Alyas Batman en Robin is a 1991 Filipino Batman comedy film produced by Viva Films spoofing the 1960s Batman television series. It later become popular on the Australian market and became used as a training film for The Birds are Coming Enterprises. The movie was initially an unauthorized production, set to capitalize on the then in-production 1989 Batman film starring Michael Keaton. Warner Brothers threatened legal action and the release of the film was delayed until legal entanglements could be sorted out. The film was released in 1991, two years later than the intended 1989 release. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
You may also like
Alyas Batman en Robin torrent reviews
Catherine W (au) wrote: Terrible. Had better written scripts by high school students in drama class. Alful and amatureish special effects. Most look like actors sat in a cardboard box and pretended. One implasible sean after the other. This one would be better off forgotten and left in a closet.
Amarjyot D (br) wrote: Amanda bynes, college story, standing up for dorks... then how can I hate it!Funny and entertaining :D
Ola G (gb) wrote: Nicky Wilson (Warren Beatty) and Oscar Sullivan (Jack Nicholson) are inept 1920s scam artists who see pay dirt in the guise of Fredericka Quintessa Bigard (Stockard Channing), the millionaire heiress to a sanitary napkin fortune. She loves the already married Nicky, but because the Mann Act prohibits him from taking her across state lines and engaging in immoral relations, he proposes that she marry Oscar and then carry on an affair with the man she wants. Oscar, who is wanted for embezzlement and anxious to get out of town, is happy to comply with the plan, although he intends to claim his spousal privileges after they are wed. Once they reach Los Angeles, the men try everything they can to separate Freddie from her inheritance without success, but with sufficient determination to arouse her suspicions. When she announces her plan to donate her money to charity, Nicky and Oscar conclude that murder might be their only recourse if they're going to get rich quick...Time Out London said this about "The Fortune": "Starts promisingly as a sardonic comedy, but once in California lethargy settles in. The film becomes almost static, a series of stagy, glossy tableaux: such lack of momentum may be an adequate assessment of the characters' limited capacity for development, but it has a disastrous effect on the film's pacing. Events degenerate into miscalculated farce and underline Nichols' continuing slick superficiality. Adrien Joyce's much hacked-about script sounds as though it was once excellent: a pity everyone treats it so off-handedly." Channel 4 called it a "flat-footed attempt to revive the 1930s screwball comedy" but liked the leads, commenting, "The trio's timing and delivery almost rescue the movie from degenerating into bad farce." This so called screw ball comedy is a bomb from scene one and maybe if the take on the story had been dramatic it mightve been so much better. Beatty and Nicholson compete in who can be the most over the top in his role it seems and the lovely Channing is lost in all the incoherent silliness. The movie lacks everything you want in comedy. Timing, a proper script, actors that can handle comedy and comic hooks. It feels like Nichols, Beatty and Nicholson had such ballooned egos at the time, that they thought they could get away with anything. They couldnt. "The Fortune" is just painful to watch and I have just erased it from my mind. Trivia: In an interview on Trio's series Face Time (2002), producer Peter Guber revealed that the film Shampoo (1975) was only made because its creators insisted on its being green-lit along with The Fortune (1975). Everyone concerned was convinced The Fortune (1975) would be a huge hit, given its stellar line-up of filmmakers, so the deal was accepted. As it turned out, The Fortune (1975) was a flop and Shampoo (1975) was the huge hit.
Joey S (br) wrote: loved this movie yes Honor is the key to everything
Mark W (fr) wrote: A lot went wrong with this one... The Puppets have so much potential but these movies do them so little justice... Our biggest problem here is the story, our second biggest problem is that every single shot of the Puppets used within the film was actually recycled for the opening to the film... How about shooting something new once and a while...
Brian R (ru) wrote: Have you ever watched those film that you really wanted to love so much but can't because it was so badly made? Well this is one of them. "Dead Of Winter" was directed by Arthur Penn who made some really good movies back in his day (The Left Handed Gun, The Miracle Worker, Bonnie & Clyde, Alice's Restaurant, Little Big Man, Night Moves, Four Friends) makes a crappy Hitchcock-like picture (well actuall it's a remake of the 1945 film "My Name Is Julia Ross") and the results is boring and badly laughable. The movie stars Mary Steenburgen who plays three roles in the film. An unidentified woman (who reminded me of the getup Karen Black wore in Hiitchcock's "Family Plot") drives to a train station on New Year's Eve to retrieve a bag full of cash. Later that night, she is strangled, and her left ring finger is removed. The story fwds to NYC. Katie McGovern (Mary Steenburgen) is a struggling actress who lives with her husband Rob Sweeney (William Russ) and her brother Roland (Mark Malone). At an audition, Katie meets Mr. Murray (Roddy McDowall) and hires her immediately. The pair drive upstate into a raging snow storm. When they arrive at the home of Dr. Joseph Lewis (Jan Rube), he greets Katie from his wheelchair. He gives her a tour of the house, including two big stuffed polar bears. Katie asks to use the phone to call Rob but finds it has no dial tone. Dr. Lewis explains that Katie has been hired to replace Julia Ross an actress who had a nervous breakdown during a film shoot. The following day, Mr. Murray tries to drive Katie into town to make her phone call, but his car will not start. Mr. Murray then cuts and dyes Katie's hair to match the photos of Julia. Katie asks him how he met Dr. Lewis. Mr. Murray explains that Dr. Lewis was his psychiatrist. The shoot goes well. Katie's lines are all about the attack seen at the beginning of the film. Back at the house, she demands to know what is going on. Dr. Lewis pretends her imagination is running wild. Katie thhen gets drugged after drinking hot chocolate Mr. Murray gave to her. When Katie awake she sees that her left third finger has been removed. She manages to call Rob and tries to tell him that two men is trying to kill her. The rest of the plot involves crazy devices of how Katie could have easily escaped while being a victim, the terrible dead body of ulia Ross (the filmmakers could have at least make it look real) and the funniest and most ridiculous scene involving two dumb founded cops who sees nothing wrong with Katie's fingers being sliced off. This is terrible filmmaking and probably should have been made for TV instead. I was also thinking, well, would Arthur Penn's film worked better in b&w? Who knows. I guess i'm really picky here because I was expecting a perfect thriller in the realms of "Night Moves" but I got...the dreadful "Dead Of Winter" instead.
Kev A (br) wrote: 5 star, amazing filmEven if Kevin Costner is in it lol
John B (it) wrote: I enjoyed this movie with the battle of the giant robots along with the personal story with the kid
Brad S (br) wrote: I hadn't seen this one since it first came out and it was nice to revisit it. Julia Roberts shines as an not altogether likable character. Cameron Diaz is funny and Rupert Everett steals the show. I have never been much of a fan of Dermot Mulroney, and I feel he's miscast here, but he doesn't completely take away from the cheesy fun of the movie. Yes, it's sappy and predictable, but it does have a few solid laughs and is an easy watch.