Η ζωή στην Πεζούλα και τη Βρυσούλα κυλούσε αρμονικά. Βοηθάει βέβαια το ότι υπήρχε ένας τοίχος ανάμεσα στα δύο χωριά, χτισμένος από άκρη σε άκρη, κι έτσι κανείς δεν ανακατευόταν στη δουλειά του άλλου. Όταν όμως έρχεται ο Καλλικράτης να ενώσει τα δυο χωριά, έρχονται τα πάνω-κάτω! Ένας μεγαλοδημοσιογράφος πεθαίνει, το εργοστάσιο βιολογικού καθαρισμού διχάζει, ο υπουργός λαδώνεται, οι μίζες πάνε κι έρχονται, το ΣΔΟΕ ανακατεύεται, οι άνθρωποι της νύχτας ενοχλούνται, ατομικά και τοπικά συμφέροντα μπλέκονται, ενώ οι εκπλήξεις και οι ξεκαρδιστικές καταστάσεις διαδέχονται η μία την άλλη...
- Stars:Babis Alatzas, Petros Bousoulopoulos, Eftihia Fanarioti, Eleni Gerasimidou, Michalis Iatropoulos, Marios Iordanou, Tasos Kostis, Bessy Malfa, Mihalis Marinos, Dimitris Mavropoulos, Anna Monogiou, Stavros Nikolaidis, Tasos Palatzidis, Regina Pantelidi, Efi Papatheodorou,
- Director:Stratos Markidis,
- Writer:Polyxeni Fragouli
Two villages in the plain of Thessaly in Greece are at loggerheads because none of them wants a unit of biological cleaning to be installed in its premises but lobbies for it to be ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Larisa empisteftiko torrent reviews
(us) wrote: excellent.....a new dimension in tamil cinema...
(es) wrote: funny movie with a good story. fun tone with good characters and some deep moments. well made overall. my only issue with the movie is a few decisions made by the characters in dangerous situations (about 3 viewings)
(it) wrote: when adversity gives equal strength
(ag) wrote: I generally don't really like movies involving self-destructive characters.
(ag) wrote: It was revitting,exciting,and was where they got characters from devil's rejects. I think....lol
(fr) wrote: A very good jump from the TV series to the bigscreen, great special effects enjoyed this during my childhood.
(fr) wrote: Corky: Only reason you ain't the man is you still too goddamn little, but, when you get bigger, you gonna be the man."Risking it all, he invents new rules... to beat the odds in a deadly game of survival."Fresh is a solid, ghetto drama about a young 12 year old boy who runs drugs to support himself, but loses out on any sort of a real childhood in the process. The movie isn't perfect, with moments of shaky writing and shakier acting by some, but for the most part it's well acted and well written. It's nothing necessarily new, with a ghetto crime backdrop, but the character of Fresh is a fresh and well rounded enough character to make us feel like we're watching this type of movie for the first time.Fresh has a lot of problems, especially considering he is only eight years old. His mothers gone and we can only assume dead. His father is an alcoholic, who he only sees in the park to play chess. His sister has left his aunts house and is a dope fiend who shacks up with whatever dealer she can. He runs drugs for local dealers to make money so that one day he can escape the ghetto, but the question is will he be able to escape the violence of the job he does in time?Sean Nelson really is brilliant as Fresh. He exudes a maturity and adulthood presence into a character that is years beyond his age. The rest of the cast is nothing too special, but they aren't too bad, for the most part, either. Samuel L. Jackson is easily the biggest name in this and he has a small, but nonetheless important role as Fresh's absent and alcoholic father.Fresh could just be considered another urban drama about the life of the street, but it does manage to be better than that. It's a movie that's well worth a look and may possibly be one of the better movies of this type out there. If you're a fan of the genre, it's definitely a can't miss film.
(gb) wrote: bence bir ba?yap?t, truffaut nun filmlerinden,77 yap?m? olmas?ndan dolay? diorum zellikle, zman?n? a?m?? dieceim ama o dnem avrupa sinemas? zlelikle frans?z ve italyan sinemas? tam bu tarz yap?or filmleri.. filmin kahraman? ucak mhendisi gibi bi adam montpellier de ya??or ve bekar st bekar bi adam, kad?nlar? seven bi adam filmin ad?ndan danal??ol?or, takipi ve ?ansl? denebilir ama kad?nlarla birlikte olmay? cok sewen bi adam, bir gn bunlar? yazmaya karar werior ve kitapla?t?r?or? ves paris e yay?nevlerine gnderior kitab? ve en osnunda sar???n editrn birisi cok ebgenior ve dier editrleri de ikna edip kaitba?n bas?lmas? iin olumlu karar c?kart?or.. sonra zaten o da adamla birlikte oluor vs.. en sonda adam yine bir kad?n?n bacakalr?na bak?orken onu takip edior , kad?n ko?tukca o da ko?uor derken adama aaraba carop?or ve boynu vs heryeri yatalk oluor gibi bi?i, daha sonra da yine ona bakmaya gelen bir hem?ireye doru ynelecem die yere d?or ve lor , filmin en ba??nda da adam?n cenazesi ile ba?l?or zaten son sahnede de o war,cenzaede bizim sar???n gzel editr bi?iler konu?uor vs ,birlikte oldugu kad?nlar teekr teker mezara toprak at?orlar vs..filmde ilginc ayr?nt?lar war, mesela adam?na cok a??k odlgu ama onu b?ark?p giden bi kad?nla kar??la??or paris te bir otelde 5sene nce olan bi olaym?? kad?n b?rak?p gitmi?, onunla konu?uor vs kad?n? reddediyor, sonra telefondaki uyand?rma serwisinden bunun ehr?eyini bilen bi tane hatunla randewu ayalrmaya ca???or ama beceremior.. vs vs.. iyi film, tirajikomik de denebilir...
(de) wrote: Tambien conocida como Tre passi nel delirio o Histoires extraordinaires, este filme recoge el talento de tres grandes directores europeos (Federico Fellini, Louis Malle y Roger Vadim) para llevar a escena tres excelentes cuentos del 'extraordinario' Edgar Allan Poe. Tres cortometrajes de una factura impecable y con la participacion de grandes luminarias del cine de la epoca:::::::::::::::::::::::::3. Toby Dammit - adaptado por Federico Fellini - 5+/5Re-del putas!. La mejor adaptacion de todos los cuentos de esta pelicula. Una adaptacion mas libre y personal, con una interpretacion desde el punto de vista de Fellini lo que, de entrada, es garantia de exito. El nombre del cuento original escrito por Poe es Nunca Apuestes tu Cabeza al Diablo, relato sobre un chico ocioso y pendenciero que termina perdiendo la cabeza (de manera literal) por una estupida apuesta. En la obra de Fellini los sucesos son mas fieles a la estetica del director, todo ocurre durante la epoca de los 60's en donde Toby Dammit (interpretado por Terence Stamp) es una estrella decadente del cine ingles que es llamado para trabajar en una pelicula de argumento escandaloso en Roma; a Dammit ya no le importa nada, se lo hace saber a todo el mundo y apenas esta a la espera de su paga: un Ferrari ultimo modelo. Toby Dammit tiene toda la carga simbolica y surrealista que le granjearon la fama de genio a este genio. Visiones oniricas desde el punto de vista fantasmagorico, personajes caricaturescos a lo largo del relato, escenarios y decorados unicos, hacen que esta 'libre adaptacion' se convierta en el homenaje perfecto a ese otro genio: Edgar Allan Poe.*Los cuentos de Poe son de lectura obligatoria!.:::::::::::::::::::::::::2. William Wilson - adaptado por Louis Malle - 4/5Es quizas, la adaptacion mas fiel de esta tripleta de cuentos. Con unos decorados fastuosos y unas actuaciones excelentes, Louis Malle consigue meter al espectador de lleno en ese mundo misterioso inventado por Poe, de que manera? Siendo fiel al relato, alejandose de las licencias a las que tiene derecho todo artista (audiovisual sobre todo) para deleitarnos con una excelente pieza. Espectacular, como siempre, Brigitte Bardot en el papel de Giuseppina, y mejor todavia la interpretacion de Alain Delon en el papel de William Wilson, quien padece el fenomeno de Doppelganger, tema en el que se basa la historia.:::::::::::::::::::::::::1. Metzengerstein - adaptado por Roger Vadim - 4/5Interesante adaptacion, aunque mas que por el virtusiosismo en la parte visual que deja ver el talento de este director, me parece apropiado dentro de lo inapropiado la manera en que Vadim juega un poco con el subtexto del cuento original para conseguir asi una inquietante vision malevola del personaje de la condesa Frederique de Metzengerstein, interpretado seductoramente por Jane Fonda, al colocar como su contraparte, el baron Wilhelm Berlifitzing, el hombre que consigue arrancarle un poco de amor de su alma viciada por los excesos, a Peter Fonda, hermano de la protagonista en la vida, primos dentro de la historia. Es un acierto lograr ese ambiente medio incestuoso, medio vicioso para llegar asi a unas representaciones de impecable factura.
(us) wrote: The Bluray restoration is quite good tho' perhaps not quite as good as the superb restoration of "Casablana."This film gets it done just watching the (somewhat contrived) sparks with Bogey & Bacall knowing this is where it all began for them. Bacall seems both young & not up to Bogey and, at other times, beyond her years, sultry & svelte. Surprised her singing bits weren't overdubbed yet glad they weren't. A good, old movie watch ... Enjoy! Smoking never looked more seductive!
(us) wrote: ZDJJBB aqaqthjlubbnbn
(ag) wrote: First things first, why does this sequel exist? Shitty way to start a review, but it's worth asking. I mean I thought the first movie was actually fairly decent and everything, but it's not like the movie set the world on fire, at least in my opinion. The movie cost $400,000 to make and it earned slightly over $7 million at the box office. Then again this is according to Wikipedia, which isn't the most reliable of sources. I just find it difficult to believe that the first movie made that much money, at least in comparison to its budget. But let's say that the movie did make that, and it isn't taking into consideration DVD sales VOD, that's not even necessarily reason enough to commission a sequel. This movie is a perfect example of that. While the original film received a somewhat positive critical reception, it wasn't overwhelming to the point where I felt that horror geeks felt they had to watch this. This is the type of movie that someone watches just because it's there. Particularly for horror geeks, I can't tell you how many horror movies I've seen just because they're available on Netflix or Amazon. Not even because I actually want to watch them. And I do think that The Pact had some of that. I don't wanna say it was all that, because that would be ignorant, but there's just nothing about the original flick that really inspires excitement to actually sit down and watch it. Which is why I was a little surprise to see a sequel. A sequel that, sadly, isn't any good whatsoever. That's why I was wondering why there was a need for one. I may have still asked why we needed a sequel if it ended up being good, but I wouldn't harp on it as much as I'm doing now. The film does a shit job at justifying its own existence to be honest, which is that a successful sequel must do in order to get audiences to buy into whatever story they want to tell. This movie justifies its own existence by saying 'just because' and that's it. There's very little in the way of substance in this movie. There's a copycat killer going around and, obviously, copying the MO of the Judas Killer's murders. The movie is put together in such a way that you know who the murderer is without any real sort of suspense. There's only two people it COULD be and one of those is a very obvious red herring, particularly if you look at this person's behavior throughout the entire movie. Part of the appeal of these movies, those where you don't know who the killer is, is the mystery behind who it actually is. Whether you do as it was done in Saw, where the killer was seen in flashbacks, or whether you have multiple people, the point is that you're intrigued enough by the story and how its mystery is put together to keep watching. But when you have only two real suspects and one of them is so clearly a red herring, then that makes it a little difficult to get into. Another thing that makes a little difficult to get into the movie is how unlikable June, the protagonist, is. Camilla Luddington was solid enough, but her character was honestly kind of a dick. And the character had an interesting enough backstory that they could have actually used, but they didn't and instead had her be an asshole to almost everybody she meets in the movie. The story is also somewhat convoluted. I got everything, but it wasn't exactly well-written or interesting for that matter. Also, for a horror movie, this movie is lacking a lot of the horror. There's some jump scares, obviously, but I've made my feelings on jump scares known forever now. They're a cheap way to scare someone. It's not actually scary, all it does is startle you. But they're, thankfully, not as prevalent here as in others. Sadly, however, the movie doesn't add other more atmospheric moments to supplement the jump scares, so the movie just ends up feeling completely barren. It's not the worst movie I've ever seen, but this was just no good at all. It gets one-star simply because I'm being kinder than I probably should. It's a bad movie and I wouldn't recommend it whatsoever.
(mx) wrote: Looking a bit boring but is a good movie
(jp) wrote: Peter Gallagher and Laura San Giacomo are so disgusting.