Director Tony Richardson's 1961 film adaptation of the William Faulkner tales "Sanctuary" and "Requiem For A Nun", set in the American South, stars Lee Remick as a governor's daughter who is raped by a bootlegger.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:90 minutes
  • Release:1961
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:escape,   explosion,   murder,  

William Faulkner's steamy tale set in the South in the 1920s. Governer's daughter is seduces and raped by a Cagin who returns after she's married to cause her further trouble. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Sanctuary torrent reviews

nick and j (br) wrote: I mean what the hell...

Mikhail B (gb) wrote: Another Woody Allen's film full of aimless, slow and absurd storytelling describes an aged misanthropic scientist who picks up a young girl from the streets for one night and after a year or two marries her at her insistence. They have a visit by her mother, who had just been dumped by her husband, but she doesn't take much time for grieving and discovers photography talents she had never suspected, starts living with two men, making all three of them happy. As the girl develops into a flourishing clever young lady, she gets a divorce from the scientist and marries a romantic and a promising lawyer. The scientist meets a woman of his dreams while attempting to commit a suicide. The husband who had dumped the young girl's mother fail to find happiness with the other woman, tries to re-unite with his ex, but finds it more comfortable to marry a man. In other words, in spite of absurdity, everything works out fine for everyone.

scott g (de) wrote: a dull and moody tale, concerning a couple trying for a baby, and a young man going psycho, when he cant have, the wife, and the baby she wants to get rid off, some okay moments, but very few, and story is unimaginable

Julian G (ag) wrote: Oh yeah. A sequel that did not disappoint and allows it all to come back around...

Rudy G (it) wrote: A need to see horror film!! More bloody that the first!

Sam M (au) wrote: This movie has the perfect name--a question that you will most definitely be asking before you even hit the 1-hour mark.

Jesse O (fr) wrote: This is a pretty good movie that time has simply not been kind to. I don't know, but it never seemed to work as well for me as it, seemingly, did for others who review films professionally. While it does have a good cast, with some of John Travolta's best work ever, and a script that subverts tropes and satirizes what it takes to make it in this business, I can't help but feel that its head is way up its own ass. It's a film that in is in awe of its own cleverness. It's so goddamn self-aware sometimes, with constant classic movie references thrown in for no reason other than to show off, that it's very difficult for this film to stand out on its own. And I do think it manages to have its own style, it does so in spite of itself to be perfectly honest. I understand the need for movie references, it sort of makes Hollywood into something real for these characters. They don't exist in a universe where these classics don't exist. So I understand the reasoning behind it. It's just that these are thrown at you constantly, to the point where you're sickened by it and you hope they'd just move on to whatever the movie is supposed to be about, which is this movie that Chili Palmer is trying to make and how it gets complicated when third parties try to force their way into it. Honestly, outside of some few moments of subversiveness here and there, the film isn't really even that funny. Comedy is entirely subjective, of course, but I don't think that the genre, in 20 years, has changed THAT much. It's not like this material is only relevant to someone in the 90s, I was 7 when this film came out. So what else am I supposed to think, if it's not that this is outdated? It really didn't strike me as that funny of a movie. And I realize it wasn't supposed to be all comedy, but still. I will say this, as mentioned earlier, this features some of Travolta's best work. This was post-Pulp Fiction, so he was probably feeling inspired about his career comeback, but the guy was on. He was calm, cool, and collected. He was smooth in his dealings with people, even those he didn't particularly like. There's just something about his body language that brought a lot to the table. The rest of the cast is solid with Danny DeVito being the comedic highlight as this pretentious method actor. That's not to say his part is laugh out loud funny, but it's pretty good good as this film would get. Oh and Dennis Farina is also pretty good here as well. Honestly, the last thing I can complain about is the cast. The writing is good but, again, way too self-aware and referential to truly be great. The movie's still good, of course, but it's not anything that I would feel the need to recommend. It's a good little diversion and it's got some good satire, but it's nothing that warrants repeat viewings here. This is a one and done for better or worse.

Greg W (nl) wrote: another example of classic hollywood's perfect picture just another pic off the assembly line.

Randy T (it) wrote: "I think I'll have a large order of PROGNOSIS NEGATIVE."Bette Davis has a brain tumor and about 10 months to live. A classic that's replete with melodrama and old fashioned sentimentality.

Scott R (kr) wrote: a bit of a propaganda film for the FBI (and a deserving one), but in hindsight, it can be heavy handed. Sill, Cagney is excellent.

Smashproplaya (nl) wrote: According to all known laws of aviation, etc.

Al K (ru) wrote: Worst movie ever. So dumb.

Rebecca S (de) wrote: Incredibly moving, especially in the current political climate. We've come so far and yet have so far to go. On a less emotional note, Selma's cast is terrific.

Tyler C (gb) wrote: Well, this is the great horror movie.

Francis M (ru) wrote: Catchy comedy which is a credit to the Director and cast as the story line is not exactly appealing.

Steve S (ru) wrote: Good army movie. With a Canadian slant...SS