The Elm-Chanted Forest
A painter who can temporarily talk to the creatures of an enchanted forest, must help them stop the evil Cactus King, who's building an army of magical living weapons and machines to turn the forest into a wasteland perfect for the cacti.
- Stars:Josip Marotti, Vili Matula, Ljubo Kapor, Emil Glad, Ivo Rogulja, Helena Buljan, Djurdja Ivezic, Sven Lasta, Vladimir Kovacic, Adam Vedernjak, Nada Rocco, Vladimir Puhalo, Veronika Kovacic, Mladen Vasary, Drago Krca,
- Director:Milan Blazekovic, Doro Vlado Hreljanovic,
- Writer:Fred P. Sharkey (screenplay), Suncana Skrinjaric (original story)
A painter falls asleep beneath a magical elm tree and awakens with magical powers that allow him to communicate with the creatures of the forest. In the limited time that he possesses these... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
The Elm-Chanted Forest torrent reviews
(us) wrote: A nice laugh that benefits from Aubrey Plaza's great performance. Maybe not for everyone, but for the rest is a nice and funny ride.
(ag) wrote: This movie is a terrible rip-off of natural born killers.
(gb) wrote: I love this movie and like hello daddy I can't resist it lol!!!!!!!!! But still im like 8 daddy!~,~,~,~,~,
(ag) wrote: Filmed and edited with a detached, dream-like style, "Wild Tigers I Have Known" is one of the more unique films I've seen in a long time; even when compared to other, similar indie flicks. Its sense of style never comes across as pretentious - only honest.This is because the bizarre lighting, unusual coloration, low-key score, and at times silent soundtrack can only be seen as appropriate in light of its story. The story features an introspective and daydreaming 13 year-old boy on the cusp of puberty, Logan, who finds himself attracted to the stud of the junior high school - Rodeo. He is so attracted, in fact, that he dons an on-the-phone female persona to lure his crush in. When they meet in person, and Rodeo sees that it is not a girl, but that strange Logan kid who he's been hanging out with, well...How ELSE should a director logically treat such awkwardness, other than how Cam Archer treats it here?I suppose Archer could have tamed his curious eye and gone for cheap laughs, potty humor, bright lighting, a feel-good soundtrack, and farcical contrivances with regards to Logan's female persona and the big reveal to Rodeo, but that would have placed him in danger of winning distribution offers from Hollywood.Such unique and daring choices on the technical aspects of the film combine to create an atmosphere of isolation and loneliness, as well as highlight the boredom which comes from being different in middle school. A couple of scenes use wry humor to show how out of touch the faculty is with kids like Logan, and these moments succeed wonderfully, as does a heartbreaking scene between Logan and his mother over spilled groceries.Some people in the audience could be as bored and confused at the end of the day as the main characters, no doubt, but those who would are probably not the type to seek out films like this in the first place.
(ag) wrote: The way Green shoots the "south" makes it feel like another world with people i've only read about. Josh Lucas is amazing, those extra long cigs were a perfect touch to his character. Jamie Bell is pretty strong here as well, along with Dermot Mulroney. After seeing George Washington and Undertow i'm really starting to like this David Gordon Green fella!
(nl) wrote: A movie that goes under the radar purely for the fact that it is Canadian. Sarah Polley is a Canadian treasure and her performance in this movie is brilliant. Sometimes the depressing tones gets a bit much but she is dying.
(ca) wrote: one o the best films ever
(nl) wrote: I was very impressed with this movie, and embarrassed to realize I didn't know who Hasan was. This is not your typical Bollywood, this is a thought-provoking work of art with excellent cast and powerful messages. It is as realistic as it can get, and it portraits the absurdity of religious division. I thought Hasan had such a powerful presence at all times, and develops a very interesting character. I wish both Rani and Shahrukh would make more movies like this, but I guess they were seduced by the flash of being Indian royalty. On the other hand Vansudara (Monsoon Wedding) never sold out, and keeps making excellent work, of course she is not in the gossip Bollywood shows nor modeling for an expensive watch. This is for a mature audience and for those who enjoy cinema as a form of social reflection and thought.
(es) wrote: Interesting thriller!
(mx) wrote: This is neither funny or very heart warming
(de) wrote: One of my favorite movies of all time, I have seen it many times. Not for everyone, it tells the true story of how love cannot be constrained by artificial rules.
(us) wrote: I can't sit here and tell you that Hardware is outright "good", but what I can do is recommend it anyway. At least I can if you think your tastes might be even fractionally similar to mine. If you go in for 80's cinema, cyberpunk, PiL, Motorhead, Iggy Pop, Post-Apocalyptia, Psychedelia, sex, drugs and rock & roll, practical effects and Dylan McDermott, or you think you could go in for any of those, then give Hardware a chance. At a runtime of just 94 minutes, you haven't got much to lose.
(de) wrote: A good cute comedy with a full on clumsy character. Long delivers a fine performance with a good supporting cast. If you are looking for a few laughs with some drama or if you grew up in the 80's then this is something to see. I don't think this is recommended for people who grew up in the 90's or after.
(nl) wrote: For all of its success at being something unique, a movie that consists almost entirely of two men talking to each other over dinner, "My Dinner With Andre" is also quite masterful in its use of some of the basics of storytelling and screencraft. It is particularly adept in its use of callback. One of the first things Wallace Shawn says to Andre Gregory when they meet at the restaurant, a long-delayed meeting Wallace tells us he has been dreading, is that Andre looks great. Andre replies that he feels terrible. Much later in the film, at a point when this early exchange might have been forgotten, Andre tells Wallace a story of the one person in a crowd who told him he looked terrible when everyone else had been blindly or artificially telling him he looked wonderful. Wallace reacts in his usual manner, with the pained squint and forced smile of someone who is not sure whether the person he is talking to is sane, and who is trying to decide whether to react honestly or with polite artificiality.The conversation between them is sufficiently strange to provoke that kind of reaction from Wallace, who for most viewers is surely the more relatable of the two with his love of simple pleasures like coffee and electric blankets and his skepticism of Andre's new age mysticism, but the way their back-and-forth escalates is smooth and comprehensible. There are clear themes established through early repetition. Nazism recurs again and again in Andre's dialogue, probably because its brutal enforcement of homogeneity is the antithesis of his utopian vision of complete individual autonomy. The theater is a recurring topic of discussion and an allegory for life, and the two men's close familiarity with specific directors, plays, and artistic schools provide a grounding that keeps their real concerns-life and death and the roles and performances of everyday existence-from becoming formless abstractions. The movie is a unique and arty experiment, yes, but the script is tightly-structured and that structure is adhered to even as the actors steadily ramp up the intensity of their performances.It is Wallace, as the stoic everyman, who has his foot on the pedals, rather than the more freewheeling and dynamic Andre. For a long time, Wallace's desire to avoid confrontation leads him to react with bemused, fearful, and puzzled silence to Andre's increasingly odd stories and claims of spiritual breakthroughs. This is the uncomfortable, strained conversation that Wallace dreaded at the beginning. Wallace's fear that the dinner would be awkward leads him to behave in just such a way to ensure that it is, through his non-committal or non-sequitur responses that only lead to awkward silences. But what Andre is offering him, he slowly realizes, is the chance to have a conversation that is honest and therefore not a chore. When Wallace begins to react as his own genuine self rather than as an accommodating version of himself, and to tell Andre "what I really think about all this," the conversation becomes more rapid, more elevated in pitch, but also less pained. It's a slow build over the course of the film until Wallace is almost shouting in the middle of the posh Manhattan restaurant, a setting which by this time is almost forgotten. The conversation, now two-way, has become all-absorbing.The editing, too, is an area in which the great care it took to produce the film belies an adjective like minimalist. Cuts often come mid-word or at least mid-sentence, and this creates the impression of an unbroken conversation instead of one achieved in several takes on different days. There are several camera positions, but zooms are also used when a story of Andre's is particularly emotional and his voice begins to quiver. This helps to generate sympathy for him and to overcome our Wallace-like incredulity. The timing of the cuts also works to create humor, particularly in the early going when we see Wallace's reaction to particularly outrageous pronouncements by Andre.This film is an unprecedented flight of fancy, but it flies by the grace of a deceptively controlled script and production. It gets down to the brass tacks of existence, not cheaply, but through the creation of two distinctive and likable protagonists. Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory are attentive to the needs of the audience and proficient with the tools of their medium. They are masters of art.
(es) wrote: this sounds really ummm...intresting probably not going to be very good
(nl) wrote: It is an incoherent mess but some of the visuals far surpass many far better films. I know it's sacrilege to those that loved the first film so much but in many ways I prefer this film.
(us) wrote: Even though it's about Edie Sedgewick it's Guy Pearce as Andy Warhol that steals the show..the rest is just another common story of a unknown becoming famous and dying of drug use.
(es) wrote: I am pissed off at Rottentomates because they no longer let you give 0 to any film not even to something like this that deserves it very very much. Violante Placido is the only saving grace.
(kr) wrote: Pleasant short building on the original feature from a couple of years earlier. Having not seen the movie yet the characters were a little lost on me.