Recounts the life and loves of the physician, astrologer, and famed prognosticator; his encounters with medieval science and the Inquisition; and his early struggles with his visions of the... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
A dramatic retelling of the life of Michel de Nostredame, from his early work as a plague doctor to his time at the court of Catherine de Medici, after he became famed for his prophetic almanacs. Stars Rutger Hauer and Julia Ormond.
You may also like
Nostradamus torrent reviews
Keith C (ca) wrote: Very well executed, and always engaging and surprisingly ballsy and dark, but the final scene seems like a cheat. Most of the movie is a very smart critique of misogyny, and the final scene feels like a betrayal of that, something Hollywood tacked on that doesn't fit with the narrative that proceeds it.
Mikey M (us) wrote: Episodic yet beautiful period biopic charting the life of Seraphine de Senlis. Yolande Moreau makes the part her own, even if she did have a tendency to exaggerate bodily movements to make up for her lack of dialogue. Ulrich Tukur supports with a sublime performance as the fascinated art critic who discovered the artist.The pace is a little slow and although it is beautifully realised visually, much of the opening 30mins felt overly padded out with Seraphine just milling around - I had got into her character sufficiently in half of that time and found myself getting a little impatient for the beginning of the plot.When it did get going though, I found it to be moving and at times funny. There was little to complain about with this film and although I found it to be a 'watch it once and enjoy it movie', I had this weird feeling by the end that I wanted to like it more.
Ass H (ru) wrote: best movie ever I love it more than scooby doo 2 monsters unleashed
Ryan G (es) wrote: Good love story for Santa with some special moments, but drags on in a few areas. There is something about holiday movies that should stay at about 90-95 minutes.
Samuel H (ca) wrote: Shanghai Noon is just bad. There is no plot movement, there's too much bad acting. Just boring and pointless. Very forgettable.
Christopher B (br) wrote: 50's soapy melodrama, but worth a look for the lush colours and William Holden. Woof!
Rachel F (ag) wrote: This movie is hilarious! The synergy between the late Phil Hartman and the comedian Sinbad is magnetic, but more importantly, the story is one of learning the true value of friendship and taking responsibility for one's actions.
Private U (us) wrote: what's going on, and why don't I care?
Chris R (au) wrote: Charming and fascinating. The casting is very much deliberate, and it's moronic of "critics" to get hung up on it. The film has everything to do with culture and race in America, with political correctness, with pretension, with class, with particularly the shortcomings of the American middle class, with the freedom that comes with a state of mind that says all pretensions are bullshit, and Connery is the exemplar of the position. Extremely well detailed film as well. Hilarious to read Canby who had to churn them out in the NYT dismiss the details as empty space, he simply misses the point. ("film criticism" is seriously the lowest form of any type of lit. incidentally). This film also has an ethical centerpiece that's fought out and lingered over, like many crime stories and crime movies too, it has the criminals of old full of charm and charisma and real life humanity while the supposedly ethical modern world is so bleak and bloodless. Overall this is a charming film, full of surprises which one should take in and realize the intentionality of, rather than suppose, as Canby does, that the expert director lost his game and fumbled around. in short Camby's sort of a dumbbell and a jackass. This is a significant film.
s f (es) wrote: a quirky high school flick casting casual humor against vampire mythology. loaded full of impossible situations, and cheesy to the cheddarests degree. . . love this movie. have since i first saw it as a wee lad. its definitely nostalgic now, was definitely never intended to be anything but what it is. its enjoyable to watch, and you will leave it feeling just fine. buffy fans? this ones for you, but i'm sure you have the dvd already.
Kenneth L (mx) wrote: This movie and Jean de Florette together comprise quite an experience. It's hard to pin down exactly how it works, but watching both movies leaves you feeling like you've read a great novel, in a way that most movies don't. The films have real substance to them, and while I liked Jean de Florette a bit better than this one, they're both really worth seeing in close succession.The story, which picks up about ten years after the events of Jean de Florette, constitutes a sort of grand, ironic, tragic (well, from some characters' perspectives, anyway) reversal of fortunes from the events of the first film. In Jean de Florette, a cynical, tough-minded old farmer (Yves Montand) and his semi-retarded inbred nephew (Daniel Auteuil) has worked to sabotage the efforts of a young new cityslicker (Gerard Depardieu, who unfortunately does not appear in this film, not even in flashback) to start a successful farm by blocking off his water supply. Now, the nephew has fallen in love with Manon, the beautiful grown-up daughter of the man they had undermined earlier. I don't want to spoil anything, but the story goes on in interesting and surprising directions from there.Yves Montand is great as Cesar, the old uncle. In one of his last performances, Montand manages to make a character sympathetic who kind of shouldn't be. Certainly you feel sorry for him by the end. Daniel Auteuil is much creepier and more pathetic here than before. Emmanuelle Beart actually only has about five lines or so as Manon, but she manages to be a memorable presence anyway.Like Jean de Florette, this movie is content to let its story unfold in a stately and deliberate manner, which is quite appropriate given the scope of the story in time. The movie's cinematography captures the feeling of being outside in the countryside beautifully; the only films I can think of that have similarly gorgeous outside-cinematography are Jean de Florette and David Lynch's The Straight Story. Claude Berri's direction is such that we are able to understand long scenes that pass without any expository dialogue or other narrative hand-holding. I liked Jean de Florette a bit better, just because Jean himself was a more interesting character than Manon, but both films are great and constitute a grand, old-fashioned narrative arc.
Jonathan G (au) wrote: Not as amazing as the first but still an pretty good sequel the acting is still fine the directing isn't bad the pacing is fine the writing isn't bad some cool sequences and actually fine story honestly if they worked more on the script you could gotten something almost as good the first
Mike H (br) wrote: Just CLASSIC, I ALMOST want to watch it AGAIN !!
Colin W (jp) wrote: Is still an all time classic - Gene Wilder at his best! One of the few films I would give five stars...
Alex G (fr) wrote: Great ideas and visuals, but lacks humanity--ironically--and doesn't go the distance with its character(s).