A rich American couple, a family of Dutch criminals, a French gay couple, a working class family from Germany and an illegal Moroccan youth and his kid brother, are all in Amsterdam, each with their own story. Different reasons make their paths intertwine, leading to a dramatic climax that changes their lives for ever.

Ensemble film about a rich American couple, a Dutch asocial family, a French gay couple, a German working class family and two illegal Moroccans in Amsterdam. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Amsterdam torrent reviews

Caesar M (mx) wrote: In every rare viewing of a bad film there are things you never expected to see and ponder thoughts you never believe would come to mind. For me it's perhaps the first time I actually wished a film would fully commit to ripping off another film because of how unsalvageable the original material was. "Ninja Apocalypse" takes ninja with superpowers, an apocalypse setting, an underground military bunker, and zombies committing the unimaginable sin combining all of those elements into a boring film. Ninja Apocalypse follows The Lost Clan gang's never clarified where the movie takes place so lets us pretend New York. So a charismatic leader summons several gangs in a post apocalyptic world in a bid to overtake their rivals. When he is killed, The Warriors are falsely blamed and now must fight their way home while every other gang is hunting them down to kill them. My mistake I meant The Lost Clan not The Warriors. It's hard to believe even though it rips off the basic premise it manages to make whatever material it steals from "The Warriors" come across as the most competent components in its script. Except this time the context and the setting are extremely nonsensical. Then again should one really judge the logic of "Ninja Apocalypse". Yes it should be judged because if there's one thing it lacks is a working brain cell. Now aside from the basic premise and three plot devices (the sacrifice, seduced by women wanting to kill males characters, the ending) calling it a ripoff of "The Warriors" would be praising it instead of criticizing it. Yes, the fact it didn't ripoff "The Warriors" successfully is a negative. Especially in regards when it comes to the film "plot twist" in the end finally revealing who shot Cyrus, I mean Fumitaka. It's a failure of twist because the character doesn't appear for a majority of the film and whatever recurring characters do reappear in the film don't get enough characterization to make audience guess who the culprit is. Part of the fun of a "who done it" is guessing who actually committed the crime which you can't do if you aren't provided anything that'll allow that. I'll buy the utter nonsense premise like anyone who likes seeing B-movies, but stocked characters, plot exposition upon plot exposition filled dialogue, attempts to add humor only to discard it within ten minutes, and bereft of a story can't be overlooked. Our cast of heroes consist of two brothers, a woman, a deaf mute blackman, and a ninja with questionable loyalty. From that selection of characters their background are simply mentioned. It never elaborates on Cage having a family or ever goes into detail in how he became the leader of "The Lost Clan". The same applies to all of its characters where it simply mentions moments or characteristic than moving on without elaboration. Another area it lacking is logic. Now with a title like "Ninja Apocalypse" of course it shouldn't be taken seriously, but radiation doesn't work the way this film believes it does. In this film ninja have powers so it would safe to assume it's a result of radiation. Except later on in the film it is said by our heroes that radiation basically turned people into zombies. Not just any zombies, the kind that if cut in half can duplicate. So if the radiation turns people hundred of feet in an underground facility into zombies how in the world are people not below the earth not zombies! Radiation does not work like that! If it was just this oversight I would have not given it another thought. Than it claims the lowest level of the underground facility contains radiation. the inside of an underground facility consisting of hundreds of level below the surface of earth contains radiation yet the surface doesn't. These writers can't seriously be this stupid...oh yeah they probably are given they were to lazy to fully commit to ripping off "The Warriors". On a technical level everything about it will come across as low budget not for the reasons you expect. Yes everything looks cheap from the convenient store bought costumes, the fake weapon props, and the very shoddy CGI effects. It's the tinier details that also display the lack of funds that even with it budget wasn't enough to make such a simple movie. For instance there's a fight scene consisting of several gangs against "The Lost Clan" and in the background it's visible the performers are standing still. Only to be moving when they see some sort of signal off screen. Issues like these are always present in the action scenes despite taking place in the same location bodies will sometime disappear in a cut. Details like blood spatter on a wall will disappear immediately in the next cut in the same fight scenes. Adding to the problem are the slow performance of the action scenes that make these issues noticeable. Fight choreography is below average and these fight scenes instead of diverting your attention from the inconsistencies is build around that to reuse as much as resources as possible. In context the characters power aren't used to diverse the kind of fight scenes you see all usually resulting in a fist fight or sword fight. The most visually annoying about how it shot are the dozen of lens flares and few instances of white flash effects. If the story or acting was any good the lens flares wouldn't have been much of an issue since there's something to divert from that issue. However, like everything else the lens flares are a results of visible light posts in every scene. Intentional or not they get distracting. Late in the film there's a scene that can causes seizure if seen in the dark because of how much white flash effect are onscreen in less than ten seconds. Set design, much like the performers in costumes, reused the same textures, material, and structures. Actors have to go around in circles to give off the illusion the set is actually a lot bigger than it actually is. The acting is no better. All of the performances are stiffed and wooden. Christian Oliver is incapable of selling himself as the film heroes. Even when he's angry there's no ferocity in his delivery. If anything Isaac C. Singleton Jr. does the best among the hero cast given he can't speak or listen to sound. Not to forget Ernie Reyes Jr. who plays the villain is weak. If "The Rundown" could make Ernie Reyes Jr. beating up Dwayne Johnson look convincing with less screen time what's this film excuse. Even Reyes Jr. fights against Christian Oliver whose physically same size as him never comes across as a threat. Just everything in this film is poorly assemble together. Ninja Apocalypse fails as a ripoffs not coming close to duplicating anything with success from the source its copying from and fails as a b-movie due to it's failing in every area without entertainment to be found. It could have been a ripoff, it could have been a entertaining b-movie, but in the end is devoid of anything positive from a filmmaking and entertaining perspective.

Anjelica M (ca) wrote: This was an awesome movie! It scared the shit out of me!!!

George P (fr) wrote: Rob Van Dam looks like he wears contact lenses. David Bautista, however, looks proper hard and should be the star of this film, he has tattoos the size of me. The plot for this film is crap.

ChrisTina D (jp) wrote: this looks like something I can relate to

emily f (de) wrote: hasmy two favorite sports in it: surfing and skateboarding. ive always wanted to try dirt barding!

Julia L (jp) wrote: that kid looks like my friend Jenna. weird

Robert I (gb) wrote: Why didn't Scorsese make this into his movie? Psychologically insane, but delivered more for me than II. The whole film is better than the last 10 minutes of The Departed... or any of The Departed...

James Z (ag) wrote: A wonderfully crafted movie by Nimoy who finally gets to show his skill behind the camera. His knowledge of the characters and the franchise really help push this movie in to my top ten favorites. The story is thought provoking and just as pertinent now as it was in 1986. Another interesting angle to this movie is as times goes by and the 80's get further away from us. We can't help but feel a little like the intrepid crew. As we peer back in to the past at San Fransisco on the 80's. Star Trek IV uses a minimal level of effects and embodies what many fans enjoy most about the franchise. It's ability to tell a good thought provoking story. Something which was sadly lost in the most recent "Into Darkness" movie. Which seems to replace a good story for an excess of CGI, lens flares and poor dialogue.

Matt M (fr) wrote: The film could probably be described as an intellectual's soap opera. Rohmer's deliberately paced film manages to deeply explore the childishness of romance and sexual awakening through a simple plot with great character study and very compelling and ethical dialogue.

Dana R (de) wrote: #22 on AFI's Top 100 Movies List: How can you not love this movie? And Jack Lemmon?

Shakeem B (nl) wrote: movie that should and probably has gone down in history as one of the greatest movies

Bryn C (mx) wrote: This needs to be remade! The film was pretty dodge, but there was moments of pure genius that could equate to an awesome film if it was made properly. For an 80s horror though, the original was fun and hugely enjoyable. And again, at least it wasn't Wes Craven's Shocker...

Harry W (br) wrote: With little familiarity with John Candy outside of his role in The Blues Brothers, I thought that Uncle Buck would be a nostalgic chance to look at him in a more major role.The thing which I like about Uncle Buck is the fact that although the theme of the story feels like one from a sitcom, the delivery of the comedy does not follow such a style. Instead, it follows on with John Hughes' natural style of comedy with all the quick moving slapstick and clever visual style, and quite frankly it was refreshing to see it all. It is far from John Hughes' finest film, but it is clearly a step in the right direction for him which shows him working alongside John Candy excellently.The thing which makes Uncle Buck succeed is all surrouding the characterization of the titular character from both the screenplay and the performance of John Candy. The entire film revolves around him, and while in the process it neglects quite a bit of potential for comical situations regarding him interacting with the various other characters of the story, he is a really likable protagonist. Unlike most other movies of a similar nature where the main character is an unbearable fool who has no thoughtful regard for the good of others and simply commands an arrogant and self-obsessive nature, this time around Buck Russell is actually a very well intentioned man who happens to sometimes cause trouble. He always has the best intentions and genuinely cares about the Russell children. This makes him a very likable character and renders his presence in the film and the household a very welcome one for viewers. It may annoy the characters, but he is so easily likable that audiences are likely to find themselves siding with him. He is a great comic character is never milked excessively as the sole source of the comedy in the film. He is the main source of the humour in the film, but not the only one.John Candy perfectly anchors the heart of the comedy in Uncle Buck. His charm is really impressive because he plays the titular character Uncle Buck Russell with a clever edge and sense of realism instead of being just a one-dimensional comedy figure. He actually has a positive level of depth in the role which makes him a very welcome presence in the lead. He brings a certain dramatic edge to the film during some moments but plays it into the comedy elements of the film at the same time. He finds a sensible balance, but more importantly he is genuinely very funny in a likable way. The humour in the film is not bent off of him making cringe-comedy situations, it is predicated largely on the character's awareness of what makes a situation awkward and how he attempts to either avoid or capitalise on that. John Candy has a lot of awareness in the role of Buck Russell and is able to work very hard to make Uncle Buck a strong vehicle for him. And it pays off because the naturally comic themes of the film contribute a sense of energy to the comedy, and from there he is able to take advantage of that. John Candy puts a lot of life into Uncle Buck and easily contributes a lot of strong comic situations to the film with the charm of his edgy line delivery and his physical involvement in the leading role. He leads the film very well and in the process is able to compensate for a lot of its other flaws, even though some of the subplots relating to Buck Russell himself are not the most interesting.The flaws of Uncle Buck are that the energy in the film is not consistent. The film is not as funny as it could have been due to a slow moving pace and the fact that the film is more dramatic than it possibly should be. The atmosphere is not that much of a comedic one which lowers the potential for how many laughscan be delivered in the film. Admittedly the script is funny and John Hughes gives stylish direction, but there is a lot of potential in Uncle Buck which it fails to truly capitalise on. It remains a good comedy, but not a great one.Uncle Buck is a very old-fashioned film. It is a very 1980's style feature without going over the top in use of tropes. It has a lot of situations which were more prevalent in films back then, and that along with the John Hughes style of comedy gives the film a joyful sense of nostalgia. It is fun to watch because there is a lot to look back at, and it is interesting to see how far comedy films have come since then. So while it is not one of John Hughes' finest films, it is certainly an entertaining effort on behalf of him which features his iconic brand of comedy. And he is able to bring out the best in the cast.Jean Louisa Kelly does a good job in Uncle Buck. She plays a bit of an archetype in the role, but she does it well. She easily captures the introverted and awkward nature of the stereotypical teenage girl and is able to create some laughs based on the chemistry shared between her and John Candy. She plays out her role easily with organic acting skill and delivers all of her lines in a very natural fashion which makes her seem very genuine in her role, so Jean Louisa Kelly is another good casting decision.I was never much of a fan of Home Alone beyond my childhood and didn't think that Macaulay Culkin had the gimmick to carry an entire comedy as the lead, but in Uncle Buck he plays a pivotal supporting role which capitalises on his charismatic young charm without ever being too much. In the role of the young boy of the family, Macaulay Culkin fits the profile very easily. His youthful charm is very welcome in Uncle Buck because he has a lot of lighthearted energy which is great for the atmosphere of the film, and his scenes feature a boost in energy which make the film more likable. Macaulay Culkin contributes well to Uncle Buck and proves just how well he can do in a supporting role in a performance which is one of the key factors leading to him being cast in the first two Home Alone films.Laurie Metcalf also makes a nice touch.So while it isn't as funny as it could have been, Uncle Buck is nevertheless an easygoing and charming comedy film which benefits from John Hughes' iconic style of comedy and John Candy's excellent leading performance.

Anne S (fr) wrote: not sure about this one.. it was amusing, but.. seemed to be stretched extremely thin.. not funny enough to be comedy, nor dramatic enough to be drama.. just.. *shrug*..