Angel Face

Angel Face

An ambulance driver gets involved with a rich girl that might have a darker side.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:91 minutes
  • Release:1952
  • Language:English,Japanese
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:murder,   jealousy,   ambulance,  

Ambulance driver Frank Jessup is ensnared in the schemes of the sensuous but dangerous Diane Tremayne. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Angel Face torrent reviews

Hans J E (de) wrote: There have been quite a few prison dramas lately. I haven't had a chance to see the Danish R and the French A Prophet yet, but this Romanian film was pretty good, although I a feeling that the films mentioned earlier are easily better than this one.

Timothy S (mx) wrote: Teen comedies have been in a steady decline since the 1980's, but "Mean Girls" proved a few years back that they do not have to all be bad. Now, along comes the dreadful "John Tucker Must Die" to set the genre back again, as this is a painfully obvious and predictable entry with vapid characters and themes that border on bullying.The whole thing is played for laughs that never come, and somehow that makes it even more offensive. The film has a young and beautiful cast, lots of bouncy but forgettable pop songs and everyone learns a lesson in the end, but along with that it comes saddled with a story that's been told dozens of times before. This variation has nothing new to bring to the table.Despite all of the good looks, there's not a single likable actor or character in the film, and that includes star Brittany Snow who's supposed to be the "good girl" or the "voice of reason." You spend the whole movie wondering why she's been ostracized by her entire high school when she's just as hot as everyone else. The movie is as shallow as its characters as there are no genuine emotions or heart here. It's played too broad for any of that, and it's quite disheartening to see all of these people using or manipulating everyone else.This was clearly made solely for the high school set, and it aims just low enough to please a lot of them. "John Tucker Must Die" made me feel a lot of things, but mostly I was just sad for a generation that grows up with dreck like this when I grew up with the works of John Hughes.

Elliot D (mx) wrote: Classic 90's Comedy! Great chemistry between Damon Wayans and David Alan-Grier.

Tim M (it) wrote: It was awarded for best family film in san francisco, but it could have awarded for worst family film because of the plot, acting, dialogue, nightmare fuels, and worst of all... the characterization

Thomas K (mx) wrote: I saw it when it was first released back in 1975 with an extremely "altered" midnight show audience and we all had a very good. very vocal good time. Unfortunately seeing it at home by myself it just king of lay there, flat and dull. I did record it and I will try it with friends and hopefully that is it's niche.

Tommy H (it) wrote: This isn't my kind of film. If a movie is going to be dark and depressing there has to be a reason for it or a message. The film is dark and depressing and has a jerky kind of pacing so I was left feeling uninspired and just kind of numb to the whole experience. The movie is very cold. But this isn't my criticism of the guys life. The fact that he really went through all this is remarkable, but I'm not the type of movie watcher who gets excited when he here's "true story." The film got so boring for me at times I stopped paying attention and found myself wondering how Steve McQueen got from one setting to the next. With all of my complaining aside, I can still see why this film gets a high score. Every character was memorable and expertly acted. The solitary confinement scenes were effective. The movie does a good job of making you feel lonely and anxious for escape. It was very realistic, but realism doesn't always make for a good movie. And you know with a true story it's going to be a long movie, so if it doesn't grab your attention you'll like it even less by the time it's over. The end of the film didn't work for me because I was so depressed at that point the ending failed to uplift me. I think a very sad ending would be more fitting. I did like the beginning, though. I watched The Great Escape a while ago, so to see McQueen actually tortured by solitude was sobering and set the tone for the rest of the movie. The real man who went through all this has earned my respect, so I thank the movie for that. I'm giving it a high rating because I understand why it deserves that rating. Personally, I give it three stars. A great movie that's too sad for me.

Cameron J (fr) wrote: It follows most of the same plot beats as "Exorcist: The Beginning", stars Stellan Skarsgrd as Father Lankester Merrin, has the same writers and even comes close to the same runtime, but sure, this is a new and improved prequel to "The Exorcist". I like how this film's title literally boasts, "Oh yeah, and for the record, this is the prequel to 'The Exorcist'", just to prove that it has no subtlety about being an attempt at making you forget about "Exorcist: The Beginning", which I suppose it alright, because as far as impressing the critics more, this prequel/remake/early version/midquel/whatever is a success... relatively speaking. Swedes can apparently break important rules as people from the land of death metal by driving out Satan and his assorted buddies, but I seem to be giving this "promising" story concept too much credit, seeing as how there's no saving the film it's attached to, at least when the final product "suffers from hit-and-miss psychological tension, poor visual effects, and weak writing", and is an "overambitious failure of a horror movie". Man, Rotten Tomatoes really did hammer into this baby, and it scored almost 20% higher than "The Beginning", but hey, at least William Peter Blatty, the novelist behind this mythology, liked it, which is most important... in a more idealistic world. Sorry, Bill, my man, but in America, the power of money compels, and even though this film is cheaper than "The Beginning", it made its predecessor look like the financial success of the first "Exorcist"... that is, the first installment in this franchise, not the first chapter in this mythology, which is "The Beginning"... or maybe this film. ...Jeez, you see, prequels are confusing enough in a series when we don't go back and remake them, and to make matters worse, I for one don't think that this film ultimately any better or any worse than "The Beginning". Granted, I'm that one jerk who actually liked "Exorcist: The Beginning", but the point is that this film commits its own sins. More along the lines of an early concept for a film that was too fresh and poorly received for additional funds to be all that considerable, this film is certainly a fair deal cheaper than the $80 million disappointment that was "Exorcist: The Beginning", but it's still backed by a total of $30 million, so certain technical shortcomings are a little difficult to get over, for although one of the more noticeable technical setbacks is less well-defined and less grand, yet intimate camerawork that is mostly distancing in comparison to the camera quality of "The Beginning", there are still faulty visual effects and even the occasional editing hiccup, thus making for a technically improvable film whose budgetary problems add to cheesiness. I didn't find "The Beginning" to be as cheesy as they said, but it was still kind of cornball at times, and while this film is often cheesy in different ways, it ultimately matches its predecessor's cheese factor with histrionics and the occasional dialogue fault, as well as some subtlety issues. True, the film is arguably more subtle than "The Beginning", but when that subtlety lapses, it falls out fairly glaringly, and such moments in bombastic direction by Paul Schrader joins questionable writing spots and even more questionable technical spots in undercutting some of the bite of the film, which was always to be limited by, at the very least, familiarity, as you can imagine. Throughout this paragraph, I have been drawing comparisons between this film and "Exorcist: The Beginning", and while I'm certainly not basing all that broad of an opinion of this film based on its more high-profile, more critically panned predecessor, the final product's being so similar to "The Beginning" reflects the lack of necessity in this story concept, which is tainted enough by general clichs that reflect some laziness. It's perhaps natural shortcomings that really shake the integrity of a film that actually could have gone pretty far, and perhaps should have, seeing as how it was graced with a second chance, but pacing problems should be noted for giving you plenty of time to ponder upon natural shortcomings, being dragged out by repetitious material, made all the more glaring by a meditative atmosphere that was not really all that prominent in "The Beginning". The meditativeness of this film makes the final product seem more intelligent than its predecessor, but if nothing else got said predecessor by, it was sheer entertainment value, which is limited in this dryer film, whose thoughtfulness would be less distancing if the film wasn't so faulty in plenty of other places, taking enough damage to join its predecessor near the brink of, at the very least, mediocrity. Well, just as the "Exorcism" prequel before it did, this film manages to keep from falling beyond that brink, being a mess, sure, but a pretty decent one, or at least a pretty decent-looking one. For both this film and "Exorcist: The Beginning", the great Vittorio Storaro was employed as cinematographer, and while this film's equipment is, as I said earlier, less well-defined, and with a less impressive field of view than the equipment used for "The Beginning", Storaro throws in the occasional stylish shot to catch your, which never drifts too far away from Storaro's trademark tastefully sparse plays with lighting, whose lighter shades are nothing if not lovely, and whose darker shades are near-haunting in their complimenting the tone of this thriller, which is truly established by Paul Schrader. Schrader makes his share of mistakes as director, and even has some intentional methods of storytelling that are kind of questionable, with the most notable hit-or-miss element within Schrader's storytelling being a certain meditativeness that often simply ends up blanding the film up with cold spells once material runs dry, yet just as often proves to be kind of effective, soaking up brood and subtle intensity in a way that is not all that biting, but kind of smart, and generally fairly effective, at least enough to establish a consistent degree of intrigue. Now, that intrigue is limited, but it still stands, and no matter how faulty Schrader gets to be as director, his efforts do a decent job of breathing some life into this film and saving it as yet another fair interpretation of a promising story concept. This is a very been-there-done-that story, even if you take "Exorcist: The Beginning" out account and leave yourself with only the clichs to soak up, but this tale is not so stale that it doesn't still have a fair deal of intrigue to its subject matter, augmented here by more attention to thematic depth and intelligence. Now, the film isn't that much sharper than "In the Beginning", and its themes on human flaws, as well as the repercussions of those flaws, are also a little too familiar for their own good, but the subtle touches that distinguish this film from the more commercialized "The Beginning" end up going a pretty good ways in gracing the film with decency that is perhaps finally secured by some inspired acting. Actually, I thought that everyone was pretty decent in "The Beginning", and while this film is sharper in plenty of places, Gabriel Mann is a bit of a lowlight, - being not as convincing as he should be as a conceptually compelling young and hopeful priest - but when other supporting players are good, they're typically stronger than their counterparts, while Stellan Skarsgrd proves to be as good in his charismatic and subtly layered portrayal of the once-ambiguous Father Lankester Merrin character. Skarsgrd doesn't have a whole lot to work with, but he ultimately all but saves the film, which makes a lot of mistakes, but makes enough commendable calls to ultimately endear as a decent, if messy final product When the beginning has ended... again, some cheesy technical hiccups and subtlety issues, combined with conventionalism, dragging, dry spells and all around inconsequentiality, drive the final product into underwhelmingness, but through an intriguing subject matter, - with worthy themes and tones, brought to life by anything from handsome visual style to highlights in direction and acting - "Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist" ultimately stands as a fair, if flawed alternative interpretation of the precursor to a classic saga. 2.5/5 - Fair

bill s (fr) wrote: A seen it done better before thriller that's light on any artistic value.