All Eyez On Me

All Eyez On Me

All Eyez on Me chronicles the life and legacy of Tupac Shakur, including his rise to superstardom as a hip-hop artist, actor, poet and activist, as well as his imprisonment and prolific, controversial time at Death Row Records. Against insurmountable odds, Tupac rose to become a cultural icon whose career and persona both continue to grow long after his passing.

This documentary tells the true and untold story of prolific rapper, actor, poet and activist Tupac Shakur, from his humble beginnings through his turbulent rise to fame and subsequent violent demise. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


All Eyez On Me torrent reviews

Cedric H (ca) wrote: Very well acted (subtle) drama that will keep you tuned in as Mae the main character deals with the different people in her grieving process of her famous aunt. Great movie to watch with a glass of wine and an open mind

Connor H (ca) wrote: Although some of the more 'emotional' parts are let down by a poor script, Beneath Hill 60 is filled with brilliant action sequences and excellent performances from the key cast. Well worth the watch, especially for those interested in the Western Front, World War One, and trench warfare generally.

Savannah R (gb) wrote: this movie was so cute! i loved the awkward moments. usually awkardness in movies make me cringe and be embarassed for the person but it was just really natural i think here. the story was original and funny. I liked it a lot, it was a pleasant experience =)

Gaspar O (au) wrote: I thought this was pretty good for a Hallmark production, and the length was awesome. The pirates could have been a bit more piratey, but it was still fun.

Kirsty M (jp) wrote: Dark thought provoking strange- not sure how this is a comedy... defo one to watch.

Matthew H (nl) wrote: 8 Heads in a Duffel Bag is one of those movies that is so awful you wonder how it ever got made. The script is so bad that no character can ever say the right thing at the right time, and no character can ever explain themselves correctly. The screenplay is laughable, and the whole movie seems like a 10 minute SNL skit that ran 90 minutes too long. Don't be fooled by Joe Pesci as the main billing; he's not the most important part of the movie.

Peter M (nl) wrote: Well the little dinosaurs were funny.

Andrew I (es) wrote: A little-known gem of a noir, this benefits from being told in a straightforward linear fashion. Andrews is slightly reminiscent of Cagney and the fight scenes are well done. The 87mins playing time fairly flew by.

Mereie d (nl) wrote: Since the name Pasolini is equivalent to shock, absurdity and sex galore, you know what you??re in for when you decide to watch I racconti di Canterbury. And indeed, in this respect the film is no disappointment. The nature of the epic poem the movie is based on must have been a big help for the director too: the overall mood of Chaucer??s masterpiece perfectly matches Pasolini??s artistic tendency to represent debauchery and nudity. In fact, the combination works so well we never get tired of Pasolini??s naughty inclinations. Yet another set of buttocks, genitalia or worrying case of pumping action becomes perfectly palatable when one realizes Chaucer would have agreed with it to prove HIS point (which is not at all unlikely). The locations and the costumes are well-chosen too. The use of brightly-colored gowns seems a bit anachronistic, but somehow it works very well to underline the absurdity of some of the characters. This movie also reinvokes one??s interest in Chaucer??s work as such: I immediately felt like dusting off my Riverside Chaucer to read up on the relevant tales. And this is where I have a problem with I racconti di Canterbury: the frame tale structure (used in the literary work) is very unclear here. People who don??t know the epic poem will have a hard time making sense of the movie. The frame is introduced in the opening scene, but it is all very vague and not in-depth. I had to watch this bit twice to realize Chaucer himself (played by Pasolini) is one of the characters, who is given the idea by someone else to draw valuable lessons from other people??s amusing tales. The tales-to-be-told-in-turn structure is introduced, but very briefly. And it was the info from the cast list that told me Vernon Dobtcheff is the Franklin and Nicholas Smith is the Friar, to mention only a few examples. I very much doubt if the unwitting viewer could have guessed such details. After all, you never get to see who tells which tale. The transition from one tale to the other is unclear too since the frame structure is not made explicit. We do see Chaucer behind his writing desk from time to time, but this happens only occasionally. This is a minus, I thought. Fortunately, the tales themselves are very entertaining and well-presented. I liked the Charlie Chaplin style references in the Cook??s Tale and Pasolini??s representation of Hell (stirring memories of Hieronymus Bosch). The ending of the movie suggests Chaucer actually finished his Canterbury Tales (pilgrims approaching Canterbury Cathedral, Chaucer writing ??amen??), which was never the case, but given the fact a movie is an autonomous entity separate of any other, this is to be allowed.