Choppertown: The Sinners

Choppertown: The Sinners

Choppertown is the world’s first motorcycle documentary about the renowned hot rod and motorcycle club, the Sinners. Modern day greasers, the Sinners are all about the old school. None of them is old enough to have experienced the hot rod heydays of the ‘50s and ‘60s, but still they live on the edge of society chopping cars and bikes and searching for vintage parts to make their “Rat Rods”, “Trumps”, “Mercs”, and “Bobbers” into rolling works of art.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:0 minutes
  • Release:2005
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:gang,   motorcycle,   biker,  

Custom chopper builder and punk rocker Kutty Noteboom builds his working man's chopper from the ground up with the help of good friend Rico and the rest of his biker brothers in this ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Choppertown: The Sinners torrent reviews

Matt C (es) wrote: This film will blow your face off, re-attach it, and blow it off again. Kuji is a sex symbol.

Alex M (fr) wrote: I remember seeing this musical being performed on the Tony Awards several years ago, and since the original movie version of Shrek was one of the most iconic movies of my childhood, I decided to see the musical version of this show for myself, courtesy of Netflix. Overall, I mostly felt "meh" from watching this. I didn't expect it to be a perfect adaptation of the movie, and some of the new original scenes do work very well, but I couldn't shake off the feeling that Shrek overall works much better as a movie than a stage musical. Granted, most of the cast does do a good job. Brian D'Arcy James, Daniel Breaker, Sutton Foster, and Christopher Sieber do the best they can as Shrek, Donkey, Princess Fiona and Lord Farquaad (Foster is easily the best of the four; and her performance makes it so obvious why she's one of the most beloved Broadway actresses of today), but they definitely don't live up to the work originally set forth by Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Cameron Diaz and John Lithgow. To be fair, it'd be hard for anyone to top the movie's voice cast. The sets and costumes do look nice, and I give Brian D'Arcy James props for having to do his performance night after night in all that makeup as well as Christopher Sieber for having to perform mainly on his knees to emphasize Lord Farquaad's short height. However, the music isn't all that memorable, save for maybe 2 songs, and any of the scenes not featuring the main characters left me incredibly bored. Overall, this is a musical that's proof that just because something makes a great movie doesn't automatically mean it will make a great stage musical. But I give the cast and crew an A for effort in trying. 5/10

Line F (ru) wrote: A young woman goes to the countryside for some relaxation to a place where cellphones don't work. This is a very calm movie where problems don't seem to exist somehow! She knits a red scarf while watching the waves on the beach, and meets an old lady that's looked upon as some kind of god.

Jason D (ru) wrote: Pretty decent low budget psychological horror film that was a little predictable, but fun to watch. Very moody and tense at times, and often reminiscent of Stir of Echoes. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it is fun to watch horror films that, while they may not be the best around, they aren't a fucking remake, an overdone sequel, or a bastardized American version of a foreign classic. It's also fun to watch such a unique and different anti-lead character. Worth a watch, I say!!

Vince S (br) wrote: Damn this is top movie and Motives 2 was even better!

Terri H (ru) wrote: No thankyou - Not interested.

Andrew M (ru) wrote: In this film's defense, the core idea of the movie is actually halfway clever. The idea of following up The Blair Witch Project with a horror movie based around the huge phenomenon the former would end up catalyzing is strangely meta, and has potential for a clever horror movie in the vein of the very self-aware Scream. But alas, instead of capitalizing on the idea, the filmmakers opt for a slasher that has literally no connection to the Blair Witch lore outside of name dropping the film a few times. The film is titled "Book of Shadows," and yet there is no mention of any book of shadows at all. The filmmakers behind this one seem to think that cramming strange imagery at random counts as suspense and scares, but fail to realize that it's actually just utter nonsense. There's nothing wrong with ambiguity, but when all of the posed questions go unanswered, it's not ambiguity: it's nonsensicality. There's no scares, no thrills, no suspense: like its predecessor, it's a paranoia driven story, but unlike that film, the paranoia isn't effective. The Blair Witch Project works because it's grounded in reality. There's a reason so many people believed it was real footage and not just a movie: everything in the film was plausible. Here, the constant visions of random events posing as "horror" are just absurd, and not at all frightening. A pathetic excuse for a horror movie, and a horrible follow-up to a fantastic horror film.

Elia Cabassoun (ag) wrote: definitely not as good as the other two, the story is ENTIRELY made up by Kevin Sullivan and doesn't follow any of the books. Thumbs DOWN.

Eva S (kr) wrote: i find it very interesting if movies choose to depart from the novel they are based on and therefore become something different (if done in a good way of course). even though the choice here was obviously made to have more romance and less politics in the plot, it gave the end of the movie a good spin.

Mark R (gb) wrote: Not a very good drama

Michel P (ag) wrote: Mais je ne savais pas que tu avais ce bon got l ! Faudra que je te raconte quelques unes de mes soires avec Gaspar Noe dans ces annes l !

Mark P (nl) wrote: Please please watch and listen to this movie.

Blake P (it) wrote: "Seems Like Old Times" may not be as funny as Chevy Chase and Goldie Hawn's previous venture together, 1978's "Foul Play," but it just comes to show that with the right cast, miracles can happen. Today, comedy relies so heavily on raunch and nudity - "Seems Like Old Times" looks to physical comedy (to the brink of being a throwback to the screwball comedy of the 1930s) and dynamic performances from its ensemble. That's what comedy should be, after all. Chase plays Nick Gardenia, a divorced writer whose luck goes off the deep end when he is kidnapped by a pair of crooks (Judd Omen, Marc Alaimo), who plan to force him to rob a bank at gunpoint. Of course, this wouldn't be a comedy if the plan didn't go through. When the two criminals throw Nick out of there car, he decides the best way to get help is to seek shelter at his ex-wife Glenda's (Hawn) home. He can't go to his house - he's now a wanted man. This might not be such a good idea: Glenda is married to Ira Parks (Charles Grodin), the District Attorney. Glenda has a sweet heart, but knows it's a terrible idea to let Nick hide out with her and Ira, considering the consequence that could occur. But as time goes, she feels guilty and lets him stay - without Ira knowing. "Seems Like Old Times" plays out like a sitcom. Though most films would suffer from this aspect, the film is so good that you'd only hope it could someday become a TV show (even if it would never work). Not only is it fun to watch, but it manages to be madcap to the brink of insanity, making use of Chase and Hawn's flawless comedic timing and bringing in a gigantic group of cats and dogs (it's a long story) to add to the situation. Simon's writing is brilliant, giving us scene after scene of utter comedic perfection - the climax of the film, which sees Ira and Glenda hosting a dinner party (which includes the Governor), has Nick hiding out in the kitchen, with the butler drunk out of his mind. The situation plays out with such witty dialogue, so many unthinkable occurrences, that from beginning to end it's completely dynamic. In the end, you can't call "Seems Like Old Times" 100% perfect, because it's not. Sometimes the plot doesn't really go anywhere, and it's hard to tell whether or not we're supposed to expect Glenda and Nick to get back together again. But no matter what, we're never bored, and we laugh instead, and there's nothing wrong with that. And on a level of "perfection", I'd give it 85%, and that isn't half-bad now, is it?

Dave C (ag) wrote: Very inventive and occasionally laugh out loud funny. Ahead if it's time, but not enough though as it is mostly a little dated.

Damian M (br) wrote: What did you expect?

Kyle M (au) wrote: A standalone, action-packed addition to the franchise's solo roots while staying spiritedly parallel and inferior to the previous installment with same senses in the intellect direction, despite lesser thrills, convoluting turns and characterization lacking Bourne himself. The film makes up the latter when boosting Jeremy Renner's career as a benefit when delivering the action in a new twist. It's overall enough to consider this film acceptably entertaining, even when it's inferior to the Bourne trilogy, but did introduced a compelling character in the spotlight. (B+)(Full review TBD)