A small yet strange series of deaths of people working for the Ministry of Defense and the military hits Italy. Since all of the deaths seem to be accidental or suicides, no alarm bells start to ring anywhere. That's a problem, because the deaths are in fact murders and we the viewers the only witnesses. The Roman cop Solmi (Luc Merenda) is as unsuspecting as anyone else, until he is starting to investigate the death of the private detective Chiarotti.
- Stars:Luc Merenda, Mel Ferrer, Delia Boccardo, Michele Gammino, Paola Tedesco, Franco Giornelli, Gianfranco Barra, Carlo Alighiero, Claudio Gora, Claudio Nicastro, Antonio Casale, Giovanni Di Benedetto, Tomas Milian, Arturo Dominici, Carlo Gaddi,
- Director:Sergio Martino,
- Writer:Gianfranco Couyoumdjian (screenplay), Massimo Felisatti (screenplay), Massimo Felisatti (story), Sergio Martino (screenplay), Fabio Pittorru (screenpl
A small yet strange series of deaths of people working for the Ministry of Defense and the military hits Italy. Since all of the deaths seem to be accidental or suicides, no alarm bells start to ring anywhere. That's a problem, because the deaths are in fact murders and we the viewers the only witnesses. The Roman cop Solmi (Luc Merenda) is as unsuspecting as anyone else, until he is starting to investigate the death of the private detective Chiarotti. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Silent Action torrent reviews
(it) wrote: The Messengers 2: The Scarecrow (Martin Barnewitz, 2009)By far the best thing about The Messengers 2: The Scarecrow is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the Pang Brothers film to which it is supposedly a sequel. Danish director Barnewitz, a Ghost House veteran (Room 205), and writer Todd Farmer, who wrote the original (how much input did he have here? Hard to tell), turn in something far less than we got with the first film. The setup is similar: John Rollins (The Boondock Saints' Norman Reedus) is a down-on-his-luck farmer who's about to lose his farm. To add insult to injury, the guy from the bank who's supposed to take it from him (The Grudge 3's Michael McCoy) is both an old friend of Rollins' and an old boyfriend of his wife Mary's (Lost Highway's Heather Stephens). One day, while poking around in the barn, John finds a false wall, and when he breaks it open, he discovers an old scarecrow. He takes it out to put it up, but his son Michael (X-Men: First Class' Laurence Belcher) thinks it's evil and begs his father to burn it. On the other hand, Jude Weatherby (Office Space's Richard Riehle) and Jude's seductive wife Miranda (Bruce Almighty's Darcy Flowers) offer more level-headed advice: it's a scarecrow, what harm can it do to put it up? So John does, earning his son's mistrust, and the next morning, John walks out of the house and discovers every crow in the area is dead...You know where this is going, and that is the movie's greatest failure; at no point does this movie ever attempt to surprise you. As soon as Jude shows up you know who he is. And the fact that a sixty-year-old farmer who looks like Richard Riehle is married to a twentysomething housewife who looks like Darcy Flowers pretty much telegraphs what her role is going to be in all this. The second Mary brings up John's previous drinking habit, you know he's going to fall off the wagon. Etc., etc. There are no surprises at all here.This is even more distressing when IMDB trivia reports the whole Todd Farmer confusion: according to IMDB, this was actually supposed to be the script for the first one, but it was so extensively rewritten by Mark Wheaton that Farmer, for the first movie, was just credited with original story?. He should have left well enough alone; Wheaton's finished product was far superior to this. *
(ag) wrote: It's story suffers from an incomplete script and the the editing may be spastic and jarring, but Quantum of Solace still remains a brutal, fast paced entry in the Bond canon, one very different than any before it.
(gb) wrote: The following riveting exchange occurs in the film Who Loves the Sun, shortly after childhood friends Will (Lukas Haas) and Daniel (Adam Scott) are reunited for the first time since Daniel slept with Will's wife, years earlier. "Fuck you, you tried," declares Will, dismissing Daniel'??s insincere attempt to have a heart-to-heart. "??No, fuck you,"?? replies Daniel. "Fuck you,"?? says Will. Four more "fuck-you'??s" follow.* And then the fight'??s over. Needless to say, it's lazy dialogue. Every silly epithet in this excruciating exchange could easily be replaced---perhaps with some lines that better established the film'??s characters, or fleshed out the conflict that inspired the curse-fest in the first place. The set-up for the film's simple: When the aforementioned philandering wife Maggie (Molly Parker) slept with Daniel, Will couldn't cope, and took off for five years. As the film begins, Will returns, and the three spend the next hour-and-a-half sifting through the fallout of their bad decisions, at the home of Daniel'??s parents. In theory, Who Loves the Sun is a character-driven drama---all the film's major action happens off-screen, in the past. It's unfortunate, then, that a film rooted so heavily in character has such half-baked character development. Left adrift without an interesting script, even decent actors like Parker, Scott and R.H. Thomson (appearing as Daniel'??s dad) can't get the audience to invest in this clunker. By Me, The Coast
(br) wrote: This is not the Indian version of The Godfather - it is inspired by it, as are a lot of films about organised crime - and is a credible offering in it's own right. Once again, Ram Gopal Varma adds his magic touch and comes up with a wonderful film with great performances from Amitabh Bachchan et al, with some atmospheric background music, and something that is completely removed from most commercial Indian cinema.
(ca) wrote: The unconventional style both helps and hurts the film. At times it allows the younger Wexler to provide an intimate and engaging look at his father, at other times it simply makes him look like he has an axe to grind. Haskell Wexler is a brilliant cinematographer, but a complex and controlling individual, and thus makes a very interesting subject for a documentary. One only wishes his son had perhaps spent a bit more time separating emotion from analysis.
(gb) wrote: A surprisingly intelligent and well crafted satire of mockumentaries and documentaries. The inclusion of Herzog as himself is simply genius. Here is a man well educated and practiced in the world of films and documentaries, lampooning himself and his past to great effect. The line of "Differentiating between fact and truth" is a great one, filled with humor and genuine intrigue. The inclusion of Ricky Jay at the start also hints towards illusions and trickery. I found both the horror and comedy elements to work very well. The playboy sonar operator and the fake R/C monster were just two of the highlights. It was well thought out and feels real enough to pull you in. A rather wonderful surprise of a film for those willing to be taken on a ride.
(ag) wrote: Very much a contemporary of American History X, The Believer is anchored by a powerful multi-faceted performance from a young Ryan Gosling. Whereas Tony Kaye's movie shows racism as a vile disease infecting, sometimes even against the wishes of the sick, those who encounter it, The Believer takes a much more introspective approach. Here Gosling plays Danny, a young man who speaks out fervently against the Jews, going so far as to call for their murder. When asked why he hates them, he simply replies, "I just do." The truth is much deeper then that. Danny himself is Jewish and it's a fact he's both disgusted and ashamed of his heritage. He champions Nazi ideals yet in a very telling scene when he and his fellow Neo-Nazi's raid a Synagogue to plant a bomb and one goes to wreck the Torah, we see Danny insisting they don't touch it. He says the Jews believe it's the word of God, written in fire and in these fleeting moments we see reverence of a religion he claims to despise. Later on, after the Torah is torn we see him tape it and attempt to repair it. Gosling brings a sort of tortured dichotomy to Danny that elevates this beyond it's own narrative weaknesses. This is his movie and he takes center stage, sometimes to the detriment of the other characters. However, because this is such an introspective piece we can forgive the other character weaknesses. This isn't about Neo-Nazis as much as it's about rejection of ones identity and self hate that can grow by dissent. Earlier in the film, he and his fellow Neo-Nazis are required by a small town court to go to sensitivity training. There they hear horror stories from Nazi Germany from a group of elderly Jewish folks who survived through it. One tells the heart-wrenching story of how he barely survived, but his young three year old was not so fortunate. A solider impaled him on the bayonette of his rifle. Danny is moved by this and tries his best not to show it. His "friend" outright denies it happened, the Holocaust never happened. But Danny knows better and yet, from his outrage it soon turns to anger. He claims that had he been there, he would have done different. He would have killed the soldier. The elderly Jewish people, in comforting the distraught man, say he can't know that because he's never been tested like that. This movie is Danny's test.
(gb) wrote: It's all life until you are dead.
(us) wrote: 35 Up is no worse than any of the other entries in the series. When I begin watching these movies, I always look at the runtime and gasp. "Two hours and fifteen minutes!" I might exclaim. But when I'm in the films, I would gladly spend half an hour, even an hour with each of the subjects. They're all so interesting, especially because I have known them to some degree over the course of their entire lives. I speak about them as though I know them personally. "Can you believe Suzy?" I might say to my friends casually, as though Suzy is somebody that we know intimately. The only real problem with this entry in the Up series is that there has not been as much progression in the lives of our subjects as there were between the previous films. There is a big change from just starting college to age 28, as you would expect. But surprisingly little has changed during seven years between age 28 and 35. My friend and I did not find it necessary to stop the film to have long discussions about the characters' growth as we had previously. But it's still greatly engrossing. Tony is as stubborn and set in his ways as ever, showing himself here to be remarkably unlikeable. Our nuclear physicist Nick shows up again - sans wife, since she thought that the previous film showed her in a bad light. (She's right.) John is back, after sitting out 28 Up, but he points out what we already knew: he's only there because his wife made him. He didn't want to continue the series since he thought that the filmmakers were trying to make him look like a jerk. He's right, to a certain extent, but he does a pretty good job of it on his own. But most of the movie shows the children settling into their lives now that they're middle aged. Not much has changed for them, really. There are a couple of divorces and a few new children. But whatever ideals that they held at 28 seem to be pretty firmly in place now. Perhaps that will change again as we move into the '40s and beyond. It may be because there is less change in their lives that director Michael Apted's questions seem to become more aggressive here. He wonders whether Tony feels as though he feels as though he hasn't accomplished his goals. He literally asks Neil whether he feels like a failure - which was probably not a good idea, because at this point Neil is genuinely losing his mind. Yeah, I know this is kind of going back and forth, but Neil's story (much as in 28 Up) is the most heartbreaking. I don't want to give anything away for those who have yet to see the films. I know I'd hate it if I went to read a review of the next film and learned some valuable piece of information about where the kids end up. All I will say is that, of the original 14 children, Neil and Suzy are maybe the only ones whose lives cannot be summed up with that old "give me a child at age seven and I will give you the man" line. Apted has known the kids for pretty much their entire lives now, and it's difficult for him not to show his biases. He goes easy on Nick because he likes him. He goes easy on John (even though he's pretty blatantly hypocritical and annoyingly smug) because he wants him to continue appearing in the series. He's harsher with Tony and with Neil. Is it the same way that a parent unconsciously reprimands his own children for their failings? In 35 Up more than ever, I think that Apted is as much a character in this as the children are. Still disappointed to see that the rich-kid-on-the-right, Neil's friend, and the guy who will forever be known as "the black kid" were all missing from this installment. No, I don't remember all their names. But yes. Even though there has been little real change for most of our subjects in terms of their place in life, we are so engrossed in their lives now that we cannot leave with any sense of disappointment. As long as these films continue being made, I can't imagine that they will ever disappoint. We're seeing their lives progress. If they don't change, well, that's something notable. Why didn't they change? What's different this time around? I maintain that the Up series is a superb and remarkable collection of films. Watch them.
(it) wrote: Shouldn't be considered a video nasty but it was enjoyable.
(br) wrote: i'll repeat what i'm sure most others would say about this screenplay... "read the book". that being said, if you can stomach the story having been turned on it's head the messages are there to a degree and the footage in India is UNBELIEVABLE. i take it back i'd see it again to see India.
(jp) wrote: This is the film where the franchise finds its footing and everything in it really works. there are things missing from the novel that could have helped the film but everything is well acted and made and the paceing is great. Gary Oldman is the stand out of the film with his potrayal of Sirus Black as does David Tewelis's role of professor Lupin . Michael Gambon becomes Albus Dumbledore and leaves much to be desired through the rest of the series due to Richard Harris's passing inbetween the production of film 2 and 3. Overall one of the best of the series and a great film.
(fr) wrote: Stupidist film I ever wasted time on.