Nitrate Base

Nitrate Base

The film celebrates the 100th anniversary of the birth of cinema. It presents the technical and artistic evolution of the motion pictures. We move from mute to sound, from black-and-white ...

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:87 minutes
  • Release:1996
  • Language:Italian,Hungarian,French,English,German,Spanish
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:1910s,   suicide,   actor,  

This documentary celebrates the 100th anniversary of the cinema birth. It is an historic running through the technical and artistic evolution of the 7th art. We move from mute to sound, ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Nitrate Base torrent reviews

Nilay E (au) wrote: Ne yazkki beklediim gibi deildi.

Atlas o (br) wrote: an absorbing comedy/drama focused on self-delusion, and the crave for fame. a funny and often times cringe-inducing film. the acting and chemistry of the 2 lead characters is what really makes it all work so well.

Eric M (gb) wrote: It falls off sharply in its last act, which gets unfortunately unfunny, but the first two acts are satirical hilarity of NASCAR at its finest.

Jen M (it) wrote: The first 30 minutes is Moore discussing his life and works, which is interesting. The last 50 minutes is Moore discussing the fact that he is a shaman/magician and his religious philosophies. I would have rather just heard about his works, but it was interesting to get a glimpse of who he is.

Maria N (es) wrote: But why couldn't he keep on dancing without his wool instead of starting to bounce?

Matthew W (au) wrote: 4 1/2 stars for the opening scene alone. Everyone needs to see that wave. On a projector. In surround. Insane.

Dave M (ru) wrote: Makes unfortunately explicit what the first movie makes elegantly implicit. But as far as ham-handed train wrecks go, Andy Lau appears to have a good time.

WS W (gb) wrote: Average, more than ok even thou the plotline is not new at all, kinda cliche actually.

Breck R (it) wrote: One of the most underrated movies ever. And Roger Ebert is a cocksucker....

Zachary F (kr) wrote: Amazingly excellent, sad, and heartbreaking.

Chris W (nl) wrote: A fascinating and bizarre film about faith. Rogers is fantastic as the wordly woman who finds faith and Tolkin doesn't so much give answers as wrestle with his own questions of faith--can we love God if what He asks us to do destroys us? What lengths does faith take someone? Anyone looking for an accurate depiction of the rapture will be disappointed, and the theology is a bit scattered. But that's not the point; this is a metaphorical look at faith and commitment that asks hard questions and knows there are no easy answers. There's some content in it that may offend some, but it all plays into the film's theme and Sharon's journey. I need to see this again sometime, and I feel there's an entire essay to be written about this film. Worth a look if you are into films that seriously look at the implications of faith.

Karsh D (mx) wrote: Whilst this Amicus horror is slightly rough around the edges, the plot is quite good and some scenes are actually quite scary.

Grant S (ru) wrote: Decent murder mystery, based on the Agatha Christie novel "Miss Marple".Good set up, interesting setting, intriguing plot development, thrilling finale. Murderer is a bit obvious from a point but the revelation comes fairly late in the movie, so doesn't spoil it much.Very funny at times too, though, unlike Murder Most Foul, here the humour is overdone and often feels out of place. The portrayal of the ship's captain as dithering, babbling idiot was uncalled for, and introduced far too much slapstick into what should have been a reasonably serious movie.Margaret Rutherford is great, as always, in her role as Miss Marple. Good support from the usual crew of Stringer Davis, as Mr Stringer, and Charles Tingwell, as Chief Inspector Craddock.

Adam R (de) wrote: Oh lord. Look at that simple thoughtless face... now look at the cute monkey!

Dave P (us) wrote: Thin plot that only loosely tied things together and ultimately up. Edge shows less range and charisma than he ever did in the ring, but in his defense, the role didn't really require it.