The film revolves around the feud between the three brothers over property; two brothers, from their father's first wife on one side with their avarice for all the wealth with the righteous third, from his father's second marriage, trying to stop the family from breaking down. The feud that exists as an undercurrent in the presence of their father and turns ugly and personal after he passes away. It grows bigger with the two brothers joining in to elbow out the third but he graciously steps aside, only wanting to keep cordial relations. But, the two brothers are just not able to handle the huge wealth and the responsibility that it brings. Their wealth attracts trouble and it is up to the third to come back and save his brothers, against others who strive for the wealth while the crux of the plot revolves around if wealth does disintegrate the family.
A legit-weapons dealer has 3 sons. Shiva is one of them who is subdued by his brothers. He rescues his kidnapped brother only to find himself shot by them. Then he uncovers the mystery of his father's death and takes revenge. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Michele M (ca) wrote: This film may not be everyone's cup of tea. It is gritty, wordy, long and uncomfortable at times. Those that typically only flock to the Marvel comic movies and Jason Bourne flicks may not enjoy the genius of this movie. Seeing it more than once is a must. It took me 2x to appreciate the intricacies of each character. Amazing performances by Chad Michael Murray, Francesca Eastwood, Teri Polo and Ben Browder. There is deeper meaning than just a simple bank robbery - on all levels. Anxiously awaiting the next feature from this director!
cuck l (nl) wrote: A trainwreck of a film, filled to bursting with senseless action, surreal non-sequitors, and an "edgy" sense of humour that is adolescent at best. A paper-thin plot that serves only as a vehicle to string the movie along from one violent or lewd scene to the next. The soundtrack is the closest thing to a redeeming factor, however Mike Patton's musical style is best left in the 00's.
Wiebke K (nl) wrote: Nina Kervel does a great performance as the 9-year-old Anna who has to deal with a drastic change in family politics, less money, more (and stranger) friends of her parents -- the story has some holes, but it captures Paris in 1970 quite well.
tp b (es) wrote: Not as good as most of his movies, but still as bizarre and completely mind blowing :)
Dana A (gb) wrote: I generally have low expectations for these kinds of movies. They mainly feature bad acting, horredous writing, high school cinematography and over the top violence. But this movie was the cherry on top of the pie. This for lack of better word was a mess. Yeah it was one of the worse. I'm sure it wasn't going for the comedic route but man this was funny. I have never seen such worse dubbing in my life. They should have just made this subtitled and kept it in Spanish. The voices didn't even match the characters and even the subtitles were way-off from what the dubbing was. Then the dubbing was way off from the actual Spanish translation! The violence is so over the top and ridiculous I just expected everyone to get shot. There's something about violence when done correctly that's intense, gripping, gut-wrenching and you really care about the life of the characters, even the random ones. City of God did violence perfectly but this was far from City. The violence-laden story, such as it is, is ineptly stitched together; it's unclear who is shooting at whom and why; and the dialogue seldom advances beyond "Yo, dog" and "Whassup?" The story was a mess and just used as an acting vehicle for Daddy Yankee and after watching this movie your not surprised he doesn't have an acting career. The soundtrack was really annoying and songs did not fit the mood or enhance the scene. Just stay far far away from this.
Meagan M (de) wrote: Not bad...never like sad endings but it was still good.
Jordan W (mx) wrote: its cute but it didnt have the amusement or excitement that the original film produced
Nate T (es) wrote: Amusing but off-beat black comedy. Worth a look because of the cast... Should be on Blu-ray.
Mike B (es) wrote: Voted Roger Ebert's best movie of 1992. A good flick but best movie of 1992, I don't think so.