Dead Man

Dead Man

On the run after murdering a man, accountant William Blake encounters a strange North American man named Nobody who prepares him for his journey into the spiritual world.

On the run after murdering a man, accountant William Blake encounters a strange North American man named Nobody who prepares him for his journey into the spiritual world. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Dead Man torrent reviews

Jenn M (mx) wrote: this was actually pretty interesting. played out like a documentary, had an eerie subject matter, great narrative.

Sjoerd H (us) wrote: Director is friend of mine. It sucked but I'm giving it a whole one star because it was extremely humorous to see my old friend actually made something this crappy. I always knew he would do something that made even Judy Moody films look absolutely genius.

Bilal a (nl) wrote: No words - please speak to Billy

Tim K (jp) wrote: Why do I feel that if a movie was made for the Sci Fi channel, it should actually have a warning label on it: "WARNING! Contents of movie does not live up to potential of concept!"?

Takee A (de) wrote: A breathtakingly beautiful movie. I've got to say, Ethan Cohen, Eric Darnell & Tom Mcgrath did a pretty fantastic job writing up this story and displaying it in such an amazing way.Together, they have done a rare thing, where they made a sequel that is actually better than the first...not just slightly. The depth of emotions you begin to feel for these animals was a great surprise, and I wanted more by the time the film ended. Which is why I can't wait to watch the third sequel. So in other words, this movie was nice, enjoyable and fun...perfect for a peaceful afternoon.

Tracy T (au) wrote: Watching this like doing a hundred sit-ups from laughing so hard. If there ever was a guilty pleasure this is it! I HEART JD MCQUEEN!!! In what other movie can you see David Cassidy, Leif Garrett, and Aaron Carter???!!!

Rameshwar I (ca) wrote: May be the best WWII movie I have seen after Saving Private Ryan though both of them deals with completely opposite perspectives and different genres. The screen time allocated to the Bunker and its attention to detail virtually transports you there. Seeing Hitler as a delusional old man with a pompous past and a deserted family now rather than the monster we have seen him as so far is surreal. The director evokes mixed feeling for Hitler making you feel for his precarious state while simultaneously loathe the hatred that engulfed him, not just on Jews but mankind itself. Berlin is surrounded by Allied Forces and Adolf Hitler (Bruno Ganz) and his top brass have secluded themselves into a well furnished Bunker. The story is partially seen through the eyes of his young secretary Traudl Junge (Alexandra Maria Lara). Hitler is delusional about a non-existent army that can push its way from behind and scatter the enemy. While this places courage in some, places horrendous fear in most. Mostly deals with Hitler's final days, his current views on the war and utter disrespect to life, his relationship with Eva Braun (Juliane Khler) and an ever faithful family, the Goebbels. While the melodrama is in the air, the director takes care not to push it into the face of the viewer. Alexandra has such a pleasing innocent face, she will almost make you believe how Ms. Junge saw through the ordeal without making out much of it. While most of the cast deliver competent performances, Bruno Ganz would have made Hitler proud with his ecstatic emotional outbursts alternating with subtle body language that speaks a thousand words without saying anything. How he missed the Oscar, I am interested to see who beat him to comment on it. After the Russian artillery comes into the range of the Bunker - every dialogue, emotion and action is associated with fear or being skeptical about optimism which is brilliantly shown when Eva Braun forces a party to overcome the impending doom. While most of the action is said and understood, the director didn't shy away from showing a peek on the outside of Berlin which is full of fear, hordes of corpses and strewn away limbs drawing from a strong graphic content and state-of-art pyrotechnics. The background score is mostly non-existent and but delicately used whenever required. Screenplay and editing are slick without a dull moment and builds up enough suspense leading up to one of the most known endings. Hitler would have been proud roasting in Hell

TonyPolito (it) wrote: When these actors talk about being in Deadwood, well, they really mean it. Director Walter Hill, without apology, rips off the opium-den flashback motif from Sergio Leone's "Once Upon a Time in America" to spin off Wild Bill Hickock's memories of his past, just as he's stepping up to the fateful day he's dealt his Aces & Eights. Hill crams all the shoot-em-ups into a 30-minute Act 1, setting the hook deep in the viewer's lip. And with very good reason since, after that point, there's little more than scene after scene where cowfolk point a lot of shaky gun barrels at each other (but never pull any triggers) while they carry on with tons of endless uninteresting and supposedly threatening dialogue, that mostly delivered in overly-hammy nearly unintelligible cornpone accents. Then Bill gets shot, a woman screams, go to black, run end credits over a burial scene. Fin. Hill's post-production resuscitation attempt was to apply bleached-stock, sepia-toning and angled-camera treatments to the flashback scenes. I guess they still teach that in film school. Ellen Barkin's eternally hot, but she's still not anywhere near enough pony to pull this wagon. The best delivery here is actually John Hurt, since his stature as an formally trained actor scored him a pass on the country-bumpkin talk imposed on everyone else, and so he gets to go with his usual formal British treatment. RECOMMENDATION: Unless you crave seeing Jeff Bridges in a really long, greasy, stringy wig, take a pass.

Matthew S (ca) wrote: I think critics and viewers are too hard on this movie. Although flawed, this film deserves some credit for trying to achieve something well beyond its grasp. And, it tries hard.

Kari K (au) wrote: An artsy slasher film from the 80s. Athough very imaginative and inventive scenes for example the (hypnotic sequence. It falls short on the story.

Steve D (nl) wrote: One of the worst movies ever made. The PG nudity may appeal (Roberts is gorgeous) but the plot is laugh out loud bad the acting is worse and the animals are Obviously painted!

Helmy F (mx) wrote: Provokative.. imtimidating... Historical...

Ian C (ca) wrote: Goddamn this movie was short. 'I DID IT FOR YOOOOUUUUU!'.

Thomas W (jp) wrote: Where do I start? This movie was what it was. Too many coincidences. I guessed the endIng five minutes into it. Weak plot. Track down all ur ex's through flight plans in 30 days for your sister's quick wedding (which wasn't explained til the end why it happened thirty days after the proposal) to a 5'10" Terrence J who's a heisman candidate (can't remember the last receiver considered for the heisman)? I did chuckle at the scene with Taye Diggs at dinner and was really giving the movie a chance. Until....After the rehearsal dinner, Montana's mom told Montana a story that she was possibly too young to remember (Montana is not yet thirty) about her father cooking her mother pancakes every Sunday morning. Then concluded with this was thirty years ago. How the bleep is your not yet thirty daughter going to remember something that she wasn't alive for?!?!?!?!? I wanted to give it 1.5 stars. .5 cause I like Paula, .5 cause I'm a big Derek Luke fan. And .5 for the dinner scene. I decided to round up instead of down.

Callum M (au) wrote: Michael Caine's riveting performance and the stylish direction does little to distract from the fact that Harry Brown is little more than bloody, gruesome schlock masquerading itself as thought-provoking drama.

Ahmed D (de) wrote: Quizzing entertainmentThe quiz show is an ethical journey. Set in a time when corporations and show business enjoyed unfettered expansion, it delves into the moral questions that arise in a consumer-centric world. The movie, based on real events, embodies a phase when America shifted in terms of what they expected of 'challenge shows'. The movie, with its retrospective lens, has a recurrent theme of ousting the old with the new, leaving the audience to juxtapose that with today's television culture. The film's first scene sets the tone for the movie, with Harvard lawyer Michael Goodwin, saying "It used to be the man drove the car, now the car drives the man". It preludes the movie's exploration of the level of control that products and their envy now have over our lives. The movie's main focus, the rigged quiz show, is an embodiment of this envy; how consumers are enthralled by the concept of "big bucks". The sponsor of the quiz show, Geritol's owner explains to Michael Goodwin about the audience "They didn't tune in to watch... intellectual ability. They just wanted to watch the money". This obsession with money is what led the producers to rig the quiz show and pitch the idea to Charles Van Doren.Charles Van Doren, an affluent, erudite and handsome young man is introduced as the son of Mark Van Doren, who is a famous poet himself. The movie follows the joining of Charles Van Doren in the quiz show called "twenty-one" and then his agreement to be fed the answers beforehand in order to choreograph a more entertaining show. Charles Van Doren dethrones a long running contestant, Herb Stempel, who is forced to take the fall because he is not deemed to be telegenic enough. All these events reek of show business's corporate underbelly and the tactics it employs. The movie uses this for retrospective look into a time when the production methods of such entertainment were revealed to be mired with deception and as a result caused a shift in the reception of the product itself.The product still exists today. The incident itself may have been forgotten but its ripples are evident in today's show business culture. Now we don't see challenge shows about knowledge but instead games that a child or a "5th Grader" could master. The movie attempts to show how the deception that was revealed through "Twenty-one" is not gone now but just implicitly consensual between the consumer and producer. We allow ourselves to be deceived for entertainment. We realize that there is nothing special for what the contestants on TV now get huge sums of money but we enjoy it anyway for the fact that it's thrilling. The movie draws this parallel so that we end up asking ourselves "Is this any better? Have we evolved from the show business portrayed here?". The fact that not much has changed is why at the end of the movie Goodwin says "Hey I thought we were gonna get television. The truth is television is gonna get us".Charles Van Doren inserts an interesting dilemma when he is first pitched the rigging idea. He says "I am just trying to imagine what Kant would make of this". This is followed by the producer, Dan Enright, saying "Think what this could mean for the cause of education. Forty million people would watch...". The dichotomy between the question and the answer is deliberate and obvious. Kant argued that acts were never to be judged by consequences but based on their nature alone, so the resulting utilitarian justification given to Charles Van Doren is a testament of how he is treading into hypocritical and dangerous waters. All that he pursues from then on is a mockery of his noble profession. The movie highlights this in a light-hearted scene.Charles (angrily to Enright): "I am a college professor!"(Messenger boy enters room)Boy: "They need the Professor in make-up"Thus the movie not only attempts to show this dichotomy but works on a deeper level of societal perceptions. It shows how professors were respected and awed by society on the basis of their work but people like Herbert Stemple, although remarkably gifted, were judged based on their economic and racial standings. The movie beautifully shows Herb Stempel's defeat when he is first told how he is to answer wrongly on an easy question. As Herb argues over how humiliating this would be, the producer shuts him up with " For 70 grand, you can afford to be humiliated". As Herbert realizes how the Van Dorens of this world would always leave him in the dust, the camera pans away - as if to signify his diminishing self esteem. The movie's figurative screenplay complements the theme of out with the old and in with the new. During a garden party scene, the tension between the Van Doren father and son becomes apparent. However, Charles gives his father a television set as a birthday present and the camera zooms on the shiny wooden box. This shows how Charles indicates to his father where the world is going and how even though his father hadn't kept a television in the house Charles was now in charge through his fame.The genius of the movie is that it does not clearly demark the lines of good and evil. As Charles says in his soul-searching confession speech "...about good and evil. They are not always what they appear to be". This raises the question what was so evil about Charles or the producer's action? The sponsor make good off of it, so does the network, the contestants see money they would never see and the public is entertained. The reality that we know the act to be wrong but can't justify why is a poignant moment for the audience. It reiterates how most of the show business world is run, it is pure entertainment with nothing else in mind and insofar as that remains the ultimate principle, anything goes. Once we allow to give ourselves up by watching these shows, we cannot expect pure and truthful realities but instead contrived forms of entertainment.The movie is a constant battle between the old and the new. It encapsulates how the show business world deceived thousands and leaves to us to draw the parallel to today. It shows how Charles replaced the old running star of the TV show and then how Charles replaced his father's fame through television and very obviously the movie shows how show business transformed from old to new but stayed in culpability, the same. The Quiz Show is a thought-provoking watch about the ethics of entertainment and culpability of individuals.

Ken G (de) wrote: Anne Hathaway's interesting but kinda odd foray as a producer, then lead actor in "Song One" eventually works... a story of looming traumatic family loss is nearly derailed, out of the box, by an overtly fawning singer/songwriter/subway scene... in which the camera gazes endlessly at a near perfect yet improbably isolated, incredibly photogenic singer in a subway. The kind no New Yorker has ever experienced. This would be our heroine's estranged brother. Cue: traumatic accident, and the return of the world traveling sister, and a not entirely predictable hero as hero story line. Only Hathway's acting chops (giving plenty of gravity to an otherwise thin role...) and an eventually deftly executed editing approach rescue this film from the Hallmark channel. Ultimately "Song One" earns a (B-) from me.

Juls XD H (mx) wrote: no, no NO!! really?, i've seen this in the cinema and i did sleep in the middle of the movie, why hercules?, Why?