Lie with Me
Happily unattached, the sexually voracious Leila satisfies her desires with a host of rapidly changing bed partners, unconcerned about the emotional consequences. But that all changes when she meets an artist looking for a deeper commitment.
- Stars:Andreu Buenafuente, David Fernández, Sonia Ferrer, José Luis Gil, Jordi González, Sancho Gracia, Joe Lewis, Molly Malcolm, Lauren Lee Smith, Eric Balfour, Polly Shannon, Mayko Nguyen, Michael Facciolo, Kate Lynch, Ron White, Kristin Lehman, Don Francks, Richard Chevolleau, Frank Chiesurin, Nicola Lipman, Theresa Tova,
- Director:Clement Virgo,
- Writer:Tamara Berger, Clement Virgo, Tamara Berger (book), Carrie Paupst Shaughnessy (story editor)
An outgoing, sexually aggressive young woman meets and begins a torrid affair with an equally aggressive young man in which their affair begins to bring a strain on their personal lives. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Lie with Me torrent reviews
(jp) wrote: A must have and a must see.
(ca) wrote: very powerful, very very sad.
(ag) wrote: It was an interesting choice for the director to give the protagonist a gay son instead of a daughter like in the book, and it works, adding another dimension to the story, but the rest of it is pretty standard. I don't have any serious complaints about this movie, it's just that there's not much I can praise about it either, except maybe the cinematography, and of course Tilda Swinton, whom I've never seen give a bad performance. There were also some good tense moments, but none of them amount to much. As for the plot, there were parts of it I didn't buy for a second, but I suppose most mysteries have to rely on coincidence and suspension of disbelief at least a little bit.
(fr) wrote: NOTE: This film was recommended to me by Bethany Rose for the "Steve Pulaski Sees It."Perhaps if released in the late 1980's, or even the 1990's, George Mihalka's My Bloody Valentine would've been a film many slasher fans would've sneered at; it would've likely been a film dismissed as "more of the same" in a genre unwilling to subvert its more predictable principles to become something greater. Being released in 1981, however, when the slasher film was still a fairly new concept, My Bloody Valentine is actually a very significant for the time period. It's one of the few films of that era that didn't spawn a legion of sequels, let alone even a followup, and managed to tell its story and wrap it up without the feeling that it needed to build a cult of support and development around its pickaxe-wielding killer. It's a film that tells its story and leaves its mark.The story is set in the small town of Valentine Bluffs, which is preparing for a Valentine's Day dance, the first in man years. A working class town where most men work as coal miners, the Valentine's Day dance was a popular event in the town before a mining accident occurred twenty years before. On-the-job negligence resulted in five men being trapped underground amidst dangerous level of methane gas. While four of the miners died, one survivor named Harry Warden survived through cannibalistic acts and was eventually rescued. A year later, after never being seen again, Harry exacted revenge on the supervisors that were responsible for the accident, killing them both and slicing through their chests to extract their hearts, which he left in Valentine boxes to be found; he warned Valentine Bluffs never to hold another dance again.With Harry being locked in an asylum and a new generation of spry young kids wanting to commemorate Valentine's Day with a dance, the town complies and hosts another dance. Once again, as foreshadowed by a few of the older townspeople, murders begin happening by a man in a gas-mask wielding a pickaxe; Harry has presumably returned to avenge a town that has disobeyed his only wish.My Bloody Valentine is rather dark and methodical for a slasher film, unwilling to commit to a more light-hearted aura like many of its successors would. Its fabulously paced score of synths and melodic music, composed by Paul Zaza creates actual suspense in conjunction with Mihalka's direction, which is filled with original camera-angles. Consider the closeups we see of the murderer, and the utterly gruesome deaths we see with an unblinking eye. Mihalka was going for something completely frightening and unapologetically terrifying with the mood he creates here, and it isn't until one sees this film after watching more comical entries into the genre that they realize what a breakthrough this film was, staying true to slasher films' original roots of being frightening, atmospheric, and tense.The narrative is just believable enough to keep one watching, as it's not crafted in total randomness, and the deaths are just brutal enough to warrant some legitimate scares or jolts. Seasoned horror fans and cult followers will take note that pressures from the MPAA forced Mihalka to edit and scale-back his film significantly in the gore-department, and Mihalka's original cut, despite being filmed, has never been released to the public. An extended cut was released on DVD to coincide with the film's remake in 2009, adding three minutes to the film's original version, despite never releasing the completely untampered original.With that, My Bloody Valentine is a particularly strong slasher because, for one, it recognizes its genre and respectfully handles its scares and its material, and secondly, plays along with the tropes by making this a heavily stylized slasher in aesthetic and atmosphere. It manages to be gruesome quite often, but elegant throughout, and with such a brutal concept, it's surprising that the result is so quaint.Starring: Paul Kelman, Lori Hallier, and Neil Affleck. Directed by: George Mihalka.
(ru) wrote: In my original review of the first Hobbit film, An Unexpected Journey, I concluded by saying that we couldn't entirely judge it without the context of its subsequent sequels. I spent a lot of my review (both versions of it) addressing audience expectations of the film rather than reviewing the film itself, at least not as directly as perhaps I would normally. As I explained, this was necessary in dealing with a lot of the baggage thatcomes with comparisons with The Lord of the Rings, which the film inevitably invites.With The Desolation of Smaug (Desolation hereafter), we are now able to get a more accurate picture of the artistic and narrative intentions of the trilogy. The sequel to An Unexpected Journey does bring a number of improvements to the table, teasing out a little more subtext from the novel and solving some of the tonal problems. But it's still encumbered by the same narrative flaws of the first film, which the higher stakes unfortunately amplify.On the good side, the film seems tonally a lot more sure of itself. One of the big problems with An Unexpected Journey was its flipping back and forth between the light-hearted frolics of The Hobbit itself and the darker, more serious matter gleaned from the Lord of the Rings appendices. Here, there is the underlying feeling of a gathering darkness, reflected in both the journey of the dwarfs and Gandalf's investigations of the Necromancer. The success of this latter section could also be used to justify Jackson's decision to draw on the appendices - but we shall come to that a little later.Through the darkening tone, the film illuminates the underlying theme of greed, which all the major characters come to embody. Bilbo's growing greed towards possession of the ring is matched by the Master's corrupt political hold on Laketown, Thorin's obsession with reclaiming Erebor, Smaug's proud hold over the dwarves' riches, and the Necromancer's business in Dol Goldur. The Middle Earth in Desolation is being gradually destroyed by self-interest in increasingly ruthless forms: its stories are driven and dominated by people who will do whatever they have to, by whatever means necessary, to obtain, increase or avoid losing what they covet.There is a political point in all of this too, illustrated by the position of the Mirkwood elves. The aloof isolationism practised by their leader Thranduil is contrasted by Tauriel's compulsion to intervene in other peoples' wars. The community is faced with a stark political choice: either they shut themselves in from the growing evil and hope to withstand it, or they actively fight against it to safeguard an unknown future.The Lord of the Rings is often cited or described as an allegory for World War II, something which I explored in my reviews. While Tolkien did not intend for such conclusions to be drawn, there are parallels and through-lines throughout the work - for instance, regarding the two towers of Orthanc and Barad-Dr as the twin mights of Germany and Russia, waging war on peaceful people from two sides. If we accept this logic, it is possible to view Desolation as a partial allegory for World War I; the events take place many years before Lord of the Rings, and the Mirkwood elves' isolationism and detachment from the world around them is akin to similar practices by the USA.In addition to there being more subext, Desolation also benefits from better pacing. The first film badly dragged in a way that The Fellowship of the Ring didn't, possibly because it took a long time to adjust to Jackson's approach with weaving in the extra material. This film, by contrast, starts off very briskly and keeps the pace up all the way through. Even though it's still much too long, we aren't quite so conscious of it this time around.As with the first film, the set-pieces in Desolation are generally very good. They do have more of a video game sensibility than their Lord of the Rings counterparts, being shot more from a first-person stance and with more unusual camera angles. But Jackson still has a knack for creating interesting character pains and deaths, something in which he has excelled since the days of Bad Taste and Brain Dead. The barrel sequence is especially fun, particularly Bombur's antics of rolling between the banks of the river while taking out a multitude of orcs.One of the big tests of Desolation was going to be the introduction of its title character. This could have been very disappointing: notwithstanding the silliness of the Rankin Bass version, the darkness of the Lonely Mountain could have deprived us of his beauty, just as many (wrongly) held that Baz Luhrmann's editing in Moulin Rouge! deprived us of seeing the spectacular sets. But Jackson does a very good job, aided by Benedict Cumberbatch's sinister performance and wonderful delivery.While Smaug himself may be stupendous, many of the other effects are not. Too many of the wide shots and battle sequences are obviously green-screen, in that they consist of actors running around somewhat aimlessly, looking for their marks. It's hard to say whether the increased use of green-screen was a creative decision on Jackson's part or a studio mandate to keep down the already huge budget. Either way, these scenes lack the physicality of the battles in Lord of the Rings, and the molten gold is so fake-looking that you wonder whether George Lucas has snuck onto the set.Another big problem with Desolation is that the romance elements don't work. Tolkien reportedly tried towards the end of his life to rewrite key parts of his books to make the female characters more active. While the filmmakers can therefore claim to be enacting his wishes, Tauriel as a character is poorly written. Notwithstanding her political symbolism, she comes across as a Mary Sue whose dialogue often resembles fan fiction. Her relationship with Kili doesn't go anywhere, nor does it successfully convey the message about the need for closer ties between the races.Criticisms like this all point to an underlying question: would it have been better to just give us The Hobbit, on its own with none of the appendices, and let it be a lesser film? The Hobbit is by its very nature a weaker story than Lord of the Rings, and trying to make it closer to the latter by filling in gaps is good for fans but not so good for storytelling. Perhaps it would have been better to do as was originally envisioned by Jackson and Guillermo del Toro, namely to create a very different universe in one film and then bridge that universe with that of Lord of the Rings in another.This point is further illustrated by the ending, which is very unsatisfying. The final climax itself is a little too long, but the film fails where The Two Towers succeeded in having an end-point of tension and catharsis. Frodo and Sam's journey had reached a point where the trials they had survived were balanced by the scale of what was still facing them, enabling the film to stand on its own. Here, the ending feels altogether arbitrary, as though Jackson had cut where Del Toro would have cut but hadn't rewritten the script around it.The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is a heavily flawed second instalment of a trilogy which is a shadow of its predecessor. There's still a great deal of fun to be had watching it, and it contains many improvements which should be celebrated. But all these improvements are ultimately balanced out or overshadowed by equally big flaws. One only hopes that The Battle of the Five Armes will give us the kind of ending that we deserve.