Batismo de Sangue

Batismo de Sangue

During the period of 1964 to 1985, Brazil lived a military dictatorship. In the 60s, the Dominican friars Tito, Betto, Fernando and Ivo help leftist organizations. However, they are ...

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:110 minutes
  • Release:2006
  • Language:Portuguese
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:prison,   torture,   branding,  

During the period of 1964 to 1985, Brazil lived a military dictatorship. In the 60s, the Dominican friars Tito, Betto, Fernando and Ivo help leftist organizations. However, they are ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Batismo de Sangue torrent reviews

Ella R (br) wrote: I'm always looking for a new horror movie but hadn't heard of this film until today (1/24/15). Odd, as I would've thought more reviewers would have included it on their "Scariest of '13" or "20 to Watch in 2013" lists. I found Laura Caro's performance to be extremely effective, and I didn't see any terrible weak spots among her costars. The build lasts longer than some might like, but my chief criticism? The myriad of tangents and subplots unnecessary to the film's progress. However, I enjoyed the main storyline- Id even go as far as to say that I was disappointed when the movie ended. I could have gone for some more- maybe 75% out of having fun and 25% born of wanting more plot resolution.Notes: 1. This film contains what has to be the most heavy-handed use of visual sexual imagery in the history of film: a rock formation that looks more like a vagina than most human vaginas. 2. There are some extremely disturbing juxtapositions of sexuality- but not to the point of plot interference.3. If I were in Caro's shoes, I might've looked to confirm that I wasn't just losing it before I (ostensibly) murdered the children.4. Barreiro has a notably impressive mustache. Thanks for reading; enjoy the film! -E

Molly D (it) wrote: Pathetic acting and language that took away from the already boring plot.

Wes S (us) wrote: It sticks out a little bit from these Maneater films, but it still has the usual bad CGI and incoherent plot. Some fun creature moments, but they're not enough to make the film worth sitting through. It had an interesting premise at least.

Erin C (ru) wrote: This was really boring and pointless. I didn't get anything new out of watching this.

Ann M (jp) wrote: Uno, uro. Manko p originalitet?

Derek B (fr) wrote: Several months in the life of the world's most unhappy man (seemingly)... but with some comedic undertones typical of Aki Kaurismaki's films. These are mostly achieved through undercutting cinematic conventions. The absolutely key scene of this kind is where the antihero Koustinen (probably spelled wrongly) berates a ruffian in a bar about his cruelty to his dog. The ruffian and his two sidekicks are pleased to be able to offer to "discuss" the matter outside. There is clearly then a short but bloody scuffle, none of which we see because the camera continues to focus on the back door of the bar. Another key scene is a very brief sequence from Koustinen's year in prison: for a brief flicker there is a broad smile on his face... the only time in the film in which his deadpan and stoical face changes at all. This is quite hard-going because it is so low-key and unexciting, but really that is the whole point.

Leo L (nl) wrote: Set in Jerusalem, Meir and Rivka are married and in love. They have been trying to have a child for years, but are unable to conceive. Meir receives constant pressure from his father to leave his wife, and marry a young woman whose purportedly 'fertile'. Meanwhile, Rivka's sister is in love with an outcast but is set to marry another. Malka hopes that her beloved Yaakov will be accepted before her arranged marriage, but is slowly realizing that it will not happen. As Rivka and Malka sadly brace themselves for the brunt of their troubles, their directions in life takes a sudden change for the worst. Yal Abecassis, Yoram Hattab, Meital Barda, Uri Ran Klauzner, Yussuf Abu-Warda, and Sami Hori stars. Worthy!

Kevin J (ru) wrote: On a journey of self-destruction, Juice is a riveting film about life in the inner city and how corrupting of a lifestyle it can be if you hang around the wrong people. Unfortunately for many, anybody they hang around is a bad choice to associate with, as is the case in Juice. Featuring good direction from Ernest Dickerson and good performances from Omar Epps, Tupac Shakur, Jermaine Hopkins, and Khalil Kain, Juice is an authentic and sobering portrayal of life for those living in poor conditions. Always engrossing, this one really makes you feel as though you are in the same situation as the characters and really makes you feel attached to them in its short hour and a half run time. Overall, Juice is yet another hood drama that does a very good job making you feel the pain and suffering of those caught up in the hood.

Mark F (mx) wrote: The name and intro to this movie make you think it's going to be the coolest western ever. Overall though its pretty flat and not as fun as I thought it would be.

Ryan M (de) wrote: 2.0/10 "And Soon the Darkness" is a dumb, predictable low-budget thriller that doesn't know quite where to go, or how to set itself up for an entertaining ride. I would normally applaud it at least a little bit for doing what it does on such a low budget, but then one has to ask the question: exactly what does it do? Nothing. It does exactly nothing. And that's why I disliked it as much as I did. Granted, I admit that I only watched it because there's an unquestionably bad remake that released not too long ago; and I want to see it even more, having seen this crap-fest. Why do I watch movies that I know I'm going to hate? Maybe it's because I like to criticize. I mean, I'm having a lot of fun right now, as I write a review for a film that insults the audience's intelligence and even more-so our patience. Who would want to go through with watching it? I'm saddened by the fact that I did. Jane and Cathy, who are without-a-doubt young, but apparently nurses too, are both riding their bikes whilst in France. They are both from London; and they are good friends. Jane wants to plan their biking route, but Cathy is ignorant and would rather be chasing a man she saw at a local caf. This is sure to lead to difficulties. After more-and-more bike riding, the two stop yet again, but this time, with a twist; they get into a heated verbal exchange, which ends up being an argument, which provokes Jane to leave Cathy lying there; trying ever-so-desperately to get a good tan. Jane isn't a bad person. So this is why she returns to that very spot to apologize and re-unite with Cathy, only to discover that her friend has disappeared. She is in shock; peril. She tries to get help from the locals, the authorities, and whatnot; but nobody is able to help her more than herself. She is told that the place she is in is known for a nasty reputation, and it's implied that her friend may have fallen victim to whatever misfortune has before plagued the area in the past. Potential villains are around every corner. There's the motorcycle-rider who dons glasses, the creepy police-man, and the big deaf guy who is equally as creepy as the police-man. I'm sorry, but whether these are good movie villains to you is not of my concern. All I really care about is the fact that every character is grossly underwritten, and the "big reveal" at the film's end is oh so very stupid. The film is boring, boring, boring; and that's how it intends to stay throughout. It takes its precious little time with everything it does, which would be admirable, if the film hadn't been so bad. I realize that this is the work of an amateur who probably didn't study enough classics to have some decent influence for his own film, but please; savor us to many yawns. I like suspense that makes you wait. I loved "Psycho", and I like anything from Alfred Hitchcock. He is a man who knows how to make movies like these good; while director Robert Fuest is a guy who seems to possess the ability to make them, well, bad. I hated this movie. I hated how it thought it was a thriller, I hated how it kept insulting the viewer with stupidity, and I hated how it thought its characters were as dumb as its target audience. I have a whole list of things that I hated, but I must restrain myself; for this is a review, not a rant. Let this be a lesson to all of us that some films aren't well-known or acclaimed for a reason. I hope that me reviewing this film does not stir up any interest amongst fans of film, or even the "thriller" genre itself, because this is a movie that does not deserve attention. You know what it deserves? To be forgotten. Yeah, that sounds about right.

Mike S (ru) wrote: Simultaneously predictable and unbelievable, this comedy nevertheless features good performances by the leads, who are actually able to generate some genuine emotion out of the climax to a silly premise. Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway play life-long friends who have both dreamed of lavish weddings in a famous New York City hotel. When they are accidentally scheduled to live out their dreams on the same day at the same time, friendship falls by the wayside as they try to sabotage each other's wedding. Things slid into unreality for me when they BOTH managed to infiltrate the other's beauty treatments to give one a day-glo orange tan and the other electric-blue hair. Why does day-glo orange even exist as a tanning colour? Entertaining at the time, this movie will quickly fade from memory, just like the garish colours they used to spoil each other's big day.

Andrew S (ag) wrote: Really good horror movie I enjoyed it a lot even though it was kind of long.