A thin child of about 10, nicknamed "Crow" because she mimics the bird, has no friends and rejects a teacher's hug. At home, she is left on her own, her mom locks her out while entertaining...

A thin child of about 10, nicknamed "Crow" because she mimics the bird, has no friends and rejects a teacher's hug. At home, she is left on her own, her mom locks her out while entertaining... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Wrony torrent reviews

Matt B (fr) wrote: Still to this day my all time favorite Marvel adaptation film. Great soundtrack,acting and memorable punch lines I could watch this movie a million times and it will never get old. Can't wait for vol. 2

Jason P (mx) wrote: Not bad at all. The twist ending broadcast itself long before it happened, but even knowing the type of ending it would be, I still enjoyed watching it. Cute characters and character quirks. Decent indie effort.

Ben R (it) wrote: This is very close to being four stars, because I almost love this movie. It wouldn't be a stretch to say I did love it, but whatever. I'll just go with this.How much does closure matter in movies? It's pretty hard, I imagine, to decide when exactly an arc ends. Does every subplot need a conclusion, or would that be too tidy? Is it only tidy if the conclusion is super happy and unrealistic? Would it solve the problem if everything got closure, whether or not that was a positive or negative thing?I don't really have answers to these questions, but I'm asking because Junebug left a certain number of things up in the air. There's definitely some solid closure to the Johnny-Ashley marriage, and that was perfectly done. But the Johnny-George tension culminates with Johnny throwing a wrench at George's head, and they never make up for that. Is that act of violence closure? Does that mean the feud is over between them? It wasn't really conclusive. Also, arguably the most important relationship in the film, between the two main characters (Madeline and Ashley), isn't really resolved. Madeline doesn't show up when Ashley is in labor, and they never end up interacting again.I think there were two things that kept me from outright adoring the film, and that was one of them. I suspect that the lack of total closure is by design, and the film would probably be less meaningful if everything was neatly tidied up, but I think some immature part of me will always crave big emotional conclusions. That said, I do definitely appreciate the ending we got on a logical level. If Madeline showed up and apologized for not being there when Ashley lost the baby, we wouldn't be left with the compelling portrait that we got of Madeline. Also, I like that so many pairings were showcased in the film. You might think Madeline would be the one to come in and solve all the family problems, that she'd be the one at Ashley's bedside comforting her based on the first two acts of the movie, but instead it's George. That's such an interesting choice, because George and Ashley hadn't had any meaningful interactions prior to that, and George is basically a non-character, with no discernible flaws. But that scene is so powerful, mostly because Amy Adams is amazing and Ashley is a wonderful character. And I also suspect that George was a blank slate by design, though I don't have a great explanation of why.The other thing that kept me from loving it was that Madeline was pretty damn unlikable. That's very reductive to say, and I acknowledge that she's a good character (I wouldn't be able to like the movie as much as I did if the protagonist was a bad character). But I didn't start really getting into the movie until Amy Adams showed up. Ashley was so immediately engaging and hilarious that I almost wish she was in every scene. Madeline was just not as interesting to me.There are so many standout scenes. I love love love the church social scene, when George reveals his religious past with his singing, and Embeth Davidtz does great work in her reaction shots, amused and curious and wondrous all at once. (I also love that the movie doesn't turn the southern community into stereotypes; I felt like I got a better sense of actual southern community than most other movie depictions of the south. And Madeline, though occasionally being pretentious and subtly condescending, still has a capacity for compassion. The characters were so realistic, never just showing one side.) Other great scenes: the aforementioned Ashley-George scene, the subtlety of the scene between Madeline and Sissy Wark, when Sissy says "I'm just so sorry for your family's loss," prompting Madeline to consider that she should be sad, too. The most emotional scenes, though, when I got chills and felt a lot of emotions, involved Johnny and Ashley's marriage. The scene with Johnny trying to record the meerkat program on the TV made me so much more emotional than I expected so early in the movie. It was just so shocking and wonderful to see that he cared about her and wanted to show her he did, and so heartbreaking when he failed to do so and just snapped at her instead. The last scene, when he suggests they try again, was also touching.All in all, this was a great little low-key movie that delivered great performances, a lot of subtlety, and a lot of meaning.

Waqas I (it) wrote: good movie but scattered one.

monica f (es) wrote: If you are an emigrant and ever wonder how is life at home now that you have left, I strongly recommend this movie. This is the perfect glimpse at that life that goes on without you. The very touching part of this movie is that the absent person is the most present of all. I loved the topic, the development and the acting. Very good movie.

Jerry R (es) wrote: Few Hollywood movies know much about real life. I would say that even fewer consider the nature of death. A lot of movies about death are more interested in the celestial wallpaper. The afterlife on film is usually a perspective on what Heaven and Hell might look like and those who die are usually more interested in tying up romantic loose ends or returning to unfinished business. Very few films have ever matter-of-factly considered the afterlife from the point of view of the traveler who has crossed the threshold to the undiscovered country. Hirokazu Koreeda's After Life is almost alone in its contemplation on the importance of the single moment or moments that shape our humanity. In 1999, Koreeda created this absolutely beautiful examination of the stopover between life and death where the choice of a lifetime must be made: What single memory would you carry with you to your eternal reward? The examination is vessled by 22 travelers who, for various reasons, have died and arrive from a white light to a place that is neither here nor there. They are in a way-station between the end of life and their eternal lodgings. The counselors who work here meet and interview several recently dead people each week. The travelers are tasked with choosing one memory from a lifetime that they will carry over into the eternity that awaits them. Once a memory is selected it will be turned into a film and screened before the patron vanishes with the memory, all other memories having been eliminated. But what memory? What single memory is worth an eternity? Carrying the best memory would be heaven while surely carrying the worst would be hell. To that end the travelers find this a difficult task for various reasons. One man discovers that he has no memory that he wishes to carry on. Another discovers that he has too many. One decides that it was her experience on the Splash Mountain ride at Disneyland. We meet these people through interviews while the staff works diligently to create the productions for the films that will be screened. We learn very little about the staff who have apparently chosen to spend eternity at the station helping others select a memory. There is a moment when we come close, a connection between one of the patrons and the man who didn't think that he had a memory (of this I will leave you to discover). This moment provides one of the most emotional moments in the film and provides him with a reason for choosing the memory most precious to his heart. This is the most profound examination of the nature of humanity that I have ever seen on film. There are no special effects, no gimmickry, no scenes that are thrown together to hold our interest. This is a movie that very gently reaches out to those lucky enough to be caught up in it's contemplative spell and to be spellbound by it's message The message is that memory is all we have. No matter what financial or possessive objects we have gained in our lives our memories lie at the core of what makes us intelligent beings. It is the thing that connects our learning, our maturity and shapes our social connection. It is the core of our being, the connection point of our humanity. On the emotional level, the film works through contemplation, through imagining ourselves as the wayward patrons. The movie sees the selection process as very matter of fact. Koreeada is more interested in the people who have arrived here than in the place to which they have arrived. That spareness allows us to contemplate their process rather than their surroundings. I saw After Life shortly after it's initial release in 1999 and years later it still resonates in my mind. When I am idle, staring at the ceiling when sleep refuses to settle my mind, I contemplate the question posed by Koreeda's film and to this day I am nowhere near a decision. If I had to choose one memory it might be agony because my number of candidates would go as high as five hundred or if I wrote them down closer to a thousand. For that, I feel fortunate, fortunate and grateful that my life can contain that kind of contentment. If I am given the kind of task given to the people in After Life, it is my hope that whatever I settle on can be turned into a film that is as gentle, peaceful and affirming as Koreeda's beautiful work.

Sam C (us) wrote: The Passion of Anna was filmed during the time period when Bergman's breakup with Liv Ullmann was still fresh in his mind, and it shows. I'm not saying that Bergman is spiteful in anyway, since I have no idea how their relationship ended, but judging how every movie he has ever filmed contained a little personal bit of himself in it, I would imagine that it would ring true here as well.Andreas is a lonely, isolated man who is slowly recovering from his wife leaving him. He goes about his daily activities, which consist of mending his roof and other odd jobs, until a woman named Anna shows up outside his house asking to use his phone. She accidentally leaves her purse inside Andreas' house, which contains a rather personal letter that Andreas reads and helps serve the basis for the rest of the movie.Along the way we meet a couple who is slowly disintegrating, and a man who is accused of slaughtering animals across the island. Themes of loneliness and despair ring true here, as with other Bergman works, but there was something about this film in particular that really had me going. I don't think it's Bergman's finest, but it's solid Bergman, nevertheless, albeit it being slow at parts. Things really pick up when out of the blue Andreas stumbles upon a young dog being hanged, and then the slaughtered sheep. This only helps add to the tension and confusion of what the characters are thinking, and I feel terribly sorry for Johan and his demise. Like I said earlier, The Passion of Anna is a solid film, but not one that I would use to introduce Bergman to someone. However, if you're like me and you wade knee-deep through Bergman films, then I would highly recommend this.

Stephanie C (es) wrote: Interesting if a bit long. Robert Redford is adorable, cute, and handsome throughout.

Eduardo L (fr) wrote: A B-Movie treat! Better than "The War of the Worlds".

Tsukasa A (fr) wrote: Dealing with mathematics and human mind, this is a great entertaining work.

Greg W (jp) wrote: so bad its just bad not good

Terry G (es) wrote: It's a script riding the soft fluff of cliche; but the lead, the music, and ... some magic, has this film soaring like an eagle.