Saint Peter, a reluctant but passionate leader, from the crucifixion of Jesus to his own. The film's first half dramatizes the New Testament's "Acts": early fear, the renewal of Pentecost, ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Imperium: Saint Peter
Saint Peter, a reluctant but passionate leader, from the crucifixion of Jesus to his own. The film's first half dramatizes the New Testament's "Acts": early fear, the renewal of Pentecost, ...
You may also like
Imperium: Saint Peter torrent reviews
Jerico T (es) wrote: best pinoy movie ending ever. using Toni G's real lovelife was just the best move on that I couldn't even hardly imagine.
Manny D (ag) wrote: Amazing movie , I really liked it! I want go see this movie 10 more times but not enough money!
Jasrick J (br) wrote: Bajirao Singham (ajay) gets transferred to Mumbai and he discovers that one of his team members (ganesh) is found dead with large bags of money. Bajirao decides to unearth the truth behind it and in this process, he collides with a powerful Swami ji (amole gupte) who has high profile connections with politicians. Whether Bajirao is able to overcome this challenge and clean the system or not forms the rest.The director has come up with an action packed story, but the plot was wafer thin and while the presentation was okay, the narrative was quite absorbing in parts, but boring in other parts.The dialogues were filled with good punch. The script was below average but the screenplay made it a little better. The background score was filled with good energy but songs could have been avoided. Cinematography was good but could have better. Editing was needed in some boring cliched portions. Costumes were well designed to suit the backdrop while the art department was medicore. Ajay Devgn has carried out his role with elan and he has once again proved his mettle. Kareena Kapoor is bubbly and evokes laughter in film. Amole Gupte was fabulous, Anupam Kher was superb, Zakir Hussain was excellent, Dayanand Shetty was good, Sameer was standard, Vineet Sharma was neat. Others also contributed in a positive way and added value.Though the title sounds like a sequel, there is actually no connection with the original movie except that its hero and director have not changed. This film has a more realistic story but the plot is wafer thin and is dragged with many cliched and ordinary scenes. The film showed promise in the beginning but dips alot afterwards especially in the second half. The film entertains in parts mostly when Ajay Devgn is on screen performing his dramatic portions or his action sequences otherwise the film is ordinary and boring. Director Rohit Shetty fails to make SR better than the first, the spark is missing, the first was far more superior in drama and story. At the box office the film has started off historically but I believe all the hype will die done soon.Overall if you compare to the first you will be disappointed, otherwise its entertaining in parts. Watch if your a Ajay Devgn fan because he is roaring in the film with his performance. 2.5/5*
Rafael V (fr) wrote: Despite the animation style that doesn't play very well with the tone of the story this movie it's the best representation of Superman in the DC animated universe
Douglas L (fr) wrote: Excellent performances from children and a very rough story to unfold. Beautiful in a way and completely tragic and heart breaking.
Lisa Marie A (ag) wrote: I actually really enjoyed it. Posted a lil to early before, but I really liked it. Tons of good actors.
Adam U (nl) wrote: Wow I cant believe this is such a underviewed movie . Jenya Lano was so endearing and typical Gary Busey as a psyco.
Jonathan P (br) wrote: Decent movie if you're in the mood for a corny comedy with a few cute girls in it.
Cydnee B (us) wrote: Very under-rated, considering how great it is to find out what Gonzo is, exactly. An alien, decent. Decent plot, decent characters, decent cameos, decent music, and(SPOILER ALARM!) a most decent tug of the heart-strings as someone searches for their origins at a high cost. (SPOILER ALARM!) and manages to escape the FBI with help from friends and meet their relatives from another planet at a beach with a bunch of college kids and hippies. Sorry.Anyway. It's very good. The Muppets will never go out of style.Fashions will, trends will, forgetful movies will, but not The Muppets. Decent.
Ryan V (de) wrote: The Shaw Brothers are famous for producing hundreds of kung fu movies, but The Super Inframan ("Chinese Superman") is their response to the popularity of imported Japanese kids shows like Ultraman or Kamen Rider. The "plot" surrounds an evil space witch who attempts to conquer Earth with a gang of awkwardly-costumed monsters and an army of astonishingly flammable henchmen. Her main obstacle lies in the fighting prowess, rocket boots, and hand-animated laser beams of the titular cyborg. The Super Inframan has all the wacky costumes, colorful sets, and ludicrous storytelling of the programs it liberally borrows from, but this movie also contains the tight, balletic fight choreography that's emblematic of a Shaw Brothers film. It's no wonder that the ensuing decades have seen this movie become a minor cult classic.
Josh E (ru) wrote: (I submitted this as an English essay)Gregory Doran(TM)s adaptation of Shakespeare(TM)s Hamlet was very well done. I enjoyed both Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation and Gregory Doran(TM)s adaptation equally. However, I felt like this adaptation did the better job of staying true to the play. While it does put a big modern spin on the play, it maintained the story(TM)s original dark and grim atmosphere.This movie was much better casted than the other adaptation. Having a younger actor (David Tennant) play Hamlet seemed to better fit the character(TM)s childish mannerisms. He acted with a great range of emotions. While Kenneth Branagh acted the part psychotically most of the time, David Tennant(TM)s acting ranged from psychotic to tranquil, from joyful to depressed, from hateful to loving. This great range of emotions portrayed in a very off-putting way helped show the character(TM)s emotionally-contradictive personality, which is what Shakespeare likely intended.The minor characters were also very well casted. Gertrude was portrayed as emotionally troubled as opposed to old and bitter, which I felt added more dynamic to the film. Claudius seemed more intimidating and antagonistic in his polite manners, in a devil in disguise? sort of way. The Ghost of Hamlet was acted antagonistically as well. While reading the play, most often the reader(TM)s first impression of the ghost wouldn(TM)t be that of an antagonist. But the way the part was acted was very tour de force, and aggressive in a kind of Raging Bull? demeanor. The portrayal of the Ghost reflects Hamlet(TM)s fluctuating emotions, but also foils his lack of anger and confidence. Also, it was very smart to portray King Hamlet as more directly antagonistic than King Claudius, because it helps the audience focus more on Hamlet(TM)s inner conflict and less on his family affairs. I also thought it was very clever to make Patrick Stewart play both Claudius and the Ghost of Hamlet, because they were physically the same person, but almost polar opposites in their demeanor.This movie had less production value than Kenneth Branagh(TM)s version. However, I liked the lesser production value of this version. It creates a whole different atmosphere. Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation had Victorian, well lit settings that seemed almost too lively and grand. The setting of this version is much colder?. The rooms are smaller and the halls are narrower, giving the movie more tension. It also makes less use of lighting, for a dark and gloomy feel. It also gives the movie more ambiguity and suspense, while only focusing on what(TM)s important (example: the ghost? scenes at night sometimes kept the actors in the dark while lighting the ghost when it makes its appearance, then uses lighting to capture the actor(TM)s reactions). All of this helps to capture the play(TM)s true heart of darkness, which I really appreciated.There was a difference in this version(TM)s sequence of the play(TM)s scenes. Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation was very paint-by-numbers?, in that it reflected the original text in its entirety. But this adaptation(TM)s removal and rearrangement of scenes made it seem more movie-like?, so that the plot is more easily comprehensible and entertaining.What I appreciated the most of this movie is its well thought out use of different types of shots, which all had different purposes. The type of shot that I considered most cleverly executed was the found-footage shot. In this movie, it is in the form of security camera footage. I felt that the use of this type of shot helped to increase feelings of paranoia. My favorite example of this is during Hamlet(TM)s to be or not to be? monologue, where Polonius and Claudius watch him via the security cameras. This scene also made a good use of long shots (shots that last longer than a minute without cuts) and close-ups, which help the audience appreciate the acting more as well as create more intensity. A lot of long shots were used during monologues. The long close-ups in the to be or not to be? scene, matched with the found footage shots, created a really intense and paranoid tone that I really enjoyed and did not expect.Another type of shot that the director implemented that I really enjoyed was jump-edited shots. This is when two sequential shots don(TM)t differ in camera angle, and the subject remains on camera but in a slightly different position. Jump-edited shots were cleverly used during Hamlet(TM)s soliloquies to show sudden shifts of emotions. In one shot he(TM)d be maniacal in his expressions, and it will cut immediately to a shot of him in a sad and melancholy trance. This makes it seem like these two emotionally-polar sides of him coexist, and the intention of this was likely to mess with the viewer psychologically, which I really enjoyed.I also really enjoyed the varied use of static shots and moving shots. In Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation, most shots were moving, making the movie seem much livelier. However, this adaptation consisted of mostly static shots to create a better gloomy atmosphere. The moving shots are only used when something is going wrong. This helps guides the viewer(TM)s emotions. Overall, I really enjoyed this film. The varied acting, the gloomier production atmosphere, the clever execution of different shots, and the more coherent plot sequence all helped to create a wonderful adaptation that is unique in that it stays true to the play not literally, but through artistic elements. This is a wonderful adaptation that deserves more recognition than Kenneth Branagh(TM)s, so that moviegoers can be exposed to the play(TM)s true raw heart of darkness, rather than given blockbuster eye-candy that only captures Hamlet(TM)s words and not its spirit.
Paul D (mx) wrote: Has a cult appeal to it and raises enough interest in the mystery disappearance and ultimately crazed local. However this person is not revealed until late on and this well-known formula does work for the film.
Filippo V (ru) wrote: Ho apprezzato molto la trilogia dei Pirati dei Caraibi e questo quarto capitolo ha tutta l'aria di essere qualcosa di non necessario che nessuno ha mai chiesto. Tutta la magia e il divertimento dei film precedenti sembra essere sparita per dare spazio ad un avventura insipida, caotica e prevedibile.
Shanna H (it) wrote: It would take a lot for a movie to be better.