Brother Sun, Sister Moon

Brother Sun, Sister Moon

This is a dramatization of events in the life of St. Francis of Assisi from before his conversion experience through his audience with the pope, including his friendship with St. Clare.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:121 minutes
  • Release:1972
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:moon,   snow,   religion,  

This is a dramatization of events in the life of St. Francis of Assisi from before his conversion experience through his audience with the pope, including his friendship with St. Clare. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Brother Sun, Sister Moon torrent reviews

Nasrey J (br) wrote: I watched this just because of Olly Alexander. Finally I fall in love with every single second of it.

Paul D (us) wrote: Fairly lame Garfield story missing lots of essential elements of his and others characters.

Tang W (ru) wrote: It is a cute film. The spirit of Cary Grant seems unnecessary to me. It shows how cultures and religions play a part in relationships.

Jason C (de) wrote: Disney scraped their particular barrel of song-driven schlock with this effort - Phil Collins' dire soundtrack echoes the utter predictability of every move of this tired screenplay. In other news, Joaquin Phoenix is the titular bear. Who knew?

Oscar P (es) wrote: Nice relaxing movie.

M M (es) wrote: ah ah ah ah, Gale Harold HERE! how funny. sure Michael Pitt looks a bit like Justin >_> or not?

Jenifer M (gb) wrote: are you for real? what a lame movie

Jason M (ag) wrote: One of the most underrated dramedies of the 00's.

Sally O (mx) wrote: Ed Harris is NOT in this, despite what Flixster claims.

Eric R (mx) wrote: Why, oh why is the second of two back-to-back made sequels always the worst of the two?! Seriously, name me one instance where the second is better (and no, the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy was filmed all at once). "Matrix Revolutions" was worse than "Matrix Revelations", "Trancers 5" is worse than "Trancers 4" and of course "Subspecies III" is worse than "Subspecies II". There just wasn't enough plot to pad this entry out so what we get is a dull "Beauty and the Beast" clone with blood suckers.Opening right after the second film, our 'mummy' resurrects our drooling blood fiend Radu and now he miraculously decides that he loves our crying heroin Michelle Morgan (Denice Duff again) despite trying to kill her off brutally for a majority of "Subspecies II". Michelle's sister and her boyfriend continue, unsuccessfully, to rescue her even with the help of a dimwitted inspector and a mercenary CIA operative.I praised director Ted Nicolaou in my review for "Subspecies II" for tightening up the pace but here he fumbles the ball as the film meanders along with it's tragic 'love' story, and I use the term 'love' in the loosest form possible. He attempts to make a tragic "Beauty in the Beast" clone with vampires yet how can a love story bloom when our heroin despises the vampire beast so much. I mean this fucker brutally killed all here friends and even attempted to kill here so no love is going to bloom EVER!Because the plot doesn't have anywhere to go our heroin Michelle mostly stands around crying AGAIN while Radu attempts to teach his crush how to thrive as a vampire. He even starts to feel sorry for the atrocities he committed in the previous films... which I call bullshit! The only part of the film that got me involved is the introduction of a peculiar CIA operative who is a gung-ho mercenary complete with machine guns to take the blood suckers on, which just makes it more hilarious when he is quickly done in with a flying knife.Like most back-to-back made sequels there just wasn't enough plot to pad out another film. Unlike "Subspecies II", the plot here is slow and plodding with a long title and flashback sequence in order to pad it out to a feature film length. The production values are on par with the last film hence they are great by Full Moon standards but overall there isn't enough going on in this sequel to warrant it a 'must see'. Though it would have been fitting to stop here to round out a trilogy, Full Moon unwisely decided to make one more sequel but I advise stopping here.

Chus v (us) wrote: the film is a classic, but as a film, while it was innovative at the time, is overrated in most aspects. A couple of scenes, specially the cheering crowds, and the use of Rick Moranis' character half of the time, are cringe-worthy, as some of the moments by the arrogant Bill Murray character, which after 32 years, I still don't get why is the most beloved character of the series... it's completely unlikeable by any standards.

Brandon C (au) wrote: Why would you rate this anything less than five stars?

Terrance T (kr) wrote: This film was tailor made for Joan Crawford at best.

Matt G (au) wrote: Burt Lancaster's performance elevates another noir that makes no attempt to bring sound character logic to its overtly fatalistic plot.

Taylor D (ag) wrote: UMMM EXCUSE ME 73% WHAT THE FUCK ITS LIKE 192902999% IN MY BOOK?!

James E (de) wrote: As much as people say this is unoriginal, the funny parts are really hilarious and stand out from the rest of the movie, mostly due to Robin Williams.