You may also like
Luzia Homem torrent reviews
Lynnette H (it) wrote: Just finished watching Blue is The Warmest Color and I was compelled to leave a review on a movie that came out three years ago. This film stayed with me for days afterward. Replaying in my mind over and over. Still, I was on the fence about if I "liked" this movie or not. In the end, I can say it pissed me off and I LOVED it. Feeling so deeply about the story and fate of these women... and thinking about what I wished for them as if they were real people, convinced me that this film is a near perfect example of what I think film should be. Apparently I'm not alone as Even Spielberg and the jury of Cannes 2013 thought so as well. The sex scenes (which were not as "graphic" as I thought they'd be based on other reviewers) were necessary in my opinion. When you give yourself so completely to another, the way Adele gave herself to Emma, and at such a young age, it's no wonder her whole freaking life was wrecked afterward. She was literally ruined for anyone else. This is sometimes the heartbreak of life and love. I give only 4.5 stars because of the length of the movie.....wow it was way too long with some unnecessary scenes that should have been cut. However, I've heard they had close to 900 hours of footage in the end so three is doing pretty good I suppose. Overall, as a filmmaker, this movie inspired me immensely. I could only hope of making a film so beautifully heartbreaking and realistic as Blue Is The Warmest Color.
Vanessa G (nl) wrote: utterly disappointed
Vjosana S (kr) wrote: ed norton is cuter than ben stiller :PPPP lol
james f (it) wrote: Well, Leslie Neilson, I just don't know what to say.
Simon T (de) wrote: Endless, soporific account of the true story of Robert Stroud's incarceration in various prisons (including Alcatraz). Decently acted by a strong cast, it is unfortunately directed - by John Frankenheimer - with so little energy that it feels like a life sentence. It's also shot like a TV movie with cardboard sets and flat lighting. Burt Lancaster - a wonderful actor at his best - is so contained and unemotional here you end up thinking his terrible old-age make-up is the only element giving a performance. Thank God then for Elmer Bernstein's moving score which papers over the many cracks and (almost) convinces you this is a masterpiece.
Antonius B (us) wrote: In Hitchcock's 'British' version of the film made two decades before the one with Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day, it's the villains who are really well cast, with Peter Lorre and Cicely Oates turning in deliciously creepy performances. And there are some really nice touches here - the scene in the dentist's chair (who doesn't squirm at least a little seeing that setting, with those tools), a shot of Oates through bleary, hypnotized eyes, and of course the scene in the Royal Albert Hall, where suspense builds with an imminent assassination. It's nice that the film is to the point at 75 minutes, but it's a little awkward in the first part of the film, there are some odd plot points, and the shootout at the end is tediously long (it's telling that Hitchcock would omit that in the 1956 version). It's worth watching but certainly not a classic.
Caitlin L (it) wrote: Good movie but not great. They nailed the casting. Had some really funny moments.
Cody M (jp) wrote: The script is so one sided that it becomes irritating to really invest in any character.