Water and Salt
Ana lives in a little village by the sea, with her husband and daughter. He decides to leave for a few days. That seems to be the ideal solution, because Ana needs to finish a work she has been doing for a long time. But her concentration seems threatened when she starts doing her daily walks by the village and the beach: she saves a stranger from death in the sea, meets young Alexandre and Emilia, and her friend Vera turns up in her house. And then, everything changes…
- Stars:Galatea Ranzi, Joaquim de Almeida, Alexandre Pinto, Miguel Borges, Lúcia Sigalho, Maria de Medeiros, Chico Buarque de Hollanda, Clara Jost, Joel Miranda, Ana Moreira, Lula Pena, Jorge Sacadura, Paulo Belém, Carla Bolito,
- Country:Portugal, Italy
- Director:Teresa Villaverde,
- Writer:Teresa Villaverde
Ana lives in a little village by the sea, with her husband and daughter. He decides to leave for a few days. That seems to be the ideal solution, because Ana needs to finish a work she has been doing for a long time. But her concentration seems threatened when she starts doing her daily walks by the village and the beach: she saves a stranger from death in the sea, meets young Alexandre and Emilia, and her friend Vera turns up in her house. And then, everything changes… . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Water and Salt torrent reviews
(ag) wrote: Well this is not new, The Pentagon going mainstream to recruit its marines.
(es) wrote: Powerful documentary dealing with the world water crisis. A must see... especially those interested in a sustained planet for our children.
(mx) wrote: Basically a series of monologues, paced well enough to keep you watching, but ultimately without quite enough cohesion. It was kind of fun identifying the who's who of not so famous actors that paraded across the screen. I can't decide if Julianne Nicholson's role as the interviewer/observer was necessary or not.
(mx) wrote: Yes. You can do better,,,Making a film is diffcult and does take a budget... this did not have one..
(es) wrote: The problem with Breach is that you know how it has to end. If you don't know the story of FBI agent Robert Hanssen, and you don't know that he's currently serving a life sentence after being convicted of spying for Russia (and the former Soviet Union) for over two decades, then don't worry, as the film's opening scene is going to show you. We find out about the conviction, and from that point on, we know the exact road that the film has to take, thus removing any tension that there could be.At least, that's what I thought would be the case. Admittedly, there are some scenes in which the tension is zapped because of us knowing the conclusion, but there are just as many that still manage to make you breathe slower, make your skin crawl, and raise your heartbeat. This is a very engaging and, at times, thrilling spy drama. It's way more about the journey -- how Hanssen was captured and how he slipped in order to allow for that to happen -- than the destination, but if you want a good movie about the case, director Billy Ray has given you one.The film begins with a youthful FBI employee, Eric O'Neill (Ryan Phillippe), hoping to one day become an agent. That's the end goal, he thinks, and once he gets there, life will be perfect. He gets pulled off his low-key job in order to become the "clerk" for Robert Hanssen (Chris Cooper). Hanssen, according to Eric's superior (an underused Laura Linney), has some sexual misconduct that, if leaked, would cause a major embarrassment for the Bureau. If only he knew what was really going on.As you likely know -- or if you didn't, should know by the opening paragraph -- Hanssen wasn't really being looked at for sexual deviancy; he was under investigation for twenty years of treason (although the sexual stuff is also true, we're assured, in case we were wondering). However, the FBI has no proof, and once Hanssen retires in two months, they'll have no way to charge him. They need to do this now, and Eric is going to be the one to get him to slip up, just once, so that he can be taken down. And if he does, he'll probably be promoted straight to agent.You know that, eventually, Hanssen slips up and is caught. You want to know how, and why, and if he does so because Eric simply outsmarts him, or because he's finally gone crazy. Or perhaps he just grows to like Eric so much that, despite seeing through the ruse of "clerk," allows Eric to bring him down. I'm still not even entirely sure what the master spy was thinking or the "why" behind it all, and I've seen Breach more than once.The reason for not quite knowing is based partly on Cooper's magnificent performance, and partly because of the way the character was written. Cooper plays Hanssen with all the intensity that you expect, cold and calculating, but also gives him a great deal of sympathy. And in the telling scenes when he begins to unravel, he absolutely nails the quiet transformation of the super-religious family man who has been betraying his country for a couple of decades.The character is also multi-layered and complex. He grows to like Eric, slowly letting down his defenses and cold demeanor, yet is always thinking about the people around him. But then Eric mentions that his mother has Parkinson's, and a few scenes later, Hanssen has printed off a few documents about the latest treatments. He shows his sympathetic side, and we begin to care about him. By the end, we don't really want to see him get caught -- if he is, in fact, committing treason -- simply because of how good a person he is, or at least, appears to be.Breach's other clear problem is that Ryan Phillippe cannot hold his own against Chris Cooper. Phillippe's character is supposed to be the lead, and the man we root for. The intention is that we'll want to see him bring in Hanssen, that we hope for him to get promoted and for his home life to get all fixed. But because Phillippe is a weaker actor, and because his character is nowhere near as complex -- or even as sympathetic, somehow -- as Cooper's, that's not what happens. We start cheering more for Hanssen, despite the film making no bones about whether or not he's a traitor to his country.This is really a one man show, and if a lesser actor was portraying Hanssen, it would fall apart. So much depends on Cooper here that it's hard to imagine just what would happen if he wasn't as good as he is, or if the character wasn't written in such an intelligent manner. I suppose you're here to learn about Hanssen anyway, so the filmmakers' resources went more into him than anything else, but it's astounding just what the film might have become without such a well-developed and performed character.Breach is a rare type of movie. It manages to be quite thrilling despite you knowing the ending. You know how specific scenes will play out as soon as they start, and yet they excite you regardless. Chris Cooper's performance drives the film forward, and without him making for a scary, yet sympathetic villain, we would have no movie. It's not a biopic, and I'm sure much of it was dramatized, but this is one journey that is definitely worth taking.
(mx) wrote: learned quit a bit more about stonewall and the gay rights back then. interesting at best.
(au) wrote: Great, authentic and underrated flick! Makes me long for the days when Depp wasn't an idiot.
(fr) wrote: Ambitious in its messaging, but fails in execution.
(au) wrote: One of the best movies most people have never seen.
(fr) wrote: Despite this being my first time going through the Christopher Reeve Superman movies, I am keenly aware of the general public attitude toward them. So, I knowingly lowered my expectations for this third entry in the series. Even with those lowered expectations, I still wasn't prepared for how insipidly stupid it would be. Yes, there was plenty of Superman action. Yes, the special effects were as good as ever. The acting was fine. But the story? Oh my god! Richard Lester was merely a hired gun on SUPERMAN II, due to Richard Donner being fired. Here he was in charge the whole time, and the sillier aspects of that film were given too much free reign here.The plot this time around is certainly one of the weakest aspects of the whole film. In short, an evil corporation that has ambitions for economic domination taints Superman with synthetic kryptonite (laced with tobacco tar), and this splits him into evil Superman and good Clark Kent. All of the best parts of the first two films are either shoved to the side or left out entirely. This means hardly any Daily Planet, and Lex Luthor is nowhere to be found. The replacement just doesn't compare favorably, no matter how much I didn't like Lex Luthor's characterization before. That being said, Superman having an identity crisis was an intriguing idea, but the way it's executed is so hamfistedly literal that it kills whatever impact it could have had.However, in the interest of not coming off like I absolutely hated the film, I will say that the technical aspects of the film were really good. All of the special effects were handled well, and the flying sequences were deftly handled, even if it's fairly apparent now how they were achieved (front projection). I also thought the cinematography was excellent, with a number of beautiful shots of landscapes and scenery. As previously stated, the acting was fine. In the TV special on the making of SUPERMAN II, Christpher Reeve talked about how he preferred playing Clark Kent because he was more relatable as a person. Here, the plot allowed for him to explore a darker side to Superman's personality, which I'm certain he had a hand in seeing as he's the film's star and it probably gets tiresome playing the same character over and over again. That one aspect of the plot is something I'll give the writers kudos for. If only they (and the director) hadn't made the film so silly...What's wrong with the film is nearly everything else. Richard Pryor plays an opportunistic con man and computer genius (who discovers his talent in a computer programming course). There is absolutely nothing wrong with Richard Pryor. I quite like his standup act. However, he seemed extremely out of place here. In general, the silly tone just rubbed me the wrong way and there was too much reliance on slapstick for laughs. A perfect example of this is the opening scene which just went on far too long. At some point, it felt like I was watching a Keystone Kops movie than a Superman film. Beyond that, some elements of the story were nonsensical and just plain stupid. First of all, is this the same Clark Kent/Superman who reversed time to save Lois Lane and gave up his power to be with her (temporarily, at least)? If so, then why does he go back to Smallville and almost immediately hook up with childhood friend Lana Lang? Also, compared to the villains' schemes in the previous two films, the plot to turn Superman into a jerk (so that they can dominate the coffee industry?) seems like a step back. Not only that, but they bungle the one clever plot element by having Superman literally fight Clark Kent, and then having the "evil" side just disappear when Clark Kent puts a choke hold on him. And when you think about it, kryptonite is pretty stupid as it is. I could go on, but hopefully I've made my point.Overall, SUPERMAN III feels like a huge step back in storytelling when compared to the previous two, which I didn't exactly love to begin with. Entertaining? Yes, in some respects, but this one was borderline painful to watch. The idiocy displayed on screen was barely tolerable. Richard Lester was allowed to indulge in his slapstick tendencies to a degree which wasn't possible in SUPERMAN II (since he had to use stuff that Richard Donner shot), and the result was rather unflattering. Having watched nine of the original Superman cartoon shorts, at times this felt like a return to that style, which I was not a fan of. I'll give the filmmakers credit for making a visually appealing film that displays some technical prowess. I also still get goosebumps when I hear John Williams' iconic theme. But literally everything else works against that to make an unfortunately sub-par film.
(kr) wrote: a great film from my childhood,funny...would like to see it again
(br) wrote: I had many issues with this movie. I guess mystery novels should remain books,because it's obvious most of the time they can't turn into satisfying movies. This is the case with "Murder on the Orient Express". It's one of the most satisfying and well written novels of Agatha Christie but it didn't translate successfully on the big screen. The cast was incedible though I had my issues with Finney's portrayal of Poirot, I thought his Poirot didn't match the original Belgian detective's character. Overall I think the movie managed to kill much of the mystery while feeling quite long and dragging.
(jp) wrote: This biopic starts off a little slowly and at times the "interview" sections become a little tedious, but it effectively makes it point. Dustin Hoffman gives a solid performance as the comedian that made modern comedy possible. Lenny Bruce was not a man to be admired as a whole, but his struggle against the oppression of free speech is one that is worth knowing. It was not long ago that certain words were illegal to say in public in parts of this country. If you watch this film and are disgusted by what was done to Lenny, remember that it is still being done to those who perform on television and radio.
(fr) wrote: IMO the best bond movie of all time. The action aren't stupid, the characters are great, and all that happens in the movie make some serious and enhancing plot development.
(it) wrote: Wife kidnapped for ransom. The movie is shot in one room in a warehouse. Very low budget.
(br) wrote: Run of the mill slasher copycat.
(nl) wrote: Combine Homeland with the Patty Duke show and this is what you get. Bad acting, complete fiction for a supposed historical drama and terrible film making.