An affluent, middle-aged couple's uneventful lives are forever changed when they move into an isolated house in the country and befriend an odd, younger couple. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
To Paint or Make Love
Mariés depuis longtemps, William et Madeleine vivent en ville au pied des montagnes. Après le départ de leur fille unique, ils n'ont plus à s'occuper que d'eux-mêmes.
You may also like
To Paint or Make Love torrent reviews
T Patrick S (ca) wrote: Certainly an interesting perspective.
Dan F (nl) wrote: The British TV-to-movie curse continues, again taking a beloved and successful property and putting its characters into a situation far removed from what made it beloved and successful in the first place. Awful.
Bella A (gb) wrote: I absolutely loved this film, it was the most hilarious movie I have seen in years and I would watch it again. The only thing it really has in common with the original series is the name and that the main characters are motorcycle cops.
sandra j (gb) wrote: Brilliant film, very very funny, highly entertertaining, funniest film I've seen in a long time!
Terri H (ru) wrote: No thankyou - Not interested.
Philly K (it) wrote: Worst movie I've ever seen. I couldn't wait to leave the theater so I can get home and let the people know of this monstrosity to the film industry. It's the Frankenstein of movies! The plot was basic and lacked substance, the script was lazy and unreasonably vulgar. It's a disgrace to the idea of "motion pictures" that Thomas Edison conceptualized over a hundred years ago. If I can rate it in the negatives, I would.
Napaa R (de) wrote: ?????????????????????????????...????????????????????? 30 ???????!!! ???????????!!
Mike C (nl) wrote: A true masterpiece that gets more relevant every year. Michael Douglas's performance is as gritty and malevolent as riot-era Los Angeles once was.
Tony H (gb) wrote: flight of black angel, 1991
Sha Sha S (jp) wrote: wonder what this is about
Harry W (es) wrote: Said by many to be John Carpenter's scariest film, Prince of Darkness was certifiably an unmissable horror experience.Prince of Darkness is a film hyped by fans of its director but one which has received mixed reviews from critics, but either way I made an effort not to learn anything about the narrative to get an unpredictable experience out of the film.. Unfortunately, the cult legacy behind Prince of Darkness proved too good to be true. Being a supernatural horror film, John Carpenter takes the opportunity to play with his fondness for Lovecraftian horror. Unfortunately, it also means that much of the time there isn't all that much happening in the story. Prince of Darkness progresses at a slow pace and has its inexplicable horror coming out of unpredictable directions to compensate for its simplistic story and lack of character development. The narrative is very much structured in the manner of a slasher film where characters find themselves getting picked off in a series of murders. The story oscillates between this and scenes depicting other characters discussing satanic mythology. There is a lot that could have been done with the satanic mythology in the film, but since it is reduced to a series of conversations about scientific logic there is nothing but disinteresting jargon in what the characters are saying. It's enough that they're already one-dimensional archetypes who nobody could care less about, but the scientific jargon they discuss isn't that interesting. Prince of Darkness aims to combine scientific logic with the mystery of dark mythology, but the handling of all this happens with severe imbalanceThe film feels too reminiscent of The Fog (1980). The Fog is another low-budget horror film by John Carpenter which is both a supernatural horror film and a slasher about its main characters being picked off by a lovecraftian force. However, while The Fog offered interesting reasons behind the paranormal occurrences in the story, Prince of Darkness simply uses a tube of green liquid which is supposed to be a manifestation of satan. The idea that a church was suppressing the titular Prince of Darkness for so long only for it to finally break free presents a story with potential, but the fact that it's stumbled upon by scientists is what really makes it a boring film. We don't have any characters to connect to or worth caring about. In The Fog there was a conflicted priest and a terrified mother, but in Prince of Darkness we have the same tedious scientific stereotype re-written for practically every cast member with a different gender or race each depending on who is cast. There is the presence of a priest played by Donald Pleasence whose charismatic talents and status as a John Carpenter collaborator make him the most interesting character in the story, but he is given the least screen time of all the main characters. The visual experience of Prince of Darkness is one that acquires mixed results. John Carpenter is a master of working with a low budget, and given that Prince of Darkness is the director's step away from big-budget studio filmmaking after the commercial failure of Big Trouble in Little China (1986) it is another chance for him to reassert himself in a film with full creative control. Unfortunately, he doesn't support the film with an interesting screenplay and the imagery he uses to follow it lacks the tenacity of his finer works. The film frequently relies on simplistic Lovecraftian imagery such as insects as the source of its horror, as well as the sight of characters puking green on each other like that one scene in The Exorcist (1973) albeit without any kind of similar results. The cinematography manages to capture a nice focus on things and uses close-ups as well as making as much use of the limited location as it can, but the impact is sporadic. The stylistic ambition of Prince of Darkness only makes any real impact when it comes to the musical score of the film. The soundtrack isn't enough to save Prince of Darkness, but it does help to give the film its creepy atmosphere and remind audiences of the director's endless talents as a composer. Musical scores are never a problem on John Carpenter films, and Prince of Darkness serves as another reminder of that.Unfortunately, the cast also come up short on the film. Like I said, the only actor worthy of standing out is Donald Pleasence because what little he says in the film comes with a real terrified feeling to it. This is bolstered by the fact that his facial expressions are consistently in tune with the film's intentions. He is always paranoid of the evil around him, and he convincingly conveys that fear to audiences through a dedicated performance of silence. Donald Pleasence works well with John Carpenter in a third collaboration with the director that proves convincingly fearful, even if it isn't utilized to the full potential that it really should be.As for everybody else, there are a lot of forgettable faces in Prince of Darkness. It's not too difficult to recognize the familiar faces of Victor Wong and Dennis Dun due to their prior collaboration with John Carpenter on Big Trouble in Little China, but they don't get any interesting characters to support them this time. The dialogue wants to make them seem intelligent, but the lack of emotional material just makes Victor Wong a boring lecturer and Dennis Dun a pretentious playboy. Jameson Parker and Lisa Blount are similarly lifeless, but the fact that the film forces them into an arbitrary romance does nothing favourable for their credibility. And Susan Blanchard's attempts at being satanic by shouting "Father!" in a throat-cracking high pitched voice is not creepy in the slightest, but rather dehydrated. A cameo from Alice Cooper is the only moment of relief amid all this.Prince of Darkness has potential, but its sporadic moments of atmosphere fail to compensate for the plodding pace, annoying one-dimensional characters and confusing dialogue.
Sean L (it) wrote: Tom Hanks and John Candy lead us on this shallow, silly tour of an unusually volatile Peace Corp mission to Thailand. Both play wacky charicatures - Hanks as a snooty Connecticut socialite in the wrong place, Candy a naive simpleton with two left feet - and that extra dash of color ultimately saves the picture from sliding into the deepest dregs. Though the plot revolves around the construction of a massive wooden bridge to benefit the natives, we spend most of the picture watching Hanks's Kennedy wannabe struggle to emerge from his loathsome, self-absorbed shell, largely inspired by the unrequited affections of fellow missionary Rita Wilson. The pair would actually spark a lifelong romance during filming (they're still together today, bucking the Hollywood norm) but the on-set chemistry doesn't translate to anything special on the screen. Lightly humorous in the spirit of an only-okay SNL sketch, it's inoffensive and flashy but not all that memorable.
Hollie T (ag) wrote: Beautiful film, lovely cinematography with an even more beautiful score by Morricone.
Anthony M (nl) wrote: Moins bon que "The incredible shrinking man" ou encore "Dr Cyclop" mais a se laisse regarder quand mme. Une serie B correct...
Bryce C (nl) wrote: Not Bogart at his best, but he's always great, and this is no exception.
Carlos Eduardo B (mx) wrote: Como primeiro filmes....gostei muito...diversao...e ...acao...recomendo !