Angels Hard as They Come

Angels Hard as They Come

A group of crazy bikers meet up with a group of drug-addicted hippies in a small town, but the two roving factions are soon at odds with one another and chaos ensues.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:85 minutes
  • Release:1971
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:rape,   murder,   gangster,  

Sex, violence and bikers on an action filled ride, in this film produced and co-written by Jonathan Demme. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Angels Hard as They Come torrent reviews

Michelle C (ag) wrote: I enjoyed the continuation of the story. It wasn't a great movie, but it was greatly moving. We actually visited Winter after the first movie.

Lip Fei J (ag) wrote: Liv Tyler gets naked....

Takushi Y (ca) wrote: WOWOW CINEMA, 2013/8/29

Alvin G (gb) wrote: Mallika Sherawat was so hot in this movie. I loved it. The cgi wasn't all that great but I loved the story and plot.

Kyle M (es) wrote: This is an inspirational film for everyone - future screenwriters and non-screenwriters. Future screenwriters will get a great glimpse on what they're in for when they watch this documentary about the job. For those who don't have an interest in that area, they'll catch a message that's for dreamers dreaming to achieve what they like to do instead.Inspiring documentaries like this, containing POVs from different crew members of film, really enhances the films that were mentioned in these kind of documentaries when we learn more about the film that's being talked about. That's why I watch this film about screenwriting so I can learn how films are made. And this showed a glimpse of that, with the positive message as a bonus. (A-)(Full review coming soon)

Vicki D (us) wrote: Haha, it was bad. However, it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be.

Acassia K (it) wrote: "Reasons The Reasons that we hear...."

Adam C (de) wrote: Jaw dropping in just how bad it is. This film looks worse then a sitcom and has jokes worse then any sitcom I have ever seen. The script is dreadful and the direction is witless. It feels as if they had thrown it all together and hoped for the best. The jokes are all obvious and not one works. The slapstick is overused and really very poorly done. A man like Rodney Dangerfield should have know better. This is just a terrible film, what else can I say. I have no clue why I watched all of this.

Felipe M (jp) wrote: Ridley Scott's mysterious tale about humanity may be strange and difficult at first, but repeated views only make it's philosophical questions more and more thrilling. This reflection is sufficient to make a great movie, but Scott delivers even more to us by bringing together a stunning cinematography and excellent special effects for the time.

Jay W (fr) wrote: I don't think the creators of this film knew anything about guy fawkes or oral politics, but it makes for good entertainment. Spoiler, that loser never shows his face.

Edith N (nl) wrote: The Origin of Those Anachronistically Rebellious Girls A consistent problem in fiction for young women set in an earlier age is that the women are often too modern. They're always rebelling against societal expectations in ways which indicate that the people writing the fiction don't understand how societal expectations work. The problem, I think, is twofold. The first is that a lot of the fiction just isn't written very well. The second is that the authors have read and seen things like this, the novel of which was published in 1905, and thought, "Well, the girl in that is wild and rebellious and doesn't want to get married, so it's okay that my character doesn't!" What those writers fail to realize is that this character, and others like her, must suffer consequences for her behaviour. She will not be accepted by everyone--and it is my understanding that Miles Franklin, the woman who wrote the novel, was reviled by her friends and family for it to the point that her estate pulled the novel out of publication for ten years after her death. Sybylla Melvyn (Judy Davis) is the eldest daughter of a bush farmer (Alan Hopgood). Her mother (Julia Blake) is from a rich family, and Sybylla is sent to them in the hopes that they can make a lady of her and hopefully even marry her off to a rich young man. But Sybylla has other plans. First of all, she thinks she is too plain to be of much value in the marriage stakes. And second, she doesn't much want to get married at all. She wants to have a career as a writer or an actress or similar. Maybe the opera. Her grandmother (Aileen Britton) hopes to set her up with wealthy Frank Hawdon (Robert Grubb), but Sybylla can't stand him, even if he is about to come into a fortune back in England. There is, however, Harry Beecham (Sam Neill), who was a childhood friend of hers. He is rich and handsome and adventurous, and the only problem is that he will expect her to be a conventional wife. At least, that's the only problem at first. It's so odd to watch this. Judy Davis looks almost nothing like how she looks now--if anything, she looks like a young Nicole Kidman. (Though not young enough, quite; Kidman was fourteen at the time.) It doesn't help that I'm used to hearing her speak with an American accent, so she doesn't even sound the way I'm used to. And then there's Sam Neill, who at least sounds the same. Though that's because I've seen rather more of his Australian films. It's a common issue with me. I'm always seeing someone-or-other's first film, often without realizing that they're in it, and spending the entire thing captivated by how young they look or how little they look the way I'm used to. It rather distracts from the rest of the movie, at least until I've adjusted and can move on. I tend to prefer not realizing it until after the movie is over, actually, because that means at least I was able to pay attention. I feel a great deal of sympathy for Sybylla. She was living in a time and place where she didn't have a lot of control over her own destiny. At least, not for the most part. She didn't get to choose when to come and when to go. In fact, she's rather lucky no one simply orders her to marry Frank. She has no money of her own. She is essentially her parents' property, theirs to do with as they please. And they don't have a lot of property other than her and her siblings, so bad luck for her. And of course, the things which make her most desirable to a modern audience are the things which made her least acceptable in her own time. Headstrong and willful are not positive traits in a young turn-of-the-last-century girl, especially not one moving in higher reaches of society. Fun is fun, but in the end, a girl is expected to do what is proper for her. And what is proper for a girl like Sybylla is not singing bawdy songs in front of her grandmother's upper-crust friends, no matter how much those friends enjoy it. In the end, that is the tragedy of this story. None of these people can imagine a marriage where Sybylla is not expected to put her husband's wishes first. Marriage by the standards of her society is a kind of death to the person she was before then. Possibly Harry would allow her more freedom than an ordinary husband, but possibly not. Certainly it is hard to imagine her leading her mother's kind of life. Her aunt (Wendy Hughes) warns her against marrying for love, because her aunt's husband left her, leaving Aunt Helen disgraced. Not a wife, widow, or maid, she says. Not good enough for her man. That the man should be so inconstant is less of a problem, it seems. This is the real problem with these kinds of stories when written by people who do not understand the realities of Sybylla's life, too. As a successful writer, Sybylla might be allowed a few little eccentricities. But she would always be second best to the girls who did get married and do what was expected of them. Fortunately, just not to herself.