Child Of God

Child Of God

A dispossessed, violent man's life is a disastrous attempt to exist outside the social order. Successively deprived of parents and homes and with few other ties, Ballard descends to the level of a cave dweller as he falls deeper into crime and degradation.

A dispossessed, violent man';s life is a disastrous attempt to exist outside the social order. Successively deprived of parents and homes and with few other ties, Ballard descends to the level of a cave dweller as he falls deeper into crime and degradation. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Child Of God torrent reviews

Gage A (ag) wrote: want to see this move so bad I like chucky

jeroen v (it) wrote: As mountain climbing movies go, it's not that bad. It would not look out of place in a quadruple bill with The Eiger Sanction, Mort d'un Guide and Schrei aus Stein and it's a hell of a lot better than Vertical Limit. Beautiful photography and it gives a good impression of the madness and te drive of the people involved. I was cold at the end and my fingers and toes needed a massage

Edith N (ag) wrote: The Apostle Paul Doesn't Enter Into It I rather wish the movie hadn't lacked the courage to stay in the one room rather than include perhaps five minutes in other locations. There's one brief scene in an elevator, one in a bar, and a quick visual of a party elsewhere. However, I think all they do is detract from the claustrophobia. I think the important theme of the movie is one of limitation, and I think we miss something of it by suggesting that there's a way to escape. We don't need to see the party; seeing the party suggests that the men have any options other than to be in that room at that time. There's this impression that limiting your locations is a thing you can do onstage but not onscreen, and I don't think that's true. I think it's harder onscreen because of the expectations, but I don't think it's a bad idea to try every once in a while, and doing it by halves just draws attention to what you didn't do. Our room is the "hospitality suite" provided by a company which produces some sort of industrial lubricants. There's a convention in Wichita, and three men have been chosen to represent the company there. Phil Cooper (Danny DeVito) and Larry Mann (Kevin Spacey) have been working together for a long time; Larry won't ever quite admit how long. They know each other very well, and perhaps they're best friends, but they don't always seem to like each other very much. Also in the room, though from R&D and not sales, is Bob Walker (Peter Facinelli). Bob is young. He hasn't been working for the country very long. He's a Baptist, married for six months, and deeply uncomfortable with the banter of Phil and Larry. The goal for their conference is to get the attention of one particular man, the Big Kahuna of his company, whose account could save their company. He has promised Phil that he'll be there, but at the party they've thrown, the man doesn't seem to show up. And then it turns out he was there and hit it off with Bob. Bob's religion gets in the way. It's really that simple. I mean, bad enough that he's so incompetent when it comes to mixing drinks, though it's at least in part Phil and Larry's fault for getting him to tend bar. However, he's one of those tiresome people who doesn't realize that there actually is a time and place for your religion, and your work isn't it. Honestly, I expect that What Happens Next is that Bob gets fired. Deservedly. Even if it turns out that talking to a major prospective client about Jesus was what it took to sell him industrial lubricant, well, it was just as likely not to be. Bob seems one of those people who literally can't believe that there are people who would be offended at having someone they barely know insisting on sharing their love of Jesus. Oh, I'm not saying that Larry's technique would work for me, either, but Bob's isn't automatically better or less offensive just because he doesn't drink or swear. Another point of this movie is that you can never really know what's inside another person. Larry says that, for him, telling someone that he doesn't believe them is the same as telling them to go to Hell. For the most part, he either believes what people tell him or doesn't argue with them. This is really a valuable tactic in sales, I should think, though he also tells some elaborate story about having accused someone of lying over dinner. Did Bob mean to distract the client by talking about Jesus? Did it just sort of come up in conversation and seem more important to him than industrial lubricants? We can't know. Now, I'm with Larry and don't believe him, but of course we also don't know why Phil has quit drinking and is getting a divorce. We don't know why; we don't know what is causing the changes in his life. Phil and Larry talk a lot, while Bob is at that party, but there's no way of knowing how much they mean any of what they say to one another. The best part of the movie is shouting Kevin Spacey. This is often the best part of movies, though there have been one or two movies I've seen where I could have quite done without it, or anyway movies that were bad anyway. Certainly this particular movie isn't for everyone. The contrast between shouting Kevin Spacey and quiet Danny DeVito worked for me, but I can see how not everyone would go for it. It ends with the sunscreen song, and I think the point is that everyone has something to teach you. Bob finds Larry no little odious. He doesn't seem to like Phil much, either, but he is offended by Larry and finds everything he does wrong or even evil. However, there is much talk about character in the movie, and Phil insists that Larry has more character than Bob can possibly realize. He may even be right. Whether he is or isn't, there certainly is a lot that Bob can learn from Larry about how to do his job. He can also learn about not making assumptions about people, but all things considered, he probably won't.

Pablo G (br) wrote: 3.3/5A charming even if a tad disperse, Bottle Rocket manages to be quite fun and unique in small but fairly important ways.

Nik B (es) wrote: An odd Oscar nomination choice, but through its flaws is a compelling character study, which- if tweaked a little bit, could have been far more outstanding. For starters, its probably the most overtly sexual movie the Academy had acknowledge up until this time. It's the earliest movie in which I've ever heard the word "slut". Also, great scene where mom basically tells daughter, "You're young and pretty, but that won't last. So you'd better put out tonight for this rich boy so that you can live a comfortable life." And then, of course, there's the sensual jazz dance on the dock where everything that could be said with clothes on was communicated. The story is- the drifter comes into the small Kansas town to look for a job with an old college buddy whose daddy is loaded. College boy is dating a girl, the aforementioned pretty one. She's frustrated because she's "only pretty" and doesn't feel comfortable in the rich-guys scene. She has a mother, bitter in her own husband's abandonment. She has a little sister, not pretty, but very smart and ambition beyond her years. They also live with a school teacher. A very interesting character who has been strong, single and independent her whole life; but is now turning older and insecure about being alone. Meanwhile the drifter is alright, a braggadocio- but simple-minded doofus beefcake. A big flaw here was hiring William Holden, who at 37, was 10+ years too old to play this post-college nomad. Sure, Holden is built. And with his shirt off, he fit the teen romance poster image. But his face shows too much maturity for a character so naive and lost. Acting was kinda clunky all around, save the teacher and her boyfriend. Direction was very non-Hollywood; almost independent, but in a good way. The script probably includes too many '50s colloquialisms that sound ridiculous now. But on the whole, you'll find that each character has something to be learned from. A that's certainly worth it.

Andrew F (ca) wrote: The reason film history is so fascinating is that every once in a while, there's a hidden gem like this one just waiting to be discovered.

Dave D (br) wrote: Johnny Agar gets infected with evil contact lenses and stock footage chaos ensues! Can a floating brain and a dog save the day? It just might work...

Nelly B (mx) wrote: Bette Davis ! Humphrey Bogart ! Pour moi ?! Muuuh <3

Jess L (mx) wrote: Creepy is the word. By today's standards it's pretty tame but this is one weird movie, shot beautifully it is a haunting piece of cinema that keeps you guessing the whole way through whether or not Bunny Lake actually exists. Great build up and even with a somewhat predictable ending this thriller will set the heart off in places. A remake is on the cards so make sure you see the original before the pissy new one that was set to star Reese Witherspoon. Question, why remake old movies when they were so good to begin with? We need more original movies Hollywood! Also, I love the opening titles for this film, Otto Preminger sets the scene for the entire film with the chilling music and simplistic visuals.