A drama that chronicles the civil war that raged after the 1917 Bolshevik revolution.
You may also like
Morfiy torrent reviews
WS W (nl) wrote: A proper, decent, localised Hong Kong movie for ages. Taking all the advantages of recent hot discussion of cultural conservation & reminiscence of "old-Hong Kong" (by awkwardly filling contemporary slangs in every lines spoken doesn't mean it's real reminiscence however!), in addition to director's proclaimed semi-autobiography, it is still one soapie melodrama deep down in vein. Simon Yam is convincing by portraying a humble father-figure living in the '60s; Sandra Ng is good in certain important scenes but just alrightee in average. And, Buzz Chung (Big Ears, the younger son) absolutely deserves the Hong Kong Film Awards' Best New Performer recognition more than Aarif Lee (Desmond, the elder son).
Nathan C (gb) wrote: A Steaming Pile of Shit,Why did they have to add the fucking mermaids!That makes me hate this movie more,I'm Not Giving This Movie Half Star because Johnny Depp was hilarious and i like how some parts have been redone, That's not saying Much!Score: 2/10
Catherine R (us) wrote: Hrithik Roshan and Babara Mori, great performance.
Kristin R (ag) wrote: This was one of those 'funny because its so damn stupid' movies. Some laugh out loud moments, but mostly it was just ridiculous. Loved the cameo by Michael Schumacher and Zidane!!
Bryce I (au) wrote: One of the greatest films of the past decade is Charlie Kaufman's ambitious excursion into the writer's mind, and the struggle of creation in a deranged and haunting surrealist piece with themes explored in time, loneliness, and artistic extent to greater establish the protagonist's deception between reality and creation. It is a beautiful film, encompassing all audiences would recognize from Kaufman's previous works, but the extending philosophy on modern perception is what stands high amongst his other scripts. It's not his best work, coming just below Eternal Sunshine as the piece tends to think high of itself from an author's view oppose to the cinematic, but the fine details which carry the piece through it's opaque narrative only add to it's beauty and unfamiliarity.
Randy J (kr) wrote: insightful towards religion but lackluster talent in the movie
Bradley K (kr) wrote: This comedy dream team succeed best when they allowed to run wild and feed of their synergy. The plot itself is pretty dopey.
Bryan G (gb) wrote: [font=Courier New]Dr. Caruthers (Bela Lugosi) feels animosity toward the company he sold a formula to after they make millions, and he is only giving a few thousand. So he devises a plan of revenge involving giant bats he has created in his secret laboratory. After giving various members of the families who own the company a shaving lotion, he releases the bats which are attracted to the scent of the lotion. I figured since it was going to be Halloween soon, I should try to watch a couple of my favorite horror films in celebration. [i]The Devil Bat[/i] isn?t one of the greatest movies ever made, but it is one of my favorite poverty row flicks that Lugosi was reduced to doing toward the end of his career. The movie is made enjoyable by Lugosi?s screen presence. Whether he is talking lovingly to his monster bats, or bidding his victims farewell, he seems perfectly fitted for this cornball role. Not to say that he isn?t a gifted actor. He is one of my favorite icons of early cinema. But this film still shows his talents just as well.[/font]
Dennis L (jp) wrote: Middle-aged crazy[Beware spoilers]Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey) is your usual well-behaved 42-year-old dreg of an American dad until he spots his teenaged daughter's girl friend, Angela Hayes (Mena Suvari) whose beauty transforms him. Part of the fun of this very funny and enjoyable movie is watching Lester break out of his self-imposed shell and blossom with the rose petals as he tells everybody what he really thinks as though he had nothing to lose.His daughter Jane is a brooding raven-haired beauty who likes to put on a white-powdered face and red Betty Boop lips to go with her full figure. Thora Birch, who plays Jane, has a face that can mesmerize, and Director Sam Mendes puts her to work mesmerizing us.Annette Bening, in a comedic tour de force, plays Lester's wife Carolyn, a straitlaced, uptight, worry wart who sells real estate. Next door we have, just moving in, 18-year-old Ricky Fitts, played with sly self-assurance by Wes Bentley, the dope-dealing, Bible-suit wearing, photog son of Marine Corps Colonel Frank Fitts and his mostly catatonic wife. Two houses down there's Jim and Jim, your smiling yuppie fruit loops and all-around neighborhood sweet guys. They are however an embarrassment to Colonel Fitts who is living in the deep, dark corner of a very large denial closet, paranoid to the teeth that his only son has inherited the same shameful desires and will act them out. In an effort to keep Ricky disciplined and on the straight and narrow, the good Colonel practices various forms of child abuse ranging from bare-knuckle beatings to medicated imprisonment.In other words what we have here is your typical American suburban street. What makes American Beauty a great success is a witty script with a deep and beautiful lesson for our age by Alan Ball, superb direction by Sam Mendes and outstanding performances from just about everybody in the cast. Bening is brilliant with her silly finger gestures and her one foot sideways stance, like a fawn just learning to walk, and her squinty little eyes full of merriment, and that raised and then downward pointing index finger of indignant reproof. (But she really needs to keep her pretty shins off the bedposts or at least off the wall.) Mena Suvari is perhaps no more beautiful than any number of other screen darlings, but she has a litany of sexy expressions and poses that inspire delight. Her portrayal of a fast lane teen siren whose talk is bigger than her experience is just perfect. She might be a budding star.But more than anything this is an uplifting and satisfying tale of an unappreciated, unloved and mostly ignored man who is inspired to transform his life by the beauty of a girl. For many people (and for most women, I would wager) falling in love at first sight with a teenaged girl just because she is beautiful is shallow and beside the point, inappropriate and not fair. But women love men for their power and their strength and their standing in society. Is that fair to those men who have none? Lester's love for Angela was so great that it transcended carnality, but he didn't know that until he began to take off her clothes and then he realized something very beautiful. He could love her without making love to her. If he took advantage of her youth and inexperience, it would cheapen his love for her and possibly destroy it. Maybe some people in the audience felt he wasn't a real man because he stopped, but I tend to feel the opposite. Not that I think there is anything wrong with making love to 18-year-old girls (on the contrary); but if the girl is incapable of experiencing that love, then perhaps it is better to love her from afar without a sexual expression, even at the risk of disappointing her, especially if you're old enough to be her father, and especially if you really do love her. Notice that in the next scene she is bored and for her the magic of sexuality is gone. He might as well be her father.So much of what we are presented through the media is a focus on those males who would only be able to express themselves in some sexually-exploitive manner. So much of what we read insists that this is the only way men are. I'm happy to say that American Beauty presents another point of view, and presents it beautifully.The point made by the surprising ending (and the reason for the presence of the Marine colonel and the two gay guys) is that our contemporary "enlightened" society may recognize the legitimacy of homosexual love, but continues to hypocritically condemn the love of a man for a young girl. --Dennis Littrell, author of the movie review book, ?Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can?t Believe I Swallowed the Remote?
Alice (de) wrote: He looked like the ideal husband. He seemed like the perfect father. That's just what they needed. But that's not what they got.
August M (es) wrote: I loved this movie. It was hilarious and incredibly progressive and Dustin Hoffman delivers a classic performance. I was astounded out how frankly this movie tackled sexism and I applaud it. A classic in pretty much every sense and
RC K (nl) wrote: At one point (and I may have written this before!) I decided that I needed more Sam Neill films, considering I claim him as my favourite actor. I dug through his filmography and nothing really jumped out, but a person requesting of me a musical piece from the film (likely the chunk of Schumann's "Scenes from Childhood" that is played repeatedly) pushed this one to the forefront, as I learned how well thought of it was, and it's the unusual near-starring role for Neill. I picked it up with another Gillian Armstrong film, Starstruck, which I loved. I've been putting off and putting off watching this one, occasionally attempting to watch it with my parents, but usually ending up watching something else (much like when intending to watch it by myself). I have finally gotten to it, though, and so here we are with my comments on it.Sybylla Melvyn (--whew, lots of y's, though I always like such spellings--Judy Davis) is a young woman in the Australian bush in the late 19th or early 20th century whose family is short on money, but has nothing of interest in it to the independent Sybylla. She wants to be a writer, beginning the film by beginning a novel, promising herself and her readers that she will launch off on her career--wait, no, her brilliant career, she decides. The short funds of her family come into play, though, and she is sent to live with her grandmother (Aileen Britton) and her Aunt Helen (Wendy Hughes). She becomes upset at her "ugliness" while there, with Helen attempting to comfort her as her grandmother attempts a sort of matronly guiding of Sybylla's life, in complete defiance of Sybylla's own wishes for it. Childhood acquaintance Harry Beacham (Neill) stumbles across her picking blooms in a field and makes rather lustful advances, only to have her reject him. Frank Hawdon (Robert Grubb) is also attracted to Sybylla, but maintains airs of his "civilized superiority," of a kind, when referring to her--and even notes that she might as well realize she won't do "better than [him]." Gracious me. Frank Sybylla simply ignores, as a now thoroughly embarrassed Harry (who had no idea who he was hitting on) begins to fall more completely for the willfull Sybylla. A trip with no return visit from Harry leaves Sybylla offended, but when Harry returns he discovers it is not for feeling spurned as a lover but as a friend--she tells Harry that she needs to see something of life before she will marry him, only to find herself trucked off to an indigent family as governess in exchange for payment of a debt.I'd heard this was rather a feminist film--moreso from Armstrong herself as she recounted the angry response of the people who loved that about it when they saw her follow-up Starstruck. I find the wildly-varied-in-definition term "feminism" a bit spiky, though, and was not sure what to expect. On the one hand, we have what was allegedly the original intention--the social vitalization of women, to make them accepted equals of men, and on the other we have strange exaggerated and downplayed definitions anywhere from "maybe a first class instead of second class citizen, but still not equal to men" all the way up to "men are inferior beasts." Gillian's response to the silly anger of people who wanted another period arthouse film of shrugging indifference mixed with offense and a bit of hurt was comforting on this front though. At the least, it was clear that she did not set out for the final definition. What she did do, via the original novel by (Stella Maria Sarah) Miles Franklin and Eleanor Witcombe's screen adaptation, is promote the egalitarian definition (which I'm all for) by asserting the independence of Sybylla.Sybylla, as a character, is a bit irritating, I must admit. This is nothing to do with Davis' performance, which is phenomenal and seems to catch the right elements in the right light to describe and explain this element. She's self-centered, egotistical (she admits this first thing as she begins her novel, saying she will not feel shame for it before declaring her intentions of "brilliant" career for herself), spoiled and ungrateful, but some of this stems from an apparent alienation from the people around her, especially her family. Her mother is exactly the sort of woman she does not want to me--giving birth annually for a working husband, and the rest of her family shares no ambition beyond this. Her grandmother pushes her toward marriage as the crowning achievement of a woman's life, while her aunt, troubled by her own past, tries to spare her the pain of her own secret separation by aiming her toward what she feels is the "right" kind of marriage. On this issue, in a general sense, Sybylla is not out of place in her indignation. Marriage is not and should not be a requirement for the social "citizenship" of any person, nor should it be the only path available without risk of derision and scorn. It's interesting, though, that she seems to actually care more deeply for Harry than she will admit, possibly even to herself, in her stubborn commitment to independence, solitude and her career. It's not without foundation in a society that pre-dates widespread and socially accepted birth control, but it still comes off as just slightly off from what she actually seems to be asking emotionally when she turns Harry away to "soul search."This is addressed, though, which was a surprise to me of the pleasant variety. The more appreciable female authority figure for Sybylla is Aunt Gussie (Patricia Kennedy) with whom she vacations briefly, who is a bit more encouraging, and a bit feisty in her way, openly declaring Sybylla's hair as her best asset, physically speaking. Gussie is the one who tells her that loneliness is quite a price to pay for independence, and suggests (thankfully reminding us that feminine revolutions are about action, not a novel mindset--other generations have felt similar things) that she oughtn't have led Harry on quite so, but does so with the right element of comfort. Curiously, her other supporter is her Uncle "JJ" Julius (Peter Whitford), who holds nothing against her artistic aspirations, despite the recriminations of her grandmother who refuses to hear another word of "the stage" taking any part in her family's life or legacy. It's of course still novel and interesting that this matter of choosing artistic life takes precedent over romance in a film and story filled with it, and it is absolutely respectable in this respect, but the approach of Sybylla, which typically extends to a sort of entitled feeling regarding her artistic aspirations, is grating. She wants to do these things, but balks at the idea of work (in fairness, she's usually balking more at the absence of choice, but it's not as if most people do have choices in such matters when they don't come from families with the social or financial well-being to create them) before them, or at the idea of doing anything else alongside or instead of them, as if for some reason she should be allowed what she wants simply because she wants it.Perhaps it's just the romantic in me, though, that takes offense at the idea that a relationship with someone is inherently limiting--Sybylla repeatedly mentions that she does not want to get "lost in someone else" or be "part of someone else," and other such phrases--none of which have anything to do with her sex or gender, as they're all phrased as mutual states in both parts of such a partnership. Certainly it does make a difference in the options one would have, but suggesting there's an intrinsic defeat and subjugation in the very concept of romance and loving someone is a little bothersome. The social implications of marriage in the time period are, of course, something else entirely, but the discussions are never about that, so it's a bit more difficult to sympathize with this aspect of her personality.None of this takes away from the film itself though, which is absolutely beautiful visually, and manages some of the most atmospherically "right" out-of-doors scenery I've seen yet, even in a landscape as unfamiliar as the bush (which does not much resemble the surroundings of other continents), nor its story, its convention breaking and its choices. Witcombe gives us a tastefully smart screenplay, and Davis' performance with Sam Neill's (which takes on the "feminine" role, in the sort of way you would expect when gender conventions are inverted) lovely one as Harry--going from open lust to embarassment to pleading frustration, confused anger and even quietly shocked hurt--only serve to enhance it under Armstrong's guiding hand. The film deserves its reputation, but I throw in a pinch of salt for a "difficult" main character. Nothing too damning, but enough that I couldn't rate it above its "inferior" follow-up (Starstruck)--which is an absolute joy.