Un lugar en el cine

Un lugar en el cine

The commitment of three film directors used to structure a story that calls for reflection. Greek Theo Angelopoulos traveling from Athens to Ostia, the Roman beach where Pasolini was killed...

. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Un lugar en el cine torrent reviews

Jason D (ru) wrote: There's a lot of Nicholson detractors but his films succeed where i want them too. Shocking as fuck. However what's with the Genital mutilation fixation? Ouch. Thats the first time i've seen a murderer perform a male to female sex change. I recomend TORCHED to anyone intersted and i can't wait for HANGER.

Nicki M (es) wrote: Really expected not to like this, but it turned out to be a pretty good tv movie.

Ola G (br) wrote: John Hancock (Will Smith) is an alcoholic indigent with superhuman powers, including supersonic flight, invulnerability, and vast super-strength. Even though he uses his powers to stop criminals in his current residence of Los Angeles, his activity inadvertently causes millions of dollars in property damage due to his constant intoxication. As a result, he is routinely criticized at the scenes of his destructive heroics by Angelenos and condemned by the news media. Hancock also ignores court subpoenas from the city of Los Angeles to address the property damage he has caused. Each additional crime he stops raises the level of enmity the citizenry has for him, and it isn't helped by the fact that they're all aware he cannot be restrained. When public relations consultant Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) departs from an unsuccessful meeting pitching his All-Heart logo for corporations with useful resources that could be donated as charitable acts, he becomes trapped on railroad tracks with an incoming freight train. Hancock saves Ray's life, but he causes the train to derail and nearly injures another driver. Hancock is jeered by the other drivers for causing more damage, but Ray steps in and thanks Hancock for saving his life. Ray offers to improve Hancock's public image, and Hancock grudgingly accepts. Ray convinces the alcoholic superhero to permit himself to be imprisoned for the collateral damage he's caused and the significant outstanding subpoenas he's racked up over the years so they can show Los Angeles how much the city really does need Hancock. When the crime rate rises after Hancock's incarceration, the superhero is contacted by the Chief of Police. With a new actual superheroic costume from Ray, Hancock intervenes in a bank robbery, rescuing an injured police officer, subduing the armed robbers, and stopping the leader and mastermind behind the robbery, Kenneth "Red" Parker (Eddie Marsan), amputating his hand in the process to stop him from releasing the dead-man's switch on a detonator that would trigger the explosive harnesses the hostages are rigged with. After the rescue, Hancock is applauded for saving the hostages lives and preventing the bank robbery. The superhero becomes popular with the public once more, as Ray had predicted. He goes out to dinner with Ray and his wife Mary (Charlize Theron), who has previously shown great disapproval of Hancock, himself and his actions. During dinner Hancock goes into what he knows of his origins, revealing his apparent immortality and amnesia from eighty years ago. After Hancock tucks a drunken Ray in bed, he discovers that Mary also has superhero powers. He threatens to expose her unless she explains their origins. Mary meets Hancock the next day at his motor home on the outskirts of Los Angeles and tells him that they have lived for thousands of years with their powers, having been called gods and angels in their time; now in modern times they are known simply as superheroes. She explains that they are the last of their kind and that their kind are paired. Hancock needs to figure out the real truth and confront Mary about their apparent connection....The original screenplay was much darker. Apart from being a low-life, Hancock was supposed to be sexually frustrated because he couldn't have sex with a woman without killing her. The MPAA actually cleared a scene involving Hancock's explosive orgasm, but it was removed from the final cut because a test audience didn't find it funny. The tone was lightened considerably for a summer release aimed at a wide audience, but the MPAA gave the film an R twice before language and violence cuts resulted in a PG-13. Todd McCarthy of Variety felt that the film's premise was undermined by the execution. McCarthy believed the concept ensured the film was "amusing and plausible" for its first half, but that the second half was full of illogical story developments and missed opportunities. Stephen Farber of The Hollywood Reporter said that the opening established the premise well, but that the film came undone when it began to alternate between comedy and tragedy, and introduced a backstory for Hancock that did not make sense. He said it rewrote its own internal logic in order to pander to its audience. Stephen Hunter in The Washington Post said it had begun with promise, but that the change in tone partway through was so abrupt that the film did not recover. I agree to all this, as the first hour works about this down and out superhero (Will Smith is not 100% convincing in my book, but good enough as he has the goods to deliver in this sort of comical drama) with several comic scenes and a functional dark undertone plus the chemistry between Smith, Bateman and Theron is truly dynamic, funny and strong. Bateman is perfect as Ray in my eyes. The CGI or effects is not maybe top notch, but ok for being 2008, however as far as I know a second one is in development and I will expect much better effects then as a lot of things has happened on that side since the first one came out. As said the latter part of the movie isnt fully working, it feels rushed and not thought through. Theres something missing in the climax of the film in my point of view. I reckon "Hancock" had a great original idea, but the end result suffers partly from mediocre execution and a not fully developed script.

John B (it) wrote: The original documentary is something to behold. Here we see the emotions and thoughts of the man directly...a man who who has seen and experienced things that shake the soul. Powerful.

Jacob D (kr) wrote: If this is a chick flick call me a chick, cause this movie is fetch.

Nate J (de) wrote: A good, humorous, fun family film. Arquette is as funny as ever, and the cute factor is given to Angus T Jones (of Two And A Half Men fame). There's even a fun role from Michael Clarke Duncan, which looking back is sad as he was still so young when he passed. All in all, a great movie.

John R (au) wrote: 141221: Someone invested some good money and film making skills in this 6th edition of the Halloween franchise. I just wish I had the capacity to understand the story a little better. I've always enjoyed Michael Myers as the simple psychotic kid, monster that he was; not as some character in an evil conspiracy theory involving the history of Halloween. The KISS principle, keep it simple stupid, comes to mind. Found this movie enjoyable if only for the quality of the filmmaking. The Tommy Doyle character (Paul Rudd) was a little too quirky for my liking but always, always good to see Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence). Sad to see the film dedicated to him. Finally, did not like the ending to this film. Seems to just drop off. Perhaps it was due to Pleasence's death which occurred in February of 1995? Just speculation on my part.

Josh C (au) wrote: Hands down still one of the most bad ass films ever! I still want a fucking sequel!!!

DC F (jp) wrote: Well, they finally ran out of ideas and ruined Norman Bates. This movie has a reformed Norman telling a radio personality how it all started which is not only unneccessary, but embarrassing to have made this piece of dull crap. Even the climax was predictable and unshocking.

Byron B (nl) wrote: Recently read the stage play on which this is based. Not much of the dialog or interactions between the characters has been saved in this adaptation. Not that I thought the stage play was that amazing. Each of the stewardesses had names that started with "J," and there wasn't much that defined them as individuals. The whole play is restricted to one set of course, the apartment where Bernard and his fiancees live. I found all the blocking hard to visualize, and the housekeeper's attitude was hard to grasp. This movie takes a lot of freedoms, but I'm not sure it helps or hurts. There is no longer an American stewardess, but instead a British stewardess named Vicky. The German stewardess is now named Lise. The French stewardess is still named Jacqueline. Some of the poetry and appreciation of art by the German girl is now attributed to the British girl. The French girl instead of the German girl accidentally kisses Bernard's friend Robert when she enters and only sees the back of his head. The British girl falls in love with Robert instead of the German girl doing so as in the play. And the German girl has some sleeping medicine that knocks her out and keeps her out of the way for several scenes. I'm not sure why the makers of the movie would choose to make such changes to the plot and the stewardess characters. Does the sleeping medicine make it seem more plausible when all three girls are in the apartment at once? Do the filmmakers think the audience doesn't want to see the German character as clearly defined? Anyways, the camera shows us the airport in Paris, a restaurant, a cafe, and a taxi chase. Also while Bernard and Robert are outside the apartment, a new character is introduced. Pierre finds stewardesses on different schedules and provides other information for a price. When I saw the video case I was intrigued to see another performance from Thelma Ritter as the housekeeper, Bertha. All of a sudden the type of character the housekeeper is supposed to be became more clear. Except her performance isn't that strong here. The part hasn't been written that strongly. There aren't enough of Ritter's usual snide, tough as nails remarks.Jerry Lewis is more Buddy Love here than any one of his cross eyed accident prone creations. What I mean is that he is just a straight man to the comic situation surrounding him and Tony Curtis. There is very little mugging for the camera, weird vocal outbursts, or double takes with his eyes going cross. Once he understands the situation that his buddy Bernard is in he is more of a schemer, a blackmailer than the play portrays. Tony Curtis is very high strung as Bernard. He doesn't allow the stress of the timetables to do a slow burn as much, which I think works a bit better in the stage play script. There sounds like there is potential in the concept of this story, but there are many other farces that deal with characters who are secret to one another, and which derive more laughs out of the situation.

Kate C (ag) wrote: This is one of the few movies in my 1940's film class that 1) I hadn't seen before, 2) caught me by surprise, and 3) kept and retained my attention throughout. I wouldn't say it was an 'important' movie or even a 'good' movie... but its definitely a must-see for anyone who likes classics. Jeanne Crain is surprisingly diverse in her roles I've found. Her character here is nothing like the one in State Fair or the one in People Will Talk... yet they are all so very much... her. It's strange. Fascinatingly strange.

Ahmed H (it) wrote: Don't remember why i like it.

Bill T (gb) wrote: Sam Neill comes back! And not for the better! Actually, the film does provide the dino-scares you could want, so this was an enjoyable thing.Rewatch notes: I'm thinking I enjoyed it this time about more. Lots of fun dangerous Dino situations. Plus in this film, William H. Macy and Tia Leone are husband and wife. WTH.