of the entirety of the dialogue being not much more than background noise is a bit much for me to take. Some great laughs, though perhaps not as plentiful as in previous films. There is a droning element. On account of the sparse dialogue, it did seem to take a long time. I appreciate the ambition. It has a great feel. There is a poetry to Tati's direction. The satirical element is wonderful. Tati seemed to have a penchant for mocking technology in a meaningful way. (The very loud fat American guy absolutely typified a certain kind of character, which I loved seeing mocked.). There are a lot of subtle things going on, and one has to pay very close attention to catch everything.
Mitch A (us) wrote: Maybe it ripped off Psycho, but it has much larger psychological and gender role ramifications.
Thinker A (gb) wrote: Edward Dmytryk had an interesting life. One that was blacklisted. Good teacher at USC too.
Jack G (mx) wrote: I think when dealing with such a cinematic tableau as Blood Sucking Freaks, with its fiendish goateed midget, s & m and torture, cheekily done decapitation, dismemberment and torture, cannibalism on the verge of an outbreak of the living dead and sexual humiliation, the framing counts. All of this could very easily devolve into a Hershell Gordon Lewis debacle and be tasteless with only the freak show element to it. This is a freak show (as the title posits), but it's also, primarily, a satire on backstage dramas, complete with the melodramatic slave-driving (and in this case that's not too figurative!) director who wants to put something spectacular on stage but has to put up with the drama of putting it together. With, yknow, flailing limbs and screaming stark naked women and ravenous pieces of flesh.I don't blame anyone who finds this reprehensible trash, but I think why I enjoyed it much as I did - and though it's obviously not laugh-a-minute stuff, there's a very healthy if completely sick sense of humor and absurdity to it all - is that the filmmaker Joel Reed recognizes Its reprehensible trash. He makes his lead "Master" (And an actor at that who is having the time of his life playing a pretentious psycho) and cohort little man the real freaks, and in a sense this is almost like an inverted version of Brownings 1932 film: a savage comedy on terrors and horrors, especially in the realm of shady show business (I mean, that IS where all those off-off Broadway actresses go to after all!)A good deal of it is cringe worthy and hard to watch - a tooth extraction scene got to me the most - but so much of it is tongue not so much planted in cheek but sticking out the cheekbone that it's hard to take it seriously. This isn't to say there isn't some convincing gore and body parts flying about, and certainly the preponderance of naked ladies in either total buff or dominatrix get ups makes it bona fide 70s exploitation verging on sexploitation, but so much is done knowing it looks goofy and silly. And yet there's even a scene or two, like when the lead ballerina actress under the spell of the master performs and beats up the theater critic, that do have some non-too-shabby camera shots and lighting, making a delirious mood (a second rate clockwork Orange scene as per directed by an actor that is a second rate Peter Cushing why not).Its almost no wonder then this was, I think, the first film acquired for distribution by an at the tome fledgling company called Troma in ny. Though at times perhaps more extreme than what even they put out - Kaufman admits on the DVD intro that if they were to acquire the film today they would have second thoughts - it's a ridiculous, self conscious, sometimes very smart, sometimes (no, practically always) very crude comedy of horrors (or horror of a comedy) that makes its villain a nasty but incredible presence, and some bad acting and mix of good and odd cinematography. Bottom line, it's better (or I just had more fun with it) than it had any right to be.
Reinaldo D (kr) wrote: I remember seeing this when I was a kid but don't remember a damn thing about it