A well-bred, lovely, spiritual, sad young woman marries an attentive physician who loves her. She feels affection but no love. Soon after, without design, she falls in love with Pedro ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
A well-bred, lovely, spiritual, sad young woman marries an attentive physician who loves her. She feels affection but no love. Soon after, without design, she falls in love with Pedro ...
You may also like
La lettre torrent reviews
Corey B (nl) wrote: Good actin, good direction, weird but somewhat original plot
Gareth J (au) wrote: Interesting story although better off learning about in a book. Having said that, like who reads these days? Whatever.
Howard H (au) wrote: he's like the airport version of RAMBO
stefn birgir s (fr) wrote: An amaturish low budget slasher films. Includes bad dubbing.
Ryan B (us) wrote: If it weren't for the crazy guy who rapes his girlfriend, I'd have given this a 5, but he's so insane, and there didn't seem to be much of a motive for it. Rothrock beats the crap out of everyone she fights, worth the watch! Especially if you want to see two men oiled up fight eachother until one of them gets meat-hooked.
Jason J (fr) wrote: I remember seeing the original transmission on BBC1 and the controversy that followed it afterwards. Some viewers obviously failed to see that there was a notice onscreen saying that the programme wasn't real but still managed to take it so seriously and according to rumours some people committed suicide after being so traumatised. Set up like a Crimewatch show we have Michael Parkinson in the studio with a parapsychologist discussing the Pipes phenomena and other ghost stories while Sarah Greene and Craig Charles are on location in a council estate house where Pipes the ghost is making life a misery for the Early family. As you can imagine, there's a lot of hand-held camera action and quick glimpses of the ghost. Then it descends into total farce at the end where all hell breaks loose. Looking back at the show now it's rather dated and is badly acted.
Kimberly Y (ru) wrote: is a pretty good movie.
Issac L (jp) wrote: I(TM)m conquering another Cher(TM)s film, perhaps her lesser-known one, MERMAIDS sets up in the 1960s with an unorthodox pair of a middle-age single mother and her adolescent daughter, both try to manage their lives in their own ways (dealing with the conundrum with men is a befuddling task for both), also attenuates the accruing conflicts between them. The film is directed by actor-turn-director hack Richard Benjamin and the overall reception is a sloppy sentimental piece of essay on woman(TM)s independence and religious ambivalence. The story goes smoothly with an occasionally witty, but otherwise run-of-the-mill narrative (the highlight for me is the ocean in the room time? which effectually casts a genuine uplift upon me), Cher seems to steer onto a more restrained way of acting to manifest her modern new woman? pioneer archetype, unwed mother with 2 children, casually flirting with men, sleeping with men and taking on a not-so-serious relationship with Bob Hoskins (a deliberate set with a jarring comparison). But this time, the film(TM)s saving grace is not from their adult cast (considering a considerately miscast Michael Schoeffling as the handsome but rather stiff love interest of Ryder), but two young starlets, Ryder and Ricci. Ryder has her own terms of endearment? moments near the finale, a mutual emotional burst with Cher, and most of the time she is the leading role or at least the co-leads (ironically Golden Globe thought hers is a supporting role, a typical discrimination still prevailing now towards the young talents). Her incessant voiceover of a young girl(TM)s world inward is the driving force to propel the film and its audience into the (now) somewhat dated world-of-view in those days. Ricci is simply endearing as the young mermaid/swimmer? sister, there is a soppy point one dreads her safety during the drowning accident, and labelled as a comedy-drama, the film dares not to risk dragging itself into a self-reprimand moral abyss which could sabotage all the generic concoctions it has achieved.
Sums I (mx) wrote: Weird, 80's oddity. When I saw it as a child, it was mildly entertaining . Revisiting as an adult its a confusing mess of sci-fi, humor, and strange sexual overtones. What the duck is going on here? Jeffrey Jones is painful to watch - I want to give him a soothing cough drop. Howard the Duck is annoying, not at all endearing. The sci-fi storyline is flawed, cliche and again -- weird (and not in the a good "Weird Science" sort of way). The only good thing here is that Lea Thompson looks terrific in her underwear. She's not shy at all while making the bed with Howard (and the camera) staring on in delight. This one bedroom scene is the only thing that keeps this movie on the pop culture radar -- and that's probably not a good foundation for a movie.
Jack G (gb) wrote: easily Pasolini's worst. Terence Stamp, wtf man
Nate T (mx) wrote: If you don't have claustrophobia organically, you'll likely have developed it in some form after watching this one. Another hit by Polanski. Once again Art House though... Part of The Criterion Collection and on Blu-ray in the US.
Tibor B (de) wrote: Some of Britains finest filmmakers made propaganda driven films during the war, and this is one of Powell and Pressburgers. As a narrative it is fairly dull and heavy going, but it is clearly more interested in informing the public at the time of the sacrifices and support that anti-Nazi groups in Holland were giving the allies, here a bomber crew bailed from their damaged plane. More of interest from a historical point of view than a particularly enjoyable film, but there are some good moments particularly on the initial bombing runs.
Asa B (us) wrote: I didn't expect to laugh out loud so many times, but I couldn't resist during this charming comedy, with a sparkling Garbo!
Andrew S (kr) wrote: Having more of Finch's role than Jim and his dad, the movie is not as silly like what the franchise delivers to us from the previous two.