The Harmonists

The Harmonists

Comedian Harmonists tells the story of a famous, German male sextet, five vocals and piano, the "Comedian Harmonists", from the day they meet first in 1927 to the day in 1934, when they ...

Comedian Harmonists tells the story of a famous, German male sextet, five vocals and piano, the "Comedian Harmonists", from the day they meet first in 1927 to the day in 1934, when they ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


The Harmonists torrent reviews

Danielle H (gb) wrote: Among Ravens was an awesome movie! It premiered at the Nantucket film festival and it really moved me! I found it be really sentimental and genuine so I loved it. There were a lot of great messages throughout the movie and I felt really uplifted at the end. It is definitely one of my favorite movies of the summer so far.

Erin C (ca) wrote: Not the best acting, but it was a different twist on a story of incest.

Ash S (br) wrote: Pretty intense performance but somewhat boring.....

Jen K (ru) wrote: I was asked to watch it as an assignment in a Sociology class I'm taking and I LOVED it! Its in your face and brutal with your emotions and perceptions, but an incredible film and message. A fresh take on a long standing subject.

Luke F (ca) wrote: The worst movie ever made

Jack G (it) wrote: It's fascinating, absorbing, funny, weird, with provocative trivia (Mickey Mouse and the Air Pirates was a 13 year old court case?) and at the same time misses a couple of big names (Alan Moore being the most obvious- if you include Frank Miller then why exclude Alan Moore from 80s comics? I'd argue Moore as being more crucial than Miller in that sense). But it's worth watching for die-hards and casual readers of 'funnies' or 'underground' comics, and the director employs a cool visual arc with each title and presentation.

Dave S (nl) wrote: Whether they intended to or not, this is a work of evil genius. They decided to follow-up a nostalgia fueled feel-good comedy with a grim and fragmented reminder of how rough the second half of the 1960s could be. This follows characters from the original in four consecutive years, cross-cutting between their stories, the visuals for each story cropped and framed differently (the Vietnam narrative is a small centered square, another is told in multiple split screens, etc). The intermittent attempts at comedy fall kind of flat, leaving us with a largely depressing series of events that's still accompanied by Wolfman Jack's parade of pop hits. So of *course* this failed, it's practically a slap in the face to people who loved the original. I'm not sure if the slap was entirely a necessary one, but it's fascinating, subversive, and affecting. Mild spoilers: characters in subsequent years begin to drop hints about their friends' fates even though their stories are still in progress, building a sick suspense in some cases, but I went back and checked - some of the same info was given away in the famous "where are they now" ending of the first movie. Sneaky!

Jim D (ag) wrote: I have to say I didn't really understand this movie...or maybe that is the point. At the point in the movie where they began traveling up the river to find Col. Kurtz (Marlon Brando), it became like a 2 hour hallucination. It didn't seem to have a meaning or purpose, which very well may be the point. I guess one could interpret this as an absurdist look at the intersection of war, technology and messianic worship. If it was trying to get a message across though I missed it. As a piece of film making I see why it is regarded as a classic. I may have to give it some time to sink in, then watch it again.

Justin H (es) wrote: This movie is bad. Remarkably, uproariously bad. Picture "Reefer Madness" with a lead character that looks like Elvis Presley, a bunch of poorly-implemented christian undertones, and a killer, bloodthristy turkey man. There is not a single redeeming quality to this movie, apart from its unintentional hilarity.The acting is terrible in the way that only a film starring a bunch of the director's friends & family can be. Even when you CAN hear what the actors are saying, they often stumble in the middle of what they're saying, trying to remember their lines.Which brings up another aspect of the film, in that the budget must have been south of miniscule. Leaving aside the short-bus "special" effects, the crew was apparently unable to afford such things as a boom mic or a single frame of extra film to re-shoot scenes that didn't play out right the first time."Blood Freak" would have made for a PERFECT experiment on Mystery Science Theater 3000. So if your sense of humor leans in that direction, and you can get a couple friends together, you will love this movie in all its ambitious awfulness. :)

Larry M (us) wrote: a duo of great actors, plenty of action and snappy dialogue - like Starsky & Hutch in Vietnam

Steven F (mx) wrote: Between Sound of Music and this for greatest musical of all time!

Chucky (kr) wrote: July 7th 2011June 20th 2015

Jessica H (ca) wrote: This is not one of those films that should not be deepley contemplated because when you do then you may not like it. other then that bit of infomation and the disturbing details, it's still an okay film.

Javier F (gb) wrote: Sam Peckinpah triunfa con creces en esta cruda y violenta reflexin sobre todo impulso del ser humano sobre todo en situaciones extremas, siendo ello mostrado con fuerza por las brillantes actuaciones, y sin miedo a caer en lo ridculo a nivel narrativo. La ltima media hora es sublime.