A bounty hunter trapped in Asia, is promised his freedom in return for a rescue mission. On his search for the missing British secret service agent, he travels between the border of China and North Korea, where the mission takes a turn for the worst.
- Stars:Sedina Balde, Michael Chan, Sabine Crossen, Serge Crozon-Cazin, James Gerard, Muriel Hofmann, Morgan Jonas, Kirt Kishita, Bey Logan, Constance Pizon, Jared Robinsen, Richard Sammel, Antony Szeto, Jason Tobin, Ken Tran,
- Director:Mathieu Weschler,
- Writer:Mathieu Weschler
A captured bounty hunter is promised his freedom if he can break several prisoners out of a North Korean military stronghold. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Covert Operation torrent reviews
(us) wrote: It was just okay. After the first Reacher movie I wasn't really expecting much and I wasn't disappointed. The attraction of the Reacher novels for me isn't so much the stories as it is the character, Jack Reacher. Lee Child has created a bigger than life character in his novels and I can't think of any contemporary actors that could play the role with any credibility at all. I can say that, as much as I like Tom Cruise, he would be way down my list of actors to cast as Jack Reacher.
(au) wrote: S.....gripande....
(jp) wrote: This was okay but not what I was expecting. It started out really well but was quite boring for much of the movie. I thought Raybon Kan was a shocking actor - it really detracted from the film. The cameos by Bret, Jemaine and Rhys Darby in fact made it worse because they were amusing as usual and showed the rest of the film up to be REALLY crap. This is a VERY amateur film.
(ru) wrote: Personally, I enjoyed watching this movie. But, it's not an 'normal' movie, which you would go see in a cinema. No, this movie is perfectly suited for a group of people who love surfing, and who are very stoned. I did this with some friends, and we all enjoyed it -of course with some making fun of it- and it's actually one of the most mellow movies I know. You don't gain anything by watching it, but then again, you don't lose anything. 0% is too little.
(nl) wrote: Boarding Gate (Olivier Assayas, 2007)I've been hearing about the wonders of Olivier Assayas for a while now, but never got round to watching one of his films until yesterday. I didn't know Boarding Gate was an Assayas movie, I just cued it up because hey, Asia Argento. Boarding Gate is not the kind of brainless-but-fun action thriller I've been associating with Argento for about fifteen years now (viz. the wonderful Red Siren, for example). That might put some people off; it certainly has based on the movie's current rating at Netflix. I, on the other hand, found it quite a pleasant surprise, a slow-burn talk piece that contains some of the best acting I've seen from some of these principals in many a year.Plot: Argento plays Sandra, a French expatriate living in China. She is the mistress of Miles (Kill Bill's Michael Madsen) but as we open, Miles is about to give up his old life; he's selling his shares in his high-powered financial firm in order to pay off his debts, retiring, and going back to America with the wife and kids. This includes breaking up with the piece on the side, which leads to two quite extended scenes of nothing but Madsen and Argento talking (and arguing). Miles, however, is not Sandra's only fling, and one of her others is Lester (The Viral Factor's Carl Ng), an import-export professional who moonlights in some shadier business. Sandra goes to him for help in getting rid of Miles permanently; he provides her with the proper tools and tells her that, once it's done, he'll set her up with a new identity and get her out of the country and into Hong Kong before anyone realizes anything is amiss. All seems to be going well, but you know what they say about the best-laid plans.If the movie has a flaw, it's that it seems to be two different movies grafted onto one another, though I rush to add both are very good and very well-executed. The excruciating extended breakup scenes with Madsen and Argento are sterling; Argento turns in her best work since 1998's b.Monkey, Madsen probably since Reservoir Dogs; in fact, this may be the best performance I've ever seen from him. Once that storyline is...resolved, you've got Sandra-on-the-run, about which I can say very little because the entire plotline is laden with spoilers for the earlier part of the film. It, too, is very good, and the two tie together as pieces of an overarching plot, but thematically they don't quite gel most of the time. They're paced differently, they're different genres (the first half of the film is a drama, the second a thriller), they're about entirely different parts of Sandra's character. That last is not necessarily a bad thing, of course, but they are put together in such a way that Sandra ends up essentially having to rebuild herself as a character. I do have to say that Assayas did come up with an inventive way of making that work, though. And with all that I have just said, I certainly gave the impression I'm panning this movie, didn't I? I don't mean to, I liked it a great deal. Perhaps it's the fact that I liked it as much as I did that causes me to dwell on its flaws. There is a great deal here to like. The drama part is just spectacular. The thriller part is not as good, but it's still better than probably 75% of the thrillers you've seen out of Hollywood in the past five years. And the conclusion is so very satisfying. Put all that negative stuff I said in the last paragraph aside, as much as you can; it all exists, and you will think about it all once the film is finished, but man, I enjoyed the hell out of this movie, and I think if you like intelligent, slow thrillers, you will too. *** 1/2
(ag) wrote: shit, deceived by Kalis! >.<
(mx) wrote: Siin se nyt sitten on (oli). Ensimminen nkemni varsinainen lautaleffa. Ei mikn jrisyttvn huono, mutta ei hyvkn. Melko pitkveteinen.
(jp) wrote: Marion Cotillard is exceptional and incredibly convincing at portraying Edith Piaf at multiple life stages. The film does a great job making the audience feel a part of the tragedy and insanity when certain events unfold.
(fr) wrote: Watched this with the family very cool and full of fun facts!
(gb) wrote: Y-U-C-K ! .. and that's a compliment!
(de) wrote: From the director of "Tuff Turff" comes this ridicule and low budget action sci-fi fantasy film, which is apparently based on a series of controversial novels. Released the same year as "Evil Dead II", this film is almost the same premiss as "Army of Darkness," with a man from modern times finding himself transported to a time of swords and sorcery. However, this setting is more "Beastmaster" than "Excalibur". With a no-name cast, with the exception of Jack Palance and Oliver Reed in bit parts (and Arnold Vosloo if you look fast), terrible production values, an awful script, there really isn't much to recommend here. When I saw the description and images on Netflix, I was hoping for more of a Max Max, warriors of the wasteland type of film, but this Conan wannabe was just lame. Only worth watching for ironic camp value.
(nl) wrote: ah, always loved this movie and still do.
(kr) wrote: The struggle of watching a film that is lauded as one of the greatest of all time is that it is almost destined to disappoint. Apocalypse Now is definitely one of those films and, while I can see why people love it, I didn't adore it as much as they do. I can clearly see that there was a lot of high-quality craft that went into the making of this film. It has some superb acting performances, the visuals are astounding, and the entire third act is remarkable. There are moments in the first two acts that I was impressed with (particularly the part with Robert Duvall, who blew me away.) But there is a lot of slow build in Apocalypse Now. It's tough when you start a movie with "Go find this guy and kill him" and then you don't actually meet the target face-to-face until more than three-quarters of the film has passed. I think this is by design because we're supposed to be impacted by the devastating futility of the war so that we can understand why Brando is behaving like a mad man, but it makes the pace appear overly sluggish. When they finally reach the end of the river and the climactic scenes start it is 100% enthralling. So many of the images were breathtaking and iconic, plus the conversations between Brando and Sheen are awesome. If they had been able to maintain that level of intensity throughout the film then it would grip me more thoroughly. Unfortunately, because of some of the pacing issues and the long runtime Apocalypse Now is a film that I respect more than I enjoy.
(ru) wrote: This movie feels incomplete. Our main character, Lucien, is completely devoid of personality: he seems bored or indifferent to everything in a way that would shame Kristen Stewart. He tries to join the French Resistance not because he believes in anything but because he wants excitement. When he is refused, he promptly joins the Gestapo and gives them the names of everyone in the Underground. If he does it out of spite, none is shown. Lucien uses his new power like a little kid who's discovered a gun. He ruins the lives of a Jewish family because he wants to have sex with the daughter. The father (probably the only sympathetic character) knows he has no way out with Lucien as a Gestapo member but the daughter hardly cares. Even after her father is sent away (most likely to a death camp), she follows him into the wilderness like a Stockholm Syndrome patient. Fittingly, her name is France.There are so many parts of the story that don't add up: why does the father march into the Gestapo headquarters risking his family's safety? Why does the maid stay with the Germans when she knows the war will end soon and what does she even see in Lucien? Is Lucien's mother just fine with her son turning her neighbors over the Germans? The ending goes absolutely nowhere.I guess the intention in Lucien's character is that there's no motive, emotion, or remorse. He kills people like he kills rabbits. There's no difference for him. Perhaps that's supposed to make him frightening, but it doesn't, he just comes across and simplistic and boring. The Criterion pamphlet that came with this DVD explains that he's supposed to be an everyday, ordinary person, but Lucien isn't because there's not the audience can identify with. He's just a hollow person.This is pretty unrelated, but the animal abuse in this movie is pretty terrible.
(jp) wrote: It's a good classic, not very astonishing, however the viewer will find good things in this dark movie.
(au) wrote: A scientist claims the moon is full of gold, but his contemporaries think he's nuts. He plans his trip to the moon only to be blackmailed by some evil men who send a representative with him. Because of the new found wealth, fights break out on the moon causing a couple deaths and damage to the rocket. Not all can return because of damage to the oxygen tanks. Sounds better than it is - mostly just a boring drama despite the location and sci-fi (at the time at least) technology.
(gb) wrote: Absolutely terrible and the critics are clueless to say the least.