In a small isolated village, in 1953, a wedding is interrupted by the news about the death of Stalin. Because any public celebration is forbidden, they decide to turn the happy event into a silent wedding. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
In a small isolated village, in 1953, a wedding is interrupted by the news about the death of Stalin. Because any public celebration is forbidden, they decide to turn the happy event into a silent wedding.
You may also like
Silent Wedding torrent reviews
WS W (gb) wrote: This could have been another nice feature about same-sex relationship, only if director Julin Hernndez had finally abandoned his self-absorbing ideas. The post-modern Act II here is just so unapproachable which in fact can be cutting-off, expressed in simpler ways, if otherwise.
David L (es) wrote: This was all going so well, but never quite reached that climatic ending that we were all rooting for. It was built up well, usual group of tourists that go exploring an abandoned city, which we all know won't be abandoned. With all the radiation warnings, I was then expecting a hills have eyes type copycat but this never really materialised to any great extent. It was all quite jumpy and full of suspense, but with no real beast or villains that we could that we could identify with. I wasn't fully understanding the ending either, which makes it doubly anti-climatic. I did like the fact that with no real stars in the film, it wasn't obvious who would survive and who would perish as everyone was at risk from a fame point of view. It was a shame that when the numbers did eventually deplete due to the mutated figurines, they were done in an off camera sense I.e. It was assumed that people were dead as opposed to actually seeing them be mauled. This did create an open mind whilst the film was ongoing in the assumption that some characters may return, but when they didn't, it was a bit of a weak characteristic of the plot. I did enjoy this movie, but I'd hyped it up to be a little more than it was judging from the trailer, and albeit a good one to watch with friends as a result of all the jumpy moments, it's one that you'll have been embarrassed to put on come the final scenes. Nice idea, but once you've seen it, there's not much about it to reignite your passion for a repeat viewing!
Kanwar A (br) wrote: Maybe the most interesting casino film you've never seen.
Ryan M (de) wrote: Even Hartley's lesser efforts are well worth a watch.
chip s (ca) wrote: The cinematography is stunning in this film.
Lewis E (br) wrote: "IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT?!" Pure Chris Tucker Gold? Exactly what I wanted. This has to be the reason why they made the Rush Hour series, especially since it replicates much of Tucker's antics from this. Definitely one of the more entertaining comedy actors to watch. Plays roughly the same character as usual but its funny so don't change what ain't broke. Could lose half a star on the routine ending (and if you don't enjoy Tucker as much as I do) but probably not have been generic at the time so can't penalise the film-makers. Never been a fan of Charlie Sheen, the french villains didn't offer anything and the rest of the cast were pretty dull to watch but Tucker manages to keep this one alive.
Carlos S (fr) wrote: #248b - In my opinion the best of the trilogy. Oh and there's lots of white!
Cristin T (ca) wrote: Bellisima. Me recordo unas palabras de John Lennon que se referian al arte de hacer musica, el comentaba que estas se encontraba en el aire, en las cosas, en la naturaleza y que la destreza de el era solamente poder tomarlas e interpretarlas en instrumentos pero que no habia un acto de creatividad propiamente tal porque las notas ya se encontraban ahi... quizas esa humildad es lo que hace a un verdadero artista y a la vez lo diferencia de otros que solo buscan reconocimiento. Bueno, siento que si continuo escribiendo la voy a estropear porque es una de esas peliculas que solo necesitas mirar y sentir.
George B (fr) wrote: The dialogue had it's witty moments.
MJS M (ag) wrote: Sam Peckinpah?s early, flawed, epic about a Union Major running a prison camp in the New Mexican front late in the civil war, who enlists Confederate prisoners in order to go after a renegade Apache. The film fell victim to immense studio tampering, it had its budget cut in half from the beginning, they gave Peckinpah pressure throughout the production, and they took the whole film away from him during the editing. As such we?re left with a Magnificent Ambersons situation of a movie with extensive lost footage; the full vision of what it could have been is unknown. The cut on DVD right now has been restored as much as possible, but it?s still not complete. What remains is a film that feels fractured and held together by a tacked on voice over. The film is still watchable, and the underlying concept of Union and confederate soldiers working together is quite interesting, one can see a story about a fractured America forced to unify somewhere below the surface. That said, not all of the movie?s problems can be pinned on the studio. The film?s visual style, while perfectly competent, is not anywhere near the heights achieved by Peckinpah?s other works, and the occasional night scenes are poorly lit making it hard to make out what?s going on.
Liam M (it) wrote: Playing with a hyper original concept and devilishly interesting characters, Stake Land earns ever inch of its savage nastiness and charming mean streak. Sharp toothed in every sense of the word.
Reece L (ag) wrote: Like the wings of the butterflies so prevalent throughout The Duke of Burgundy, relationships are made up of elements that make them unique; despite their differences, they're still loving, committed relationships at their core. And while everyone hates moths, they exist and thrive anyway, just as the love between two people does regardless of the ways in which they choose to express it.It's incredible that a film focusing on a sadomasochistic relationship is able to generate legitimately beautiful, touching, and adorable moments in a social environment that abhors such partnerships. It's also stunningly photographed, cleverly shot in such a way as to emulate the refractory effect of looking through a lens, appropriate given the film's focus on the dynamics of love between two people, the power distributions, the moments of nervousness, the insecurities, the discrepancies in mood, and the inevitable moments of awkwardness and dissatisfaction. This was a smart choice, the beauty allowing for an accessibility for those prone to dismiss their love as disgusting, proving how limited that view is in the process. It gets caught up in its stylistic flourishes on occasion, but the experience as a whole is nuanced and satisfying regardless.