Archangel

Archangel

A surrealistic film in which a strangely assorted group of people come together in the Russian Arctic at the height of the revolution and World War One.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:90 minutes
  • Release:1990
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:snow,   surrealism,   1910s,  

An amnesiac soldier, seeking his lost love, arrives in Archangel in northern Russia to help the townsfolk in their fight against the Bolsheviks, all quite unaware that the Great War ended three months ago. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Archangel torrent reviews

Lish C (kr) wrote: May contain Spoilers.OK... Definitely contains spoilers.So, I read about this movie this past summer in one of my friends video game magazines. It claimed it was one of the creepiest horror movies to come out in years. Naturally, I was very excited when I opened my mail from Netflix to see Plague Town enclosed.So, it started with a bang, a motherly urge to protect her baby from a priest wanting to kill it because it is 'not a creature of god'. Few good shots to the head put that idea to rest. Then we skip ahead 14 years later to a family vacation (a father, 2 daughter, a boyfriend, and a soon to be stepmother). I was hooked right away, but then.. in common horror movie fashion, it takes about 30 minutes for anything else interesting to happen. We spend that time getting to know the family and in some very intense sisterly arguments. About 20 minutes in, I was hoping the creepiness would come out of the woodwork and take them both so I wouldn't have to hear them argue anymore.Then we move into night, cause who can have a horror movie in daylight?? This is one of the bad concepts that horror movies like to go with. Lets have a lot of awesome death sequences at night and see if people can still tell whats going on, with everything dark with shotty camera angles. I agree that night is definitely creepier then day I can see where that comes from. But c'mon. Its not exactly optimal for my viewing pleasure. Some people might argue that it makes it scarier to have to fill in the blanks there, and I agree that sometimes it does. But it can be way overdone, and with this one..it really was. I had to keep turning to my husband to get some clarification on what he saw because it was a little difficult at times.Moving on, so we make the classic horror movie mistakes like going off by ourselves, ignoring help when its offered, drinking, smoking, sex..well not quite sex but he was definitely trying. The family misses the last bus back to town and they are stuck overnight, in this place that doesn't really have a name, the father just knows where they are due to 'instinct'. He instinct kinda sucks if you ask me. First the girl and the boyfriend go off by themselves to try to find a house to get help, leading to him getting shot in the face and her getting surrounded by creepy kids. The dad has to go after him, which leads to a much scene that could have been much better with a little more light (of course)... and also makes you wonder that if you enter a house and are stabbed in the first 90 seconds, if you'd hang around to see if the people there would still help you.We get to witness death by hubcap next, which is kinda great, but expense was definitely spared. Typically when someone is bludgeoned to death by an object, the blood is on the object...not just the person. Fyi. Eventually, without giving the whole shebang away, we meet dear, sweet Rosemary.. not as sweet as she may seem. I love the way she looks, the creepiness, her gestures. She was a pretty well done character. Vicious as well. Regardless of all the negativity I've pointed out (what more can you expect from a pessimist) I'm not going to give a few quick highlights of the movie. The gore was well done. There were creepy sounds throughout (downside to that as well, expecting something to happen and then being disappointed when you have to wait longer and longer). The kids in this movie were legitimately creepy. Not in like, the awesome Japanese horror type of way but more of less in like.. a Hills Have Eyes type of way where they are kinda deformed and just..twisted. The ending was decent, which I won't give away but I like endings that don't give themselves away too much. It has a nice psychological aspect to it, which I thoroughly enjoy in a horror movie. Was it the creepiest horror movie to come out in years?? Very doubtful. I read reviews, or critiques of movies all the time, but then again, I rarely agree. I could be a product of watching way too many horror movies, and can't really find much to creep me out anymore. I would watch Plague Town again, but it wouldn't be for awhile. And I'd have to make sure I had Excedrin migraine on hand because sometimes just looking at the way they try to film these things, is enough to due me in for the night.

Meredith W (es) wrote: I am a big fan of "Saturday Night Live" and films like Night at the Roxby, but while this does have it's funny moments, it ultimately falls flat.

Matthew N (ca) wrote: This movie is genius. Lots of people tear it down for being a bit goofy.... but that's definitely on purpose. This movie shows itself exactly the correct amount of seriousness. Billy Zane was born to play this role.

CAROL H (br) wrote: GEORGE BURNS WAS ONE OF THE GREAT OLDER COMEDIANS, DON'T MAKE MOVIES LIKE THIS ANYMORE!!!

Cassandra M (ca) wrote: Bergman was on top form writing this piece - there's lots to think about. What motivates a respectable man, whose mental state indicates only a small risk of self-harm, to undertake such a violent and frenzied crime? Do the ulterior motives and actions of those around him (wife, shrink, wife's business partner...)deliberately or unwittingly trigger the crime - or indeed are those sub-plots entirely incidental to the central event? These questions are not answered - they are raised and illuminated.This is not Bergman's greatest piece of cinema - the mixture of documentary, drama and flashback can be a little disorienting - but the argument of the film drives on relentlessly and it is compulsive watching. Well worth seeing.

Chris Z (us) wrote: Duvall is totally a faulkner character.

Allan C (ca) wrote: Meh. Dustin Hoffman and Mia Farrow, on the heels of "Midnight Cowboy" and "Rosemary's Baby," are wasted in a dull, pretentious story about Farrow and Hoffman after a one-night-stand. Desperately trying to emulate French new wave, with the characters actually discussing Godard's "Weekend" at one point, director Peter Yates (on the heels of his own latest success "Bullitt") tells the morning after story through flashbacks, voice overs and unneeded jump cuts. The idea behind the film isn't bad, but it's the execution where the film falls apart. The main reason I wanted to watch this film was to see Mia Farrow in something else from her early career beside "Rosemary's Baby." I think her Daisy Buchanan in "The Great Gatsby" was the only other early role of her's I'd seen that wasn't a Woody Allen film. I suppose it's somewhat interesting to watch the film as a period piece, but it's not all that interesting and nowhere as smart as those involved believe it to be.

Jonny B (nl) wrote: This is a spectacular movie. It has a cast to die for, a script with witty dialogue, masterful direction, and a story with copious surprises and wonderful moments. Jeanne Moreau is a treasure, one of the finest actresses to make it on celluloid. The movie is a pleasure to look at - I even love the costume design -, it's rich and has beautiful compositions - the photography of Raoul Coutard is aesthetically exquisite, with an effect at times like a Rothko painting where you get lost staring at the visuals and always getting something new from them and end up finding yourself losing track of time or in this case some plot points. After watching this I was flabbergasted to know that this movie is almost entirely unknown in the horror community, which is a sad fact because it could pass as a French giallo. 'The Bride Wore Black' is more akin to Hitchcok - Truffaut brings in Bernard Hermann who composes a magical score - and it's a waste of time listing how Truffaut has made a homage and he, in this viewer's mind, outdoes Hitchcock a lot of the time in this picture. And although he does outdo Hitchcock sometimes, Truffaut's use of very obvious Hitchcock references can feel like overkill. For those used to Truffaut's more emotional movies, 'The Bride Wore Black' will be a disappointment but it's worth seeing Mr. Truffaut doing something that's emotionally dry but has its own qualities that shouldn't be dismissed.

Sarfara A (mx) wrote: Charley Varrick a heist film, directed by Don Siegel (Dirty Harry). Starring Walter Matthau (The Odd Couple), Joe Don Baker, John Vernon and Andrew Robinson (Dirty Harry). Based on the novelv The Looters by John H. Reese. Walter Matthau was nominated for Best Actor by BAFTA. Walter Matthau and Andrew Robinson attempt to rob a bank in small town, and get away with it - getting rid of dead wife (who was shot in the process of driving) by burning the vehicle and her body in it. The two change their getup and vehicle with Crop-Duster van. They come to realize that they have stolen money from mafia, as bank manager discloses the amount less to reporters; as compared to bulk of dollar bills. They must go through planned scheme to evade getting caught. It started robustly, I thought (believe me) I was going to watch a comedy film, but soon realized upon shoot-to-kill process that this was utterly different to my expectations; and no sooner did I lay my eyes on Walter's expressions, I knew the guy is something of a mystery man. Walter gives strong and occupying performance in this chase-thriller. It is fast and entertaining. Too much in too little rates, is good enough. If you are fan of 'heist' movies , this is it really.