Gracias por ahorrarme el trabajo, francomapa.
¿Quién teme a Virginia Woolf? (Mike Nichols, 1966) DVDRip VOSE + AE
-
CKDexterHaven
- Mensajes: 1988
- Registrado: Mié 07 Jul, 2004 02:00
-
pcero
- Aprendiz de todo
- Mensajes: 782
- Registrado: Lun 15 Nov, 2004 01:00
-
Palahniuk
- What a day, what a lovely day!
- Mensajes: 3904
- Registrado: Vie 09 Jun, 2006 23:07
- Ubicación: Vuelo 2039
Para los que no tenemos esta penícula, hay un enlace de dos cd's en Xvid (Mejorará la clidad?)
[ed2k=ed2k://|file|Who's%20afraid%20of%20Virginia%20Woolf%20(1966).CD1.avi|735995904|ABA4E636344B3F18F4813EB9395D0D83|/]Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf (1966).CD1.avi[/ed2k]
[ed2k=ed2k://|file|Who's%20afraid%20of%20Virginia%20Woolf%20(1966).CD2.avi|732280832|4C140B6E355968EF7EADC19895E52B5D|/]Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf (1966).CD2.avi[/ed2k]
No se de subtitulos, quizas calcen los de otros ripeos.
No se de subtitulos, quizas calcen los de otros ripeos.
-
Palahniuk
- What a day, what a lovely day!
- Mensajes: 3904
- Registrado: Vie 09 Jun, 2006 23:07
- Ubicación: Vuelo 2039
-
Vertigo
- Mensajes: 1316
- Registrado: Jue 27 May, 2004 02:00
- Ubicación: Guantánamo
Palahniuk,
A veces va bien el autobumpearse, porque se me había pasado por alto tu primera observación. (Alonso Quijano, perdónanos por usar el verbo bumpear, pero es que estamos muy globalizados).
Ese enlace que citas debe ser el que me descargué hace un par de meses y es un DVDRip. Lo que pasa es que no te lo puedo confirmar, porque yo suelo convertirlos en un sólo archivo. De todos modos por el bitrato y otras características que me da el GSpot debe tratarse del mismo ripeo.
Y de verdad que vale la pena bajárselo, porque la obra de Edward Albee es impresionante y hoy en día se puede comparar con la última suya. LA CABRA; que hace meses vi en Barcelona y que creo que Josep Maria Pou está representando ahora en Madrid.
En todo caso, se demuestra claramente que teatro y cine son compatibles cuando el director, como es el caso de Mike Nichols, domina por igual las artes teatrales y las cinematográficas. En cuanto a la pareja Taylor-Burton, nunca estuvo mejor y se explican que ambos estuvieran nominados para el Oscar, aunque al final el premio se lo llevó la pareja femenina Liz Taylor- ¡Sandy Dennis!.
Hay subtítulos muy buenos en inglés y español aquí:
http://www.opensubtitles.org/es/search/ ... movie-5861
Pero eso sí, quien quiera perfeccionar su inglés que la vea con subtítulos en esa lengua, para no perder ni un detalle de la ironía de Edward Albee, con Eugene O'Neill, Tennessee Williams y Arthur Miller, el cuarteto de oro del teatro americano del pasado siglo.
A veces va bien el autobumpearse, porque se me había pasado por alto tu primera observación. (Alonso Quijano, perdónanos por usar el verbo bumpear, pero es que estamos muy globalizados).
Ese enlace que citas debe ser el que me descargué hace un par de meses y es un DVDRip. Lo que pasa es que no te lo puedo confirmar, porque yo suelo convertirlos en un sólo archivo. De todos modos por el bitrato y otras características que me da el GSpot debe tratarse del mismo ripeo.
Y de verdad que vale la pena bajárselo, porque la obra de Edward Albee es impresionante y hoy en día se puede comparar con la última suya. LA CABRA; que hace meses vi en Barcelona y que creo que Josep Maria Pou está representando ahora en Madrid.
En todo caso, se demuestra claramente que teatro y cine son compatibles cuando el director, como es el caso de Mike Nichols, domina por igual las artes teatrales y las cinematográficas. En cuanto a la pareja Taylor-Burton, nunca estuvo mejor y se explican que ambos estuvieran nominados para el Oscar, aunque al final el premio se lo llevó la pareja femenina Liz Taylor- ¡Sandy Dennis!.
Hay subtítulos muy buenos en inglés y español aquí:
http://www.opensubtitles.org/es/search/ ... movie-5861
Pero eso sí, quien quiera perfeccionar su inglés que la vea con subtítulos en esa lengua, para no perder ni un detalle de la ironía de Edward Albee, con Eugene O'Neill, Tennessee Williams y Arthur Miller, el cuarteto de oro del teatro americano del pasado siglo.
-
Palahniuk
- What a day, what a lovely day!
- Mensajes: 3904
- Registrado: Vie 09 Jun, 2006 23:07
- Ubicación: Vuelo 2039
-
Gawyn
- Mensajes: 208
- Registrado: Vie 12 Dic, 2003 01:00
-
Robe
- Mensajes: 185
- Registrado: Sab 10 Jun, 2006 13:32
- Ubicación: Madrid
-
Robe
- Mensajes: 185
- Registrado: Sab 10 Jun, 2006 13:32
- Ubicación: Madrid
-
fishburne
- Mensajes: 20
- Registrado: Dom 20 May, 2007 00:41
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)
¿Quién teme a Virginia Woolf?
Directed by:
Mike Nichols
Cast:
Elizabeth Taylor - Martha
Richard Burton - George
George Segal - Nick
Sandy Dennis - Honey
IMDB
[quote="NY Times"]Funless Games at George and Martha's: Albee's 'Virginia Woolf' Becomes a Film
By STANLEY KAUFFMANN
Published: June 24, 1966
EDWARD ALBEE'S "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?", the best American play of the last decade and a violently candid one, has been brought to the screen without pussyfooting. (It is now at the Criterion and Loew's Tower East.) This in itself makes it a notable event in our film history. About the film as such, there is more to be said.
First things first. The most pressing question—since we already know a great deal about the play and the two stars—is the direction. Mike Nichols, after a brilliant and too-brief career as a satirist, proved to be a brilliant theatrical director of comedy. This is his debut as a film director, and it is a successful Houdini feat.
Houdini, you remember, was the magician who was chained hand and foot, bound in a sack, dumped in a river, and then appeared some minutes later on the surface. You do not expect Olympic swimming form in a Houdini; the triumph is just to come out alive.
Which Mr. Nichols has done. He was given two world-shaking stars, the play of the decade and the auspices of a large looming studio. What more inhibiting conditions could be imagined for a first film, if the director is a man of talent? But Mr. Nichols has at least survived. The form is not Olympic, but he lives.
Any transference of a good play to film is a battle. (Which is why the best film directors rarely deal with good plays.) The better the play, the harder it struggles against leaving its natural habitat, and Mr. Albee's extraordinary comedy-drama has put up a stiff fight.
Ernest Lehman, the screen adapter, has broken the play out of its one living-room setting into various rooms in the house and onto the lawn, which the play accepts well enough. He has also placed one scene in a roadhouse, which is a patently forced move for visual variety. These changes and some minor cuts, including a little inconsequential blue-penciling, are about the sum of his efforts. The real job of "filmizing" was left to the director.
With no possible chance to cut loose cinematically (as, for example, Richard Lester did in his film of the stage comedy "The Knack"), Mr. Nichols has made the most of two elements that were left to him—intimacy and acting.
He has gone to school to several film masters (Kurosawa among them, I would guess) in the skills of keeping the camera close, indecently prying; giving us a sense of his characters' very breath, bad 'breath, held breath; tracking a face—in the rhythm of the scene—as the actor moves, to take us to other faces; punctuating with sudden withdrawals to give us a brief, almost dispassionate respite; then plunging us in close again to one or two faces, for lots of pores and bile.
There is not much that is original in Mr. Nichols's camerawork, no sense of the personality that we got in his stage direction. In fact, the direction is weakest when he gets a bit arty: electric signs flashing behind heads or tilted shots from below to show passion and abandon (both of them hallmarks of the college cinema virtuoso). But he has minimized the "stage" feeling, and he has given the film an insistent presence, good phrasing and a nervous drive. It sags toward the end, but this is because the third act of the play sags.
As for the acting, Mr. Nichols had Richard Burton as George. (To refresh us all, George is a fortyish history professor, married to Martha, the daughter of the president of a New England college. They return home from a party at 1:30 A.M., slightly sozzled, drenched in their 20-year-old marital love-hate ambivalence. A young faculty couple come over for drinks, and the party winds viciously on until dawn. In the course of it, Martha sleeps with the young man as an act of vengeance on George. The play ends with George's retribution—the destruction of their myth about a son they never had.
Mr. Burton was part of the star package with which this film began, but—a big but—Mr. Burton is also an actor. He has become a kind of specialist in sensitive self-disgust, as witness the latter scenes of "Cleopatra" and all of "The Spy Who Came In from the Cold," and he does it well. He is not in his person the George we might imagine, but he is utterly convincing as a man with a great lake of nausea in him, on which he sails with regret and compulsive amusement.
On past evidence, Mr. Nichols had relatively little work to do with Mr. Burton. On past evidence, he had a good deal to do with Elizabeth Taylor, playing Martha. She has shown previously, in some roles, that she could respond to the right director and could at least flagellate herself into an emotional state (as in "Suddenly, Last Summer"). Here, with a director who knows how to get an actor's confidence and knows what to do with it after he gets it, she does the best work of her career, sustained and urgent.
Of course, she has an initial advantage. Her acceptance of gray hair and her use of profanity make her seem to be acting even (figuratively) before she begins. ("Gee, she let them show her looking old! Wow, she just said 'Son of a bitch'! A star!") It is not the first time an American star has gotten mileage out of that sort of daring. Miss Taylor does not have qualities that, for instance, Uta Hagen had in the Broadway version, no suggestion of endlessly coiled involutions. Her venom is nearer the surface. But, under Mr. Nichols's hand, she gets vocal variety, never relapses out of the role, and she charges it with the utmost of her powers—which is an achievement for any actress, great or little.
As the younger man, George Segal gives his usual good terrier performance, lithe and snapping, with nice bafflement at the complexities of what he thought was simply a bad marriage. As his bland wife, Sandy Dennis is credibly bland.
Mr. Albee's play looks both better and a little worse under the camera's magnification. A chief virtue for me is that it is not an onion-skin play—it does not merely strip off layers, beginning at the surface with trifles and digging deeper as it proceeds. Of course, we learn more about the characters as we go, and almost all of it is fascinating; but, like its giant forebear, Strindberg's "Dance of Death," the play begins in in hell, and all the revelations and reactions take place within that landscape.
What does not wear well in the generally superb dialogue is the heavy lacing of vaudeville cross-talk, particularly facile non sequiturs. (Also, in Mr. Lehman's version, so much shouting and slamming takes place on the front lawn at four in the morning that we keep wondering why a neighbor doesn't wake up and complain.)
More serious is the heightened impression that the myth of the son is irrelevant to the play. It seems a device that the author tacked on to conclude matters as the slash and counterslash grew tired; a device that he then went back and planted earlier. Else why would Martha have told the other woman the secret of the son so glibly—not when she was angry or drunk—if she knew she was breaching an old and sacred compact with her husband? It obtrudes as an arbitrary action to justify the ending.
The really relevant unseen character is not the son; it is Martha's father, the president of the college. It is he whom she idolizes and measures her husband against, it is his presence George has to contend with in and out of bed. It is Daddy's power, symbolic in Martha, that keeps the visiting couple from leaving, despite circumstances that would soon have driven them out of any other house.
Awareness—of this truth about Daddy, of multiple other truths about themselves and their world—is the theme of this play: not the necessity of narcotic illusion about the son, but naked, peeled awareness. Under the vituperation and violence, under Martha's aggressive and self-punishing infidelties, this is the drama of a marriage flooded with more consciousness than the human psyche is at present able to bear.
Their world is too much with them, their selves are much too clear. It is the price to be paid for living in a cosmos of increasing clarity—which includes a clearer view of inevitable futilities. And, fundamentally, it is this desperation—articulated in childless, broken-hearted, demonically loving marriage—that Mr. Albee has crystallized in his flawed but fine play.
And in its forthright dealing with the play, this becomes one of the most scathingly honest American films ever made. Its advertisements say, "No one under 18 will be admitted unless accompanied by his parent." This may safeguard the children; the parents must take their chances.[/quote]
Specs:
File Name: Who's.Afraid.of.Virginia.Woolf.(1966).DVDRip.XviD.AC3-[fb].avi
File Size: 1.45 GB or 1,491 MB or 1,527,564 KB
Runtime: 02:05:36 (188404 frames)
Video Codec: XviD 1.1.3 Final
Frame Size: 704x384
Frame aspect ratio: 11:6 = 1.833333 (~1.85:1)
Framerate: 25.000 FPS
Video Bitrate: 1458 kbps
Bits per Pixel: 0.216
B-VOP, QPel, GMC: B-VOP (max 1), No QPel, No GMC
Audio Codec: 0x2000 (AC3, Dolby Laboratories, Inc) AC3
Sample Rate: 48000 Hz
Audio Bitrate: 192 kbs, mono (1/0)
# audio streams: 1
Who's.Afraid.of.Virginia.Woolf.(1966).DVDRip.XviD.AC3-(fb).avi 
Additional Audio Tracks:
Who's.Afraid.of.Virginia.Woolf.(1966).DVDRip.XviD.AC3-(fb).Commentary1.mp3
by Mike Nichols & Steven Soderbergh
Who's.Afraid.of.Virginia.Woolf.(1966).DVDRip.XviD.AC3-(fb).Commentary2.mp3
by Haskell Wexler
Who's.Afraid.of.Virginia.Woolf.(1966).DVDRip.XviD.AC3-(fb).Espanol.DELAY.-8ms.ac3
VobSubs:
Who's.Afraid.of.Virginia.Woolf.(1966).DVDRip.XviD.AC3-(fb)-Subs.7z
English, Czech, Dansk, Finish, Deutsch, Hungarian, Norsk, Polish, Portugues, Espanol, Svenska, Turkish
¿Quién teme a Virginia Woolf?
Directed by:
Mike Nichols
Cast:
Elizabeth Taylor - Martha
Richard Burton - George
George Segal - Nick
Sandy Dennis - Honey
IMDB
[quote="NY Times"]Funless Games at George and Martha's: Albee's 'Virginia Woolf' Becomes a Film
By STANLEY KAUFFMANN
Published: June 24, 1966
EDWARD ALBEE'S "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?", the best American play of the last decade and a violently candid one, has been brought to the screen without pussyfooting. (It is now at the Criterion and Loew's Tower East.) This in itself makes it a notable event in our film history. About the film as such, there is more to be said.
First things first. The most pressing question—since we already know a great deal about the play and the two stars—is the direction. Mike Nichols, after a brilliant and too-brief career as a satirist, proved to be a brilliant theatrical director of comedy. This is his debut as a film director, and it is a successful Houdini feat.
Houdini, you remember, was the magician who was chained hand and foot, bound in a sack, dumped in a river, and then appeared some minutes later on the surface. You do not expect Olympic swimming form in a Houdini; the triumph is just to come out alive.
Which Mr. Nichols has done. He was given two world-shaking stars, the play of the decade and the auspices of a large looming studio. What more inhibiting conditions could be imagined for a first film, if the director is a man of talent? But Mr. Nichols has at least survived. The form is not Olympic, but he lives.
Any transference of a good play to film is a battle. (Which is why the best film directors rarely deal with good plays.) The better the play, the harder it struggles against leaving its natural habitat, and Mr. Albee's extraordinary comedy-drama has put up a stiff fight.
Ernest Lehman, the screen adapter, has broken the play out of its one living-room setting into various rooms in the house and onto the lawn, which the play accepts well enough. He has also placed one scene in a roadhouse, which is a patently forced move for visual variety. These changes and some minor cuts, including a little inconsequential blue-penciling, are about the sum of his efforts. The real job of "filmizing" was left to the director.
With no possible chance to cut loose cinematically (as, for example, Richard Lester did in his film of the stage comedy "The Knack"), Mr. Nichols has made the most of two elements that were left to him—intimacy and acting.
He has gone to school to several film masters (Kurosawa among them, I would guess) in the skills of keeping the camera close, indecently prying; giving us a sense of his characters' very breath, bad 'breath, held breath; tracking a face—in the rhythm of the scene—as the actor moves, to take us to other faces; punctuating with sudden withdrawals to give us a brief, almost dispassionate respite; then plunging us in close again to one or two faces, for lots of pores and bile.
There is not much that is original in Mr. Nichols's camerawork, no sense of the personality that we got in his stage direction. In fact, the direction is weakest when he gets a bit arty: electric signs flashing behind heads or tilted shots from below to show passion and abandon (both of them hallmarks of the college cinema virtuoso). But he has minimized the "stage" feeling, and he has given the film an insistent presence, good phrasing and a nervous drive. It sags toward the end, but this is because the third act of the play sags.
As for the acting, Mr. Nichols had Richard Burton as George. (To refresh us all, George is a fortyish history professor, married to Martha, the daughter of the president of a New England college. They return home from a party at 1:30 A.M., slightly sozzled, drenched in their 20-year-old marital love-hate ambivalence. A young faculty couple come over for drinks, and the party winds viciously on until dawn. In the course of it, Martha sleeps with the young man as an act of vengeance on George. The play ends with George's retribution—the destruction of their myth about a son they never had.
Mr. Burton was part of the star package with which this film began, but—a big but—Mr. Burton is also an actor. He has become a kind of specialist in sensitive self-disgust, as witness the latter scenes of "Cleopatra" and all of "The Spy Who Came In from the Cold," and he does it well. He is not in his person the George we might imagine, but he is utterly convincing as a man with a great lake of nausea in him, on which he sails with regret and compulsive amusement.
On past evidence, Mr. Nichols had relatively little work to do with Mr. Burton. On past evidence, he had a good deal to do with Elizabeth Taylor, playing Martha. She has shown previously, in some roles, that she could respond to the right director and could at least flagellate herself into an emotional state (as in "Suddenly, Last Summer"). Here, with a director who knows how to get an actor's confidence and knows what to do with it after he gets it, she does the best work of her career, sustained and urgent.
Of course, she has an initial advantage. Her acceptance of gray hair and her use of profanity make her seem to be acting even (figuratively) before she begins. ("Gee, she let them show her looking old! Wow, she just said 'Son of a bitch'! A star!") It is not the first time an American star has gotten mileage out of that sort of daring. Miss Taylor does not have qualities that, for instance, Uta Hagen had in the Broadway version, no suggestion of endlessly coiled involutions. Her venom is nearer the surface. But, under Mr. Nichols's hand, she gets vocal variety, never relapses out of the role, and she charges it with the utmost of her powers—which is an achievement for any actress, great or little.
As the younger man, George Segal gives his usual good terrier performance, lithe and snapping, with nice bafflement at the complexities of what he thought was simply a bad marriage. As his bland wife, Sandy Dennis is credibly bland.
Mr. Albee's play looks both better and a little worse under the camera's magnification. A chief virtue for me is that it is not an onion-skin play—it does not merely strip off layers, beginning at the surface with trifles and digging deeper as it proceeds. Of course, we learn more about the characters as we go, and almost all of it is fascinating; but, like its giant forebear, Strindberg's "Dance of Death," the play begins in in hell, and all the revelations and reactions take place within that landscape.
What does not wear well in the generally superb dialogue is the heavy lacing of vaudeville cross-talk, particularly facile non sequiturs. (Also, in Mr. Lehman's version, so much shouting and slamming takes place on the front lawn at four in the morning that we keep wondering why a neighbor doesn't wake up and complain.)
More serious is the heightened impression that the myth of the son is irrelevant to the play. It seems a device that the author tacked on to conclude matters as the slash and counterslash grew tired; a device that he then went back and planted earlier. Else why would Martha have told the other woman the secret of the son so glibly—not when she was angry or drunk—if she knew she was breaching an old and sacred compact with her husband? It obtrudes as an arbitrary action to justify the ending.
The really relevant unseen character is not the son; it is Martha's father, the president of the college. It is he whom she idolizes and measures her husband against, it is his presence George has to contend with in and out of bed. It is Daddy's power, symbolic in Martha, that keeps the visiting couple from leaving, despite circumstances that would soon have driven them out of any other house.
Awareness—of this truth about Daddy, of multiple other truths about themselves and their world—is the theme of this play: not the necessity of narcotic illusion about the son, but naked, peeled awareness. Under the vituperation and violence, under Martha's aggressive and self-punishing infidelties, this is the drama of a marriage flooded with more consciousness than the human psyche is at present able to bear.
Their world is too much with them, their selves are much too clear. It is the price to be paid for living in a cosmos of increasing clarity—which includes a clearer view of inevitable futilities. And, fundamentally, it is this desperation—articulated in childless, broken-hearted, demonically loving marriage—that Mr. Albee has crystallized in his flawed but fine play.
And in its forthright dealing with the play, this becomes one of the most scathingly honest American films ever made. Its advertisements say, "No one under 18 will be admitted unless accompanied by his parent." This may safeguard the children; the parents must take their chances.[/quote]
Specs:
File Name: Who's.Afraid.of.Virginia.Woolf.(1966).DVDRip.XviD.AC3-[fb].avi
File Size: 1.45 GB or 1,491 MB or 1,527,564 KB
Runtime: 02:05:36 (188404 frames)
Video Codec: XviD 1.1.3 Final
Frame Size: 704x384
Frame aspect ratio: 11:6 = 1.833333 (~1.85:1)
Framerate: 25.000 FPS
Video Bitrate: 1458 kbps
Bits per Pixel: 0.216
B-VOP, QPel, GMC: B-VOP (max 1), No QPel, No GMC
Audio Codec: 0x2000 (AC3, Dolby Laboratories, Inc) AC3
Sample Rate: 48000 Hz
Audio Bitrate: 192 kbs, mono (1/0)
# audio streams: 1
Who's.Afraid.of.Virginia.Woolf.(1966).DVDRip.XviD.AC3-(fb).avi Additional Audio Tracks:
Who's.Afraid.of.Virginia.Woolf.(1966).DVDRip.XviD.AC3-(fb).Commentary1.mp3 by Mike Nichols & Steven Soderbergh
Who's.Afraid.of.Virginia.Woolf.(1966).DVDRip.XviD.AC3-(fb).Commentary2.mp3 by Haskell Wexler
Who's.Afraid.of.Virginia.Woolf.(1966).DVDRip.XviD.AC3-(fb).Espanol.DELAY.-8ms.ac3 VobSubs:
Who's.Afraid.of.Virginia.Woolf.(1966).DVDRip.XviD.AC3-(fb)-Subs.7z English, Czech, Dansk, Finish, Deutsch, Hungarian, Norsk, Polish, Portugues, Espanol, Svenska, Turkish
-
MILLER
- Mensajes: 467
- Registrado: Sab 01 Oct, 2005 02:00
- Ubicación: Delante del ordenador
-
tirapalla
- Mensajes: 2519
- Registrado: Mar 30 Mar, 2004 02:00
-
Norman_Bates
- Mensajes: 472
- Registrado: Sab 18 Dic, 2004 01:00
- Ubicación: Alicante
-
yojimbo
- Mensajes: 511
- Registrado: Mar 06 Abr, 2004 02:00
- Ubicación: Roma
-
Gary36
- Mensajes: 131
- Registrado: Sab 10 Jun, 2006 21:02
Re: ¿Quién teme a Virginia Woolf? (1966) DVDRip VOSE + Audio Esp
Si estuviera en castellano...¡
gracias, de cualquier forma.
Gary36.
gracias, de cualquier forma.
Gary36.
Interesado información de copias de ("Ambiciosa "D: Otto Preminger I: Linda Darnell. - 1947
"El trío infernal" D: Francis Giroz I:Romy Schneider, Michel Piccoli
"Fabiola" D: Alessandro Blasetti. I: Michele Morgan y Henry Vidal.- 1948
"El trío infernal" D: Francis Giroz I:Romy Schneider, Michel Piccoli
"Fabiola" D: Alessandro Blasetti. I: Michele Morgan y Henry Vidal.- 1948
-
Gary36
- Mensajes: 131
- Registrado: Sab 10 Jun, 2006 21:02
Re: ¿Quién teme a Virginia Woolf? (1966) DVDRip VOSE + Audio Esp
SERÍA UNA ALEGRÍA QUE ALGUIEN PUDIESE PONERLA EN CASTELLANO¡
GRACIAS.
GARY36.
GRACIAS.
GARY36.
Interesado información de copias de ("Ambiciosa "D: Otto Preminger I: Linda Darnell. - 1947
"El trío infernal" D: Francis Giroz I:Romy Schneider, Michel Piccoli
"Fabiola" D: Alessandro Blasetti. I: Michele Morgan y Henry Vidal.- 1948
"El trío infernal" D: Francis Giroz I:Romy Schneider, Michel Piccoli
"Fabiola" D: Alessandro Blasetti. I: Michele Morgan y Henry Vidal.- 1948
-
ciudadanowelles
- Mensajes: 20
- Registrado: Vie 10 Oct, 2008 15:15
Re: ¿Quién teme a Virginia Woolf? (1966) DVDRip VOSE + Audio Esp
Descargando esta gran película. Muchas gracias a todos los involucrados.
-
verdell
- Mensajes: 93
- Registrado: Sab 11 Oct, 2008 17:24
Re: ¿Quién teme a Virginia Woolf? (Mike Nichols, 1966) DVDRip VOSE + AE
Yo tambien me apunto. Haber si alguien que tenga el audio nos puede ayudar en la descarga porque esta sin fuentes. Un saludo y gracias.
-
verdell
- Mensajes: 93
- Registrado: Sab 11 Oct, 2008 17:24
Re: ¿Quién teme a Virginia Woolf? (Mike Nichols, 1966) DVDRip VOSE + AE
¿Nadie tiene ese audio? Lo he intentado bajar 3 veces pero en todos los casos aparece todo rojo. Haber si aparece alguien que lo tenga. Un saludo