Van Gogh

Van Gogh

Oscar Winning 1948 short film by Alain Resnais, not to be confused with either the Short 1966 TV doc or the 1991 feature film by Maurice Pialat, both of which shared the same name.

Oscar Winning 1948 short film by Alain Resnais, not to be confused with either the Short 1966 TV doc or the 1991 feature film by Maurice Pialat, both of which shared the same name. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Van Gogh torrent reviews

Alyson S (it) wrote: Wooooow! This one will break your heart in the kindest possible way. Many of you will likely see shades of your parents or grandparents, which makes it all the more endearing, and heartbreaking. The ending is NOT sad, I promise. Highly recommend. (On Netflix now.)

ka (gb) wrote: some ideas were good, but really not executed well...

Grey S (us) wrote: no character development, strangely low amounts of screen-time for major characters and negative stereotypes EVERYWHERE. despite being a movie for gamers, the research seems to have just been a day of CoD; and hearing about Second life from a stereotypical CoD player. gamer fails to deliver pretty much everywhere, save your time and your money, keep away.

John A (br) wrote: TV Movie Which Contains 2 Short Stories, One Based On A Stephen King Short, The Other Being Based On A Clive Barker Short. But This Was A Ham Of A Movie. Which You Would Expect For A TV Offering. The Stephen King Short Was The One Thatb Let This TV Film Down As Well As The Stupid Wrapparound/Bookend Type Story Which Starred Christopher Lloyd.

Michelle R (fr) wrote: If only we could be so lucky

Nicolas M (ag) wrote: Un film d'horreur a skecthes assez peu efficace... Bonne interpretation toutefois.

Stefan G (au) wrote: Although this film directly continues from the story of the first Hammer Horror Dracula film, and generally presents itself in the same style, this by-the-numbers sequel does little to arouse the same thrills that made the first film great in the first place. In this regard, the biggest problem is that the story and characters seem so haphazardly assembled that it kind of takes out of the film. Then again, horror films have rarely been accused of being clever. At the very least, the film moves at such a balanced pace that the film doesn't feel like too much of a contrived, overcooked sequel. The characters (barring Dracula) may be uninspired, but their performances actually make up for plenty of the flaws in the film's writing. The film does, however, have quite a palatable atmosphere, and the gothic visuals, once again, are used to good effect. However, that doesn't make up for a general lack of satisfying thrills from a generally tired and almost incoherent sequel that seems to only exist for the purpose of capitalizing on the then-lucrative Hammer formula.

Elton G (es) wrote: The first Harry Potter movie takes the familiar elements from the book but doesn't forget to be a good film. The perfect casting is a plus, as well as great setpieces. 7.8/10