Claire (an American) wakes up in a terrible state at the end of a runway in Spain. As she tries to account for her state (blood-soaked and bruised), she has flashbacks from the past few days. She thinks she's killed someone, but isn't sure, and now she's wandering the Spanish streets without money or a clear memory.

Claire (an American) wakes up in a terrible state at the end of a runway in Spain. As she tries to account for her state (blood-soaked and bruised), she has flashbacks from the past few ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Siesta torrent reviews

Artem t (it) wrote: Not only the beasts are fantastic in this movie: acting, directing, magic are also marvelous here.I rate this movie as 4/5 as even it is great in a lot of aspects, still some characters and overall story is a bit clumsy and stumbles from time to time.Though Eddie Redmayne is a great actor and he also acts well in movie. However, his character and his acting does not change in any way as the film goes on. As we meet him for the first time on screen, the same he leaves it before the final credits.Also, the movie does not explain why is smiling all the time for no reason. Weird face expressions become a little disturbing after two hours in row.The story itself offers not only a lot of fantastic beasts and struggling of Newt to find them but also an additional detective story. Sometimes it is more like a light horror movie, though I think it may be a little harsh for the smallest viewers.New York, architecture, all the tiniest details are constructed with so much love and dedication. Costume designers also deserved their Academy Award.Dan Fogler is a true star of the movie. All the humor and interest in the film lies on his shoulders and talents. I had a few moments where I though that I may be bored and that's there Jacob Kowalski came into play again and again.Without this character the movie would lose a great part of the impression it makes.The movie is a perfect foundation stone for next films built around the magic world from Harry Potter franchise. If you love words created by J.K. Rowling unbound fantasy, you should definitely watch this movie.

Chelsea Marie S (de) wrote: i want to see it 5 star coz iv seen half of it

John M (ag) wrote: More in the "Australian Bleakness" genre of films, but it's the intensity of Eric Bana and the nuanced performance of Franka Potente that make this one stand out.

Suchi V (au) wrote: A fun movie about relationships and finding love when you least expect it. Ayesha and Abay have performed quite well.

Ray C (fr) wrote: This film was both shocking and intriguing, which might explain why I still enjoy the storyline to this moment. The way the film showed the birth and the upbringing of the main protagonist, Hannibal, was extremely enjoyable. Showing his past, which gives a good reason for the plot, made it that much easier to connect with the character.

Zaar D (br) wrote: more like Omega Turd

Ahmed J (jp) wrote: Pure mindless fun. Genius and I havent laughed that much in a while. This movie helps me get over judging a movie by critics' choices.

Pierre M (au) wrote: Mickey Rourke's 1st Oscar-Worthy performance! see this if you think he never knew how to act.

Cassandra M (us) wrote: A coffee salesman takes a rambling tour of 1970's Britain.There comes a time when you think you know something about movies: What is good, what is bad, how things should go, how things should work, etc., etc. Thank goodness a movie comes along now and again that says "no you don't - you know nothing!" Oh Lucky Man! is like Pulp Fiction and High Hopes - it is a smarter film than you are a film watcher.After a build up like that you might expect for me to say that this is a perfect film or that everything works. But it doesn't. The story rambles and pauses, moves left and right and tries to keep the audience on its toes. The humour is mostly black, but very true to life. People are often selfish and acting for themselves - while Travis (our hero - if we can call him that) is quite kind and thoughtful. Like an Adam that has been put in to the modern world rather than the garden of Eden.I have seen this film twice. Like many films, once when I was too young to understand it. It is quite sexual graphic at times and that stuck in my memory for a long time. In one scene a black man plays out a scene at a sex club - and to this day I am puzzled as to what this represents. That the entirely white audience see the black as an entertainer to laughed at or cheered. That this is his only place?Most anything-goes films are comedies, and while this has plenty of black comedy, I see it as social comment. Life has moved on from the 1970's, people have escaped their own class more, women have more of a role to play, people get away with things less. But no one can say - even viewing today - that it doesn't tell plenty of home truths about the UK.(People that live outside the UK and never visit must be puzzled by what goes on here. I bet you would have to answer hundreds of questions if you watched it beside, say, an American.)Lindsey Anderson sees all authority as being violent, ugly and corrupt. This is the kick in the balls society that existed before CCTV in police stations and human rights acts. Where people were fitted up for crimes that the police knew they couldn't have committed. I never wanted to walk down a time tunnel to 1970's Britain and this film is probably the last tie I have to that ugly and desperate decade.Oh Lucky Man! is one of the best films ever made. It has something that few films ever have - instant cult appeal. You could watch this over and over again and not get bored with it, see something different and learn something new. They should bring it back as a musical or a stage play. While not every scene works and not every tune pleases, it is cinema from another world that we never quite had - but might have had if only the money men of Hollywood hadn't made their ugly mark on the world.If you think film is about anything more than simple entertainment Oh Lucky Man! is a must-see...

John B (ca) wrote: This is not your typical Japanese film. It is strange but very intriguing. I get the sense that there is a lot going on here that I am not perceiving but it doesn't scare me away from the film.

Eva M (nl) wrote: I really enjoyed the rapport between FDR and the King, and between the King and Queen. But the Daisy character was hard to relate to or care about. In fact the whole FDR/mistresses thing was pretty blah. So, as others have said, it is uneven.

Jake A (fr) wrote: While it doesn't add all that much that is new to the Western genre it is still a great effort and is easily one of my favorites from the post-heyday of the Western. With brilliant performances, brutal violence, beautiful cinematography, a decent score and a bare to the bone script this is a slightly cliched and slightly flawed film (the CGI fire for instance doesn't cut it) that is still engrossing and shocking to watch which manages to balance the brutality of the time with the beauty of the relatively untouched landscape.