Mexico City. 2002, 2006, 2010. A cop. A hostage. A wife. Corruption, violence, vengeance. Three destinies, during 30 days, during three Soccer World Cups. Three ways to fight in order to survive. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Days of Grace
Mexico City. 2002, 2006, 2010. A cop. A hostage. A wife. Corruption, violence, vengeance. Three destinies, during 30 days, during three Soccer World Cups. Three ways to fight in order to survive.
You may also like
Days of Grace torrent reviews
Kay K (ru) wrote: This American Indie film stars Michelle Williams and a dog, and that's about it. For Michelle to single-handedly hold the whole film together required some strong acting on her behalf and she definitely pulled it off. OK, so it's not the most upbeat of movies but it was honest and simple and very well done.
Jerry K (br) wrote: "Bride Flight" is a compelling, albeit contrived film with many soap opera qualitites. The cinematography is excellent. The story is engaging, yet predictable. It has the epic scope of "The Thorn Birds" set in the same part of the world. It has touches of other cultures which make it inviting to all faiths and ethnic backgrounds. Its universal themes of loves and friendships lost and rediscovered will resonate with many. Performances are textbook, save for one steamy over the top love tryst segment. In all, this is an especially enjoyable film if you are a Danielle Steel or Belva Plain fan.
Corrie F (ag) wrote: netflix all day errrrday
Japes (gb) wrote: I would love to punch in the face whoever was responsible for editing this film. The video editing was BY FAR the worst I have ever seen. I would've loved to edit it myself. Fading in/out to black is okay to use as a transition. One scene fades to black, then another scene slowly fades in. It's a rather nice touch when done properly. However, this movie used it for all of the wrong purposes. In one scene, they tried to use it to create suspense. It may have worked, if they hadn't overused it. In the scene, someone was about to die, so they focused in on one of the actor's facial expressions, then faded to black. Then they focused in on another actor's face and faded to black. They did this repeatedly. It would've been okay, except they used the effect 30 times, thus destroying any suspense that might have been created. It was really frustrating, seeing the same effect over and over and over again. They used it at least 50 times throughout the movie. The lighting was also really off. In some scenes, I couldn't see anything. I got lost and didn't understand what was happening because...well...I couldn't see! At least adjust the lighting so the audience can see SOMETHING happen, otherwise it's a boring piece of shit. Scary sounds mean nothing to me, when I'm staring at a pitch black screen. The slow motion effect was also not used properly at all! If you can't use effects right, then don't use them!! In one scene, one of the characters is standing outside of the door listening to another character scream from inside the room. As the character is standing outside the door, she starts crying and screaming (but they block the sound out so you can't hear the screaming which is stupid IMO). So what does this fabulous movie do? It focuses on the girl screaming and slow mos the shit out of her face. It shows her crying/screaming in slow motion......why? I have no idea. Why does it deserve to be slow moed? It doesn't add any emotion to the film. I surely didn't feel anything while watching it. The silent screams are also another biggie. They silence screams so many times. I guess for dramatic effect? I don't know. It was stupid, but I appreciate the silence. The character's voices were so annoying, I needed that little break. The pacing was also really off. The movie kind of just....started. It's almost like the movie already expected the audience to know what was going on....when actually we had no clue. No background information was given on any of the characters, and I'm pretty sure some of the character's names weren't even established in the film. The people in the film were complete strangers to each other, and they barely got acquainted......yet they knew each other by name, and when someone screamed they knew exactly who that person was (even though they couldn't see them). Like really? The story line was probably the biggest thing. It was like watching a cheap Saw knock-off. There were a bunch of plot holes too. I can't even list them all. The plot was filled with irrelevant material. It was just awful.
Emod L (kr) wrote: 84%Master and Commander is a showcase of fine performances, as well as some terrific photography and well-shot action.V: 80%
Diane J (fr) wrote: LOVE this except for the "save Christmas" garbage. But it's so funny and savvy. And I hate Christmas stories. Characters like Round John Virgin and bitter reindeer at the bar who didn't make Santa's team, etc are brilliant.
Anthony Z (it) wrote: Having never read the Kama Sutra, I don't know if this movie is somehow linked with it, though I wouldn't be surprised if it were. This movie is an outstanding historical film, and it exudes an exotic raw sexuality that is most unusual to encounter in historical dramas. The film's main theme has to do with the difference between love and lust and the morality of both types of human sexuality. And, the message given in the movie seems most sensible, with a final position of valuing each of them, though valuing love more. This is a most unusual point of view to encounter in Western movies, and it was very surprising to encounter in this film, though it was a most refreshing and honest experience of another possible ethic. The scenery and cinematography in this film were stunningly beautiful, and this makes the theme and plot deliciously seductive. After watching the movie you feel as if you have lived a few hours in a historical India. The story doesn't, I think, give any answers to one of humankind's most difficult moral dilemmas, but it does show that ethical choices are best left to the individual, and should not be decided for them. Another question, though only faintly addressed in the film, is what exactly composes an intrusion of power upon this decision. Since the movie is a historical drama, it touches mainly upon the most clear situation only. And, as great films do, it makes the audience partake of both types of human emotion simply by watching.
Eric J (de) wrote: Another of Prince's music video-like films. I totally loved the soundtrack but the rest of the picture was a mess. Under different direction it COULD have been better. Formulaic.
Melissa A (kr) wrote: It may have been charming for 1980, but it didn't really do anything for me. I was expecting to be totally moved by the story. Aside from finding the lead actors attractive for different reasons and enjoying the scenery and how the feeling of the early 1900s was captured, I couldn't gather my suspension of disbelief enough to feel anything from this movie. I don't want to spoil anything, but I just found most of it to be melodramatic and predictable.
Brandon B (ag) wrote: A nice, old-school boxing movie.
bernard a (es) wrote: Director Jules Dassin's contribution to the war effort, like most propaganda films - comes across as heavy handed drama. Not one moment do you believe that Joan Crawford is a frenchwoman. Nor does John Carradine IMO look and talk anything like a Gestapo agent. John Wayne gets second billing but he doesn't have much to do here as a downed pilot (a yank, of course) flying for the RAF. He spends most of his time hiding out from the nazis in Crawford's apartment. I thought the only reasonably interesting character might be Crawford's industrialist boyfriend (Philip Dorn) who turns into a nazi sympathizer. I do think there is possibly a germ of a good story here - the second half, at least, took an interesting turn. With maybe a little bit more rewriting and a LOT more believeable cast - this could have been a pretty good B movie at the very least.
Elmer F (ag) wrote: Karloff, Rathbone and Atwill are at the top of the game of their game as LUGOSI STEALS THE SHOW!
Simon S (au) wrote: Well-acted and admirably adherent to its own unique vision, Brick is an enjoyable case of style over substance.
Ziv E (us) wrote: I'm rather confused if i hate SPA more than Animat, Or if Animat hates SPA more than me.On one hand, I have never seen a SPA film that i thought was good unlike Animat.On the other hand, the amount of SPA films that I thought weren't bad is higher than the amount of films he thought weren't bad(It's a 2 to 1, if you wanna know.)But this is still a poorly made, mediocrely animated(I know "mediocrely" isn't a real world, shut up!) overly-cartoony movie.Story:2|10Animation:5|10Characters:3|10Overall: 3.1|10.