1918 – Lev Kuleshov’s directorial debut. This work is extremely important not only for Russian cinema; it became a landmark in the history of the world’s cinematograph. For the first time a specific method of montage had been used in this film, which came to be known later as “Soviet montage”. Despite the fact that Kuleshov’s films had preceded many discoveries of Vertov and Eisenstein, his works are little known outside Russia. Among his students were Vsevolod Pudovkin and Boris Barnet. In the introduction to Kuleshov’s book The Art of Cinema (1928), his former students wrote: “It was on his shoulders that we crossed into the open sea. We make films – Kuleshov made cinematography…” . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
You may also like
Proekt inzhenera Prayta torrent reviews
Kim M (de) wrote: I almost quit on this one because the acting in the first story was just horrendous. It got better in the later chapters. The last couple were almost good.
Martha w (gb) wrote: no supe porque se llama hierro pero bueno...
Richard D (it) wrote: I don't hate this film the way some folks seem to. I don't like it. The major characters are not just unlikable, they are closer to intolerable. Sherilyn Fenn is bitchy, cruel and not at all what you can picture as the subject of an obsessive crush. Julian Sands is weak and weaselly. I can't imagine caring what happens to him. After the key events that make Fenn dependent on Sands, the plot meanders around with little focus until Fenn seems to just change her mind for no reason. There's a major twist at the end that I guess is supposed to make some of the illogic more palatable, but really just kind of slaps you in the face for having spent nearly two hours watching this. Is it as bad as it's reputation suggests? No, it's competently made and has some good actors in it. Is it worth watching? Good heavens, no.
Nate V (nl) wrote: Kingdom of the Spiders was lacking on many important things that a high quality horror movie needs. Although the movie lacked any special effects I feel like that aspect of the movie didn't inhibit it in any way, but rather the plot. After nearly 3 minutes of opening credits the movie starts abruptly with a spider taking down a cow without any back ground information on any of the characters or idea of when or where this film taking place. The events following seem to be random, lack a purpose, and as someone watching we don't know how much time passes in-between these scenes. The movie loses its suspense when a main character handles the spiders like they are harmless. Not only once but if I am correct she handles 4 different spiders and none of which harm her. Not only this but many of the characters are just able to run around or jump over the spiders or just brush them off if a spider got on them. This destroyed any sense of fear in the movie because I knew in the back of my mind the characters could just run away at any time. The directors, knowing this, tried to up the scare factor by making the spiders just appear out of nowhere and multiply more rapid than physically possible. This movie also lacked dialogue and was relatively predictable. I personally do not like spiders at all but I did feel bad for them in this movie. Maybe it was because I knew there were no special effects but when they used over 4,000 spiders and killed most of them. This movie was on the lower end of the horror movies that I've seen.
Khurram A (au) wrote: This movie had some of the most creative nude scenes that i have ever seen. The movie itself was weird and not entertaining...
Joel A (kr) wrote: The musical of musicals celebrates its 50th birthday & truly has never looked better. A charming film that truly gets better with age.The story of Eliza Dolittle (Audrey Hepburn) a street urchin with a sharp tongue but painful sounding words that falls under the tutelage of Dr Higgins played by Rex Harrison.The strength of the film is three things, one: sensational performances from Hepburn & Harrison, two: some of the most stunning costumes has ever put together in Hollywood, three: songs that just move the story forward with ease. A timeless classic that will loved for generations to come.
Michael G (kr) wrote: You can tell Lonelyhearts was based off a play because the whole time you feel like you're watching a bootleg of a play with better camerawork. Speaking of which, I really liked the way this movie was photographed. Montgomery Clift was way too sensitive, Robert Ryan was too much of an asshole (and I love a good movie asshole) and watching the grossly underused Myrna Loy was almost painful as she portrayed a tired, beaten-down by life character. It's very easy to see why Lonelyhearts is overlooked but that's not to say you shouldn't check it out if you get the chance. I recommend drinking hard liquor while viewing...
Michael A (fr) wrote: Slow going with no payoff.
Alex r (us) wrote: Faster is the entry in Mark Neale terrific trilogy about the competitive world of motorcycle racing. Neale goes into the action, uncovers some of the sport's greatest racer, new and old and delivers a vivid, compelling and well made documentary. The sport of MotoGP is dangerous and we see the men who race these machines, who would risk it all to be the greatest in the sport. Faster looks at the passion of each man that wants to be the best. Although not as great as Fastest, I really enjoyed this one, however it lacked in terms of really going in the action, and that's something that Fastest did so well. Despite its flaws, this is an entertaining documentary that should deliver the thrills that Moto fans should be looking for. I enjoyed the footage of John Hopkins, and I really think he's a great rider. This is a fine film that overcomes its flaws, and despite its limitations, overcomes its limitations and delivers a memorable viewing experience that will surely entertain you from start to finish. Mark Neale goes into his subject with this film, and though it is not as fulfilling as Fastest, manages to be a film worth seeing and one that is worth seeing. Mark Neale is a great filmmaker and he proves that with this film, along with the subsequent sequels. There's plenty of excitement here and it is never dull, boring or tiresome. This is a must see documentary that delivers the thrills of the sport of Moto Gp, and it's only topped with the 2011 sequel, Fastest. This is documentary filmmaking at a whole new level.
David S (br) wrote: Ben Affleck's directorial debut is a good one. Its not my favorite crime drama but it is a very very good one. Casey Affleck and Ed Harris along with Morgan Freeman lead this movie through its mystery of trying to find a woman's niece. The suspense is there all throughout it and it is a very impressive debut
Joseph D (ca) wrote: this movie looked interseting from the previews
Luna W (fr) wrote: Rushed and kind of cheesy fir 2016. But Romeo Miller very believable
Michal Z (fr) wrote: Terrible movie that feels like a cartoon for 5 year old kids. Stay away from it.