Villa Amalia is the story of Ann, a musician, whose life is turned upside down by a kiss. When she sees Thomas kissing another woman, Ann makes a clean break, leaving him and everything ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Ann leaves Thomas and everything else behind when she catches him kissing another woman. With her music and help from Georges, she begins a journey to find herself.
You may also like
Villa Amalia torrent reviews
Aaron M (mx) wrote: Among my to give favorite films. Resonates with me.
Saharat S (gb) wrote: Great film--kind of disturbing though--its about a woman that gets raped and how she deals with it afterwards--fantasy revenge sequences, flashbacks, and actual revenge sequences, paranoia---all kind of meld together in a slightly schizophrenic way--original music was great too---although it was a little too loud
Patricia W (ca) wrote: The testimony of the victims will break all but the hardest of hearts, and the victims include the families of those who were directly abused. The agony of knowing what O'Grady and the likes of him did to children is shown in the faces and the words of those families whose lives have been torn apart by this horror.This film, in my opinion, is far more powerful than the one that won accolades at the recent Oscars, because it talks directly to those involved. I will never forget Mr Jyongo and his pain on knowing what O'Grady did to his daughter.The fact that O'Grady is a free man now, in Ireland, is nothing short of a national disgrace - for that country, for the Catholic Church, and for all of us who fail to speak out and support those fighting against abuse. As painful as it is to watch, everyone should see this film, and then go and do something.
Michael T (br) wrote: Difficult to fathom, much like many of Godard's later films.
Robert K (br) wrote: First, this is not about three salesmen. Rather, it is Spacey as a salesman, Divito as a Marketing Executive and Facinelli as a young engineer sent along to his first convention as a technical support guy. Pay no attention to any review that can't even correctly identify the three main characters. This is not a comedy. It is a less cynical Death of a Salesman. Here is Roger Ebert on the premise: "The film mostly takes place within that one hotel room. Yes, it is based on a play. I like that. I like the fact that it is mostly dialogue between three people on one set. That is the way to tell this story. Why does every filmed play trigger movie critics into a ritual discussion of whether (or how, or if) the play has been "opened up"? Who cares? What difference would it make if the movie set some scenes in the coffee shop and others in the park across the street? The story is about these three guys and what they say to one another. Keeping it in one room underlines their isolation: They are in the inner sanctum of their religion."Watch this if you want an intelligent examination of work, belief and morals.
Kristina B (ca) wrote: Rob's and my first movie - maybe the company had something to do with my rating
Christopher C (it) wrote: Not really interesting. The gags against Proctor and Harris weren't that funny and the rest of the stuff was below the earlier movies. No Guttenberg this time and the replacement didn't have the same charisma. Sadly a big disappointment.
Nadia V (au) wrote: trop triste, mais ... trop beau !
Edith N (ag) wrote: What's the Point Again? Actually, we own this now. Graham has a deep fondness for it, and I have a deep fondness for Graham, and it was at Dollar Tree for, well, a dollar. We've owned the Jimmy Stewart version for years, and if I were going to sit down and just watch a version, that would be the one. Why watch the bad remake when you can watch the good original? Or, if not bad exactly, certainly not as good. And not necessary. It's not that films are sacred, and there are some remakes I quite like. Indeed, some remakes became classics when the versions which went before did not. James Whale, for example, was not the first person to direct a movie of [i]Frankenstein[/i], but when people picture the Monster, they picture Boris Karloff. However, I would posit that an important defining characteristic of what will make a worthwhile remake is generally that the original isn't a classic. At the very least, the remake should have something new to say. And this version of the original play does not meet either requirement. Elwood P. Dowd (Harry Anderson) is a genial fellow. Quiet, friendly, and generous. This is hard enough on his snobbish sister, Veta Simmons (Swoosie Kurtz), but then there's Harvey. Harvey is a pooka, a spirit of Celtic folklore, who appears to Elwood--and only to Elwood--in the form of a six-foot eight-and-a-half-inch rabbit. (He's shorter in the original script, but Jimmy Stewart insisted the rabbit had to be substantially taller than he.) Veta and her lawyer, Judge Gaffney (William Schallert), arrange to have Elwood instutionalized at the hospital of Dr. Chumley (Leslie Nielsen). Only Dr. Sanderson (Robert Wisden), Dr. Chumley's assistant, listens to Veta explain about Harvey, decides she's the crazy one, and locks her up instead. Hilarity ensues, with the various characters running all about town in an effort to get Veta and her daughter, Myrtle Mae (Lisa Akey), home and safe and Elwood shut up at the sanitarium. Don't get me wrong. Harry Anderson is a decent enough Elwood, probably the best one which would have been available to the makers at the time. However, you can't watch it without comparing him to Jimmy Stewart, and of course he doesn't merit the comparison. Harry Anderson plays the role with warmth and good humour, but he just isn't an actor on Stewart's level. For most of his career, that was fine and he didn't have to be. But in any case where a person is playing a role once played by a great actor, he has to do it knowing that everyone is going to be comparing the two. I've heard rumours of a planned remake of [i]To Kill a Mockingbird[/i], and I don't worry, because no actor who would be good enough to play Atticus Finch would be willing to suffer the comparison to Gregory Peck. I would imagine that playing this part would be irresistible to an actor of Anderson's particular range, because it's especially well suited to it. But I think he should have resisted, or at least stuck to the stage. I will say that the world of the story is well drawn. The movie is set in some amorphous time in the mid-'50s, or possibly earlier; the original movie came out in 1950. It's pretty clear that this production didn't have a huge budget, but the feeling of the movie is mostly right nonetheless. Elwood comes across as a little old-fashioned, as does Veta, and Myrtle Mae is trying to fit into the new era. This is all completely appropriate. This all works and is right. Elwood's favourite bar, Charley's Place, feels a bit more 1985 or so, but Nurse Kelly (Jessica Hecht) feels like a woman who came of age during World War II. Tough because she's had to be but aware that her authority will never be as great as that of the men who control her world. In love but professional enough not to make a big issue of it, though she's not above feeling incredibly flattered when Elwood compliments her. The time spent watching this isn't a total waste. Especially not if you've already seen the original and aren't watching this instead. Seeing a new take on an old story can be worthwhile, but this is the same take, just with different people doing it. I happen to like the handful of people in it whom I actually recognize from other places--among other things, it's nice to see the late, great Leslie Nielsen do a relatively straight role for once. That pretty much stopped happening after he made [i]Airplane![/i] But over all, there's nothing of interest to this version which isn't done better in the original. I'll admit I give slightly more credit to recreating an era than just being made in it, so there's that about it, but by and large, this is a movie which didn't need making.
Nicholas N (jp) wrote: Best holiday movie ever made. Fuck you rotten tomatoes
Debra M (ru) wrote: tawney kitean ROX!!!