April in Love
Avril is a novice in a convent of "Baptistine" sisters, a monastic order which was officially dissolved by the end of the nineteenth century but that is kept alive by Mère Marie Joseph, the sadistic superior. While Avril is on retreat, locked in for a fortnight in a chapel prior to taking her vows, Soeur Bernadette, a sympathetic sister, discloses a secret to her: she has a twin brother...
- Stars:Sophie Quinton, Miou-Miou, Nicolas Duvauchelle, Clément Sibony, Richaud Valls, Geneviève Casile, Monique Mélinand, Anna Mihalcea, Claude Duty, Mathilde Mignot, Frédéric Quiring, Marie Vinoy, Milo Hustache-Mathieu, Gisèle Boiteux, Denise Billot,
- Director:Gérald Hustache-Mathieu,
- Writer:Gérald Hustache-Mathieu
Avril is a novice in a convent of "Baptistine" sisters, a monastic order which was officially dissolved by the end of the nineteenth century but that is kept alive by Mère Marie Joseph, the... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
April in Love torrent reviews
(it) wrote: Is it possible to give a movie less than one star? I have not seen a more poorly written movie in my life -- could Paris Hilton's movie be worst than this?
(us) wrote: I liked the mythology/facts behind the whole thing. Not only that but Ben Kingsley puts on one of his best performances (in my honest opinion). I mean yes, the director was a hack, and there were a few things inherently wrong in having the main badguy a nameless guy who kidnaps people. Still, Kingsley's character makes this entire movie for me. His abilities are very well fleshed out, and the detective chasing him is not perfect in any fashion of the word, but that makes his character better. Eckhart and Moss play a great duo, especially when they're arguing. The murders are creative, and the fact that he's killing unknown, unmarked serial killers just adds heroics to his obvious Anti-heroism. All in all, no it's not something I could watch continuously, but I have had hankerings to watch this movie before. It has scenes that are kind of lame, and the ending left something to be desired. But I would mark it as a winner in my book.
(de) wrote: Original. Emotional. Immersive. Graphic. Courageous.
(jp) wrote: I will forever love this movie no matter what anyone says.
(gb) wrote: The title is misleading, but that's okay. It's a cheap movie, with poor acting and low effects- but it's so much fun. The characters are goofy, the monster is actually pretty cool, and there's plenty of gore and chainsaws. Rips off of Alien, in more-than-noticeable ways. It's monster b-movie trash at it's finest.
(fr) wrote: Solid prison drama from Redford and director Rosenberg. Somewhat dated even though the central message of fighting corruption is as relevant as ever. Based on a true story.
(es) wrote: Very well done but the story is strange. Kind of homme Nikita, americano hero, sharp shooting and full of shit. So many unlikely things. I took it as a tv movie with humour, murder, and family times. The french bits were all good.
(ag) wrote: Scariest movie of all time!
(gb) wrote: Not bad computer graphics, but story is the same and you have to be a fan of the game to really appreciate watching a computer generated movie. I thought it was ok, don't really need to watch it.
(mx) wrote: I've heard George Lucas talk about the change of pacing between films of the 1970's and of films now. He talked about how the pacing of the first Star Wars film was considered rapid at the time but by today's standards, pretty slow. I feel the same can be said about the first Star Trek film (The Motion Picture). The first hour of this film is quite a drag. The special effects are dated, but sometimes that can be forgiven if the story around it is epic (Original Star Wars). The story for this film is embroiled in mystery as we don't even know who or what the villain is for close to an hour and a half. Overall, I think I can say I enjoyed watching Star Trek: The Motion Picture as it brings back all of the same characters and dynamics from the original series, but the story dragged and I don't feel like this was the particular plot they should have revolved the first feature film around.The enterprise this time is investigating an alien spacecraft that gets mysteriously close to earth, known as V'Ger. Captain Kirk returned back to his position as head of the Starship Enterprise. Kirk replaced the new head of the enterprise, Decker. Obviously, you know that the dynamic between the two will have plenty of tension knowing there's two captains in the same ship, but it doesn't go to the extent that a normal Hollywood film would do.Yes, the tone and feel of the film is the same as the series but I think it was lacking the magic. There's a lot of time in the film spent on showing the numerous special effects shots and set pieces they created for the film. With that said, I don't feel like there was enough time spent on character development for people who didn't know the characters from the TV show. It's not that Star Trek: The Motion Picture isn't a good entry in the series, it's just that there's merely nothing special at all about the film. Its constantly told to us that this mission is to save the entire human race and has a huge scope, but we don't really see that being played out. I liked the ending reveal involving V'Ger, but it didn't save the film from being an average entry in a history franchise.+Same feel as the series+Cool reveal-Don't get a sense of the scope they were going for-Too much time spent on establishing shots and showing off average special effects6.3/10