Walk Softly, Stranger

Walk Softly, Stranger

A petty crook (Joseph Cotten) moves to an Ohio town and courts a factory owner's disabled daughter (Valli).

A charming, smooth-talking gambler calling himself Chris Hale arrives in Ashton, home of the Corelli shoe factory. Claiming to have lived there as a boy, he soon ingratiates himself with ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Walk Softly, Stranger torrent reviews

Ronnie H (mx) wrote: The film lures you with potential of the challenges of our own fights with defining reality, but can't tie it all up by the end. In that, the final scenes end up feeling gratuitous despite the expectation of gore. Consequently the darkness of the whole affair overwhelms the attempt at plot twist, leaving you without any memorable sense of value. Nonetheless, the promise and potential of the characters alone (and, frankly, some good acting) caries you to the end, even if you end up feeling disappointed by what's delivered.

Guillaume L (de) wrote: Une formidable realisation, un rythme soutenu, beaucoup d'imagination, du delire mais l'ecriture est un peu oubliee. Elle manque de profondeur. Le message sur la revanche des exploites sur le systeme capitaliste parait superficiel. "L'humour" cul/scato systematique derange tant il semble vieillot, tendance Fluide Glacial annes 70-80. Personnellement, pas trop ma tasse de the.

Kenneth L (jp) wrote: This is the fourth movie I've seen by the infamous Lars von Trier, and I have to admit it's turning out I like most of his work a lot better than I ever thought I would after Antichrist. This actually, by pure chance, makes an interesting comparison with the previous film/filmmaker I watched, Funny Games by Michael Haneke. On the surface, von Trier and Haneke would seem to have a lot in common: both are deadly serious European art filmmakers who seem to specialize in exploring the darkest aspects of human existence while denying the audience any of the pleasures most people expect from movies. An interesting n+1 article I found labelled Haneke and von Trier as part of the same movement, a movement the author called "sadomodernism." However, while every Haneke film I watch convinces me further that Haneke is essentially a fraud with nothing to say, every von Trier film I watch (except for Antichrist, obviously) convinces me that, for better or worse, he's the real deal. Haneke makes the audience feel pain in order to prove to himself how much better and smarter he is than us; von Trier makes the audience feel pain because he himself feels pain.This movie, which runs for a rather long 3 hours, is built around a unique mise-en-scene conceit: while the film's story is set in a town in Colorado in the 1930s, the actual set is just a huge, empty stage with the outlines of buildings drawn in chalk on the floor and labelled. There are a few props - beds, cabinets, a couple of cars, etc. - but the buildings themselves are purely imaginary. Whenever the actors "enter" one, they put their hands around invisible doorknobs to open the invisible doors. The whole thing is a bit like an experimental theater piece, but with uses of sound and cinematography unique to film.The story revolves around a woman named Grace (Nicole Kidman) who appears in the tiny town of Dogville while running away from gangsters for unexplained reasons. The town has to decide what to do with her presence, and the film spends the next three hours charting the rise and fall of Grace's relationship to the town. There are quite a lot of great actors playing the townsfolk - Paul Bettany, Patricia Clarkson, Stellan Skarsgaard, Jeremy Davies, Philip Baker Hall, Chloe Sevigny, and Lauren Bacall among them. Everyone does a great job committing to the unusual premise, and their performances collectively create a strange but believable little world.In spite of the obviously bizarre staging, in some ways the film's story and characters feel a bit more conventional than usual for von Trier. At times, the film seemed like a dark twist on things like the play Our Town or the novel Winesburg, Ohio. Eventually, of course, this being von Trier, things go down into utter sadness and degradation, but what did you expect? One of my main criticisms of von Trier's Nymphomaniac was that the bleak ending felt out of place and trite; here, the similarly bleak ending actually feels earned and inevitable. My main complaint here is that the movie at times feels like it's 3 hours long for the sake of being 3 hours long; there's some material that probably could've been cut without much changing the overall effect of the movie. Still, this is a better, smarter, more restrained piece of filmmaking than I ever would've thought von Trier capable of after my initial exposure to him. If you have the patience for this sort of thing, I do recommend trying it some time.

Sam M (jp) wrote: Perhaps the worst of the sequel series.

Jeff D (us) wrote: Leonardo DiCaprio's strongest performance to date.

Anna N (br) wrote: Classified as a classic = Interested.

Lynn N (jp) wrote: Great fun! A serial killer, Lucille Ball as the bait, and so many interesting characters peopled the movie. Yes, it was predictable, but who cares? The costuming was lovely and the story was engaging.

Grant H (es) wrote: Great movie. Great acting, kinda clich (C) story and plot formula.

Niels S (mx) wrote: 2 1/2 ud af 5 kamphelikoptere. Nr man i over en time har set forrygende kampscener, der ligner hinanden til forveksling, med personer, der ligner hinanden til forveksling, har man sdan set fet nok. Men det bliver gudhjlpemig ved i 2 1/2 time, og personudviklingen udebliver. Den film er godt nok overvurderet.

Jarek M (gb) wrote: Old good Von Trier about love, faith and society.

Mitch S (mx) wrote: John Boorman's Excalibur is a hauntingly beautiful, mythopoetic, cinematic masterpiece based on an interpretation of the Western World's premier hero, King Arthur. No other film, in my opinion captures the essence of the legend of Arthur better than Excalibur. If the purpose of great film is to temporarily dispel disbelief but also transport us to another world, this is without a doubt the one film that does that best in the Fantasy Genre.This film goes beyond silver swords and brave heros. Its gives us a classic Wagnerian tragic hero in all its glory, beautifully portrayed and aligned with the dark music of Richard Wagner's Ring Cycle operas. The combination of great acting, perfect story-telling, and fantastic music makes this film a one of a kind experience. There are so many BAD films made the past 30 years that cover the genre of medieval warriors....honestly I cannot name any that come even close to Excalibur.The one reason it achieves what it does, and in such a brilliant fashion, is simply because it does a great job at story-telling.....it simply tries to interpret the "myth of Arthur"....not the factual Arthur. The modern audience wants to live inside that story and myth, be wrapped in its dark mist....not count the links in chainmail. The greatness of Excalibur is it seems to be one of the few films that understand all that and allow the directly and script to take the fantastic liberties needed to transport us into the "other" world of mytho-poetic story-telling. Many movies today have lost the ability to portray the romance, grandeur, and the imagination behind these myths and legends. Its why you see so many 1 and 2 star movies here for movies in this fantasy genre the past 10 years. So, if you want to live in the world of Arthur and feel the legend of Arthur on film, definitely try Excalibur. Its one of my all-time favorite films!

Jamie C (es) wrote: Good sequel but lost some of its magic what made meet the Meet The Parents great, Adding more stars did help but kind of a let down in most places.