Yvonne of the Night

Yvonne of the Night

Carlo Rutelli si innamora della bella cantente di varieta' Yvonne la Nuit, ma il padre di Carlo si oppone al matrimonio. Scoppia la prima guerra mondiale e Carlo vine ucciso in guerra ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Yvonne of the Night torrent reviews

FilmGrinder S (it) wrote: 72% It's DAY OF THE DEAD in post civil war.

Jonathan C (kr) wrote: What a delightful film. Audrey Tautou is so enchanting. Bouajila was so adorable too! Totally recommend to anyone up for a fun little romancey movie.

Danielle C (ca) wrote: Enjoyed it, but think the nxt 1 will b beta!

Orlok W (ru) wrote: Edgy, brooding, powerful, oddly elegant--Rawness, despair and resurrection in Glasgow!!

Jack W (es) wrote: Ambient, heartwarming, and breathtaking visually. Love the characters, cinematography, and the humor.

Toni S (br) wrote: Rather interesting perspective on Hitler's vision of his politics as art, even if somewhat disturbing.

Plainclothes Man (gb) wrote: A brilliant piece of work by Angelopoulos.

Jack G (jp) wrote: It's a shame to go into a film by a director with a massive, amazing career and reputation and knowing that this particular film isn't regarded well. I put off seeing Topaz for years, and I'm not sure why now seeing it: it's not a terrible film or an embarrassment. It even has some very good things to say about it. But I can see why the reputation came with it as it did: it's Hitchcock's longest film at 143 minutes, and there's times dialog doesn't exactly bog the movie down as much as it *sounds* like movie dialog, it doesn't always have the natural flow as it does in other Hitchcock films. Does it need to be 'lighter'? Of course not. But when there's this much exposition and the characters are mostly meant to move the pieces along, the charm and excitement found in other works by this director - outside of the technique, when it was down to a great script and great actors making it a combination - the depletion of quality can be felt.To say some positive things: Hitchcock at this stage still has a grip on set pieces, and the opening is terrific. It's mostly done without much dialog, if at all, as characters are following other characters, others then notice they're being followed, subtle little things happen like the knocking over of a glass doll, and always the camera and editing make this kinetic while calling just enough attention (i.e. that first shot after the credits where the camera pirouettes, or I should say the zoom lens, from a view into a small window/mirror to the actors leaving a building and then following).And certain individual shots and moments, like seeing exposition happening but not hearing it (we don't have to hear it, of course), or a couple of key over-head shots in a set-piece involving a man having to kill someone he doesn't want to but has no choice left... I mean, there are moments where it's hard not to get the 'Hitch gives on a spine-tingling sensation).Oh, and I must point out John Vernon, easily the best consistent part of the movie acting-wise; it's interesting that a white guy who clearly shouldn't be playing a Cuban doesn't show that it's miscast. He completely sold me on this character of this Castro acolyte and makes him intimidating and on occasion soulful. I thought he'd only be in one scene and when I saw he'd be a key antagonist, I was thrilled.I think even the story itself, when you look at structurally how it's laid out and the little twists and turns it takes, is compelling enough to keep attention, or at the least it's not unwatchable. I think what hurts this is that most of the other actors, even John Forsyth, who worked with Hitch before, are flat and especially so with Frederick Stafford.On the DVD extras Leonard Maltin may say he's a "good" actor, but I'm not so sure. Maybe in material that wouldn't require so much, if it just was a part that asked for swagger or a little 007-rip-off charm, then fine. Here, this is a character that should have a little complexity even as the straight-man lead spy. Dany Robin is alright too, but not given much to do; I thought it interesting that the writer Samuel Taylor tried to put in some comment on infidelity in the film with this couple, but it gets lost in the scope of this plot.I might have been even kinder and found this to be a good movie instead of just fairly decent (and, yes, one of the lessor Hitchcock films... which still means it's *not bad*, I need to emphasize that), if it had a strong ending. It's now some film history that there are alternate endings, yet I got the wrong impression from one of the books I read and thought this ended with the duel set-piece (which makes sense, as this needs a final confrontation between the two characters involved in this). I should only comment on how this *does* end, but that sucks so I'll review briefly these alternate endings: the 'duel' one is conceptually brilliant, but I think the lack of the director on set (he had to be called away before it could be shot so a producer stepped in to shoot it) can still be felt despite the storyboarding; the 'airport' ending, which is different than what is on the DVD of this full director's cut, is actually amusing in the way that maybe the rest of the film isn't, but it works well in a way that's unexpected in giving a big shot of ambiguity.And then there's the third ending, which was screened in the shorter 127 minute prints on its original release, where a character goes and kills himself after receiving some troubling news. This looks awkward, but there's a brief montage showing everyone who died in the line of all of this espionage and that, superimposed over a newspaper headline about the missile crisis being over, is extremely affecting and effective. It almost shouldn't feel earned, but that is a good little gut punch at the end of all of this.So, I don't know. None of them are completely satisfying, but it turns out to be a case of there not being a sufficient ending, which is a problem. All the same, Topaz isn't some disaster, and isn't as boring as you've heard. It's simply part of that weak period someone this filmmaker fell into after (the underrated) Marnie and his last hurrah in true diabolical fashion with Frenzy.

Samitha J (au) wrote: Good adaptation, But had like 20 mins extra unnecessary and damaging material in the end which took down the movie from a 4.

John B (mx) wrote: I had seen snippets of Chaplin doing his thing but this was the first time that I had seen City Lights from top to bottom. Charlies charms as usual as his Tramp defies the odds for the woman he loves. Very memorable.

Paul B (br) wrote: Ingrid Pitt is great in the lead role as Countess Elizabeth Bathory, a woman who realises by accident that the blood of young girls can restore her youth. Some nicely shot scenes, moments of gore & a great finale add up to another solid Hammer movie.

samuel j (de) wrote: One of the top 3 best serial killer films ever made, Summer of Sam perfectly illustrates the decadence, lose and suspicion of an entire generation.

Tina S (ru) wrote: Poor River, what might have been...