When cracks in the Earth's crust large enough to swallow a city block appear, a team of scientists must go deep into the Earth to find a way to stop the destruction.

When the Ring of Fire starts heating up with an unprecedented amount of volcanic activity a team of scientists are gathered to prevent a global catastrophe. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Descent torrent reviews

kevin m (ag) wrote: An old school haunted house movie with a 21st century edge, looks like it could be very cool!!

Luke D (us) wrote: A real in-depth look on how Billy Beane turned the Oakland Athletics into a World Series contender. It is one of the top baseball films of all time.

Urban M (gb) wrote: Bronson is a two-man-show: The first is Tom Hardy playing the titular character as intimidating, nihilistically funny, psychologically interesting and charismatic as humanly possible, and he carried me viewer through the movie as a result. The other is Refn who on the one hand definitely makes interesting points on the glorification of violence and what it creates plus conveying Bronson's repetitious life devoid of any sense of time. On the other hand, he has so much confidence in his vision that, despite being great on a technical level, he often puts message over watchability, beating his points in the ground, bombarding the senses and alienating the audience more than intended. When all is said and done, though, Bronson is worth the hard watch if alone for Hardy's performance.

Martin B (de) wrote: Has Daryl Hannah always been this bad? Bad as in bad actor, that is.A LONG movie about a pack of sharks that attack the beaches of California.There is actually a lot of shark attacking scenes, more than usual in the nerdy genre, Computer animated fish that is, but still. The plot and espcially the end makes you die a bit inside though.We get the usual suspects. The larger than life villain, the righteous fisherman, the geeky and stupid kids and a lot of fish. But too long, way too long

Max M (jp) wrote: git it done.......... U NO YOUR A REDNECK IF U PICK YA NOSE N FEED YA BOOGAS TO YA DOG!!!!!!!!!!

Jamie C (ca) wrote: A brilliant film that for most of the film leaves you scratching your head and the plot feels like it could be a mistaken identity comedy film, But if you hang in there it's worth it as the plot unravels and it's full of great twists and turns and is very clever, All the cast were great I'm just surprised it didn't get more praise, It is one of them films where if you don't pay full attention it won't make sense as it's very detailed but it's great and definitely worth the watch.

Luke W (jp) wrote: I really liked this tense little thriller. I forget how this ended up on my watchlist, but once I saw it, I was glad I did. Brody is great as a kidnapper who toys with the police who are trying to find a missing woman. A number of great scenes, like the car chase, as well as a moment toward the end of the film that had me nearly jumping out of my skin.

Joshua L (fr) wrote: good story but more fighting and better filming cudda done wonders 4 this

Keve L (ru) wrote: another good kid classic...

Gunter H (it) wrote: Brandauer gives a fine performance. What an ending.

Doc M (gb) wrote: I first heard about "Ghosts on the Loose" while reading Lee Servers biography, "Ava Gardner: "Love is Nothing". Server described the film (which was Ava's first credited substantial role) as a rushed mess of a production. He continued to state that the picture garnered cult popularity in the 1940s because "teenage doofuses" would catch repeat viewings under the belief that Bela Lugosi blurted out the "s-word" while sneezing during a particular scene. This, of course, was at a time when the Hay's code was in full effect and such transgressions were unheard of in the movie industry. So, in a gesture that would make any "teenage doofus" proud, I rushed to find the film and see the the shoddy swear-laced piece of cinema for myself (Having now seen the film, I agree with Server in believing that Lugosi, a man of Hungarian descent, simply said the Hungarian word for "Achoo!"). Bela Lugosi, in an odd comedic turn, plays a Nazi sympathizer who hides his fascist propaganda in the cellar of a house that a group of bonehead teenagers (East Side Kids) were cleaning up for two newlyweds (Gardner and Vallin). Yes, that is the entire summary of the plot in a single sentence. The movie was a continuation of the "East Side Kids" series of films. They were a group of young adults who behaved like a lame blend between The Three Stooges and Abbott and Costello. This is not to say that I did not find them somewhat amusing. Although much of their comedy has aged worse than expired milk, I did chuckle at a few gags, and was kept mildly engaged and entertained throughout. Granted, a healthy portion of my amusement generated from the film's inferior quality. The picture was certainly the harried mess Server claimed it was. Director William Beaudine (known famously as "One-Take" Beaudine) blew through the filming process at break-neck speed, completing it in just six days. The quality of this method of shooting is painfully apparent. He overuses the fade in a vain attempt to disguise is squalid style. In an early scene Leo Gorcey, the Moe-like stooge in the East Side Kids, dropped a piece of sheet music. As the camera cuts from and then back to him, he is seen with the sheet music magically back in hand. Blunders like this along with "One-Take's" choppy unimaginative filming can be seen throughout the film. The only advantage to Beaudine's hasty shooting was that it didn't give Ava Gardner time to reflect on her nervousness ans self-consciousness. At this stage in her career, she was still a bit uncomfortable around the camera. Coming from the tobacco fields of North Carolina, she never really did much acting or performing until she signed with MGM. Unfortunately for Ava, her lack of experience sticks out like a black eye. Her performance, as on of the East Side Kid's soon-to-be-wed sister, was about as bland and stiff as a stack of plywood. In her defense the role was anything but ideal. Outside of fawn-eyed gazing at her leading man (Rick Vallin), she hardly had anything to do. Fans of the East Side Kids may enjoy this cinematic blunder, but there is little for anyone else to like. But if you have a desire to see C-Movie filming quality, a very young (and undernoursihed) Ava Gardner sleep-walking through a role, Bela Lugosi sneezing a word that vaguely sounds like swearing, or the antics of the East Side Kids, then this film is for you!

Facebook U (au) wrote: Act of Valor is a very mixed bag. It does a good job at representing America's heroes, but as a piece of film making it fairs less than stellar. I just want everyone to know that yes, it does get the army right, but that doesn't make up for its bland acting and jumbled plot. It does a good job at inspiring people to join the army, so I kinda view it as a recruitment poster. I really respect the army, but Act of Valor isn't a masterpiece in film making people. I do find it really cool how the film making was done though. The real ammunition was a really cool addition, and just make the shoot outs that much more intense. One thing that kinda of ruins it though is the constant POV shots. Two or three would be fine, but they're scattered throughout the movie. It's really annoying, and they're not even that well done. It just takes away from the realism. I think verterans will like this film, but if you're looking for an inspiring, well made, and acurate war film, I'd say watch Lone Survivor.

Daniel Y (ru) wrote: Monty Python's And Now Time For Something Completely Different is one of the most accurately titled movies ever. This film is a compilation of Monty Python's previous works on their tv show. Some are their best and some aren't. Unlike the tv show, however, they combined their sketches so that they were all connected in their own wierd and different Pythonic way. Also, throughout this film you can tell that they were desperate for a laugh that they throw everything at you in an attempt to get you to laugh and you can't help but laugh because their ubsurdity actually works. However, Monty Python's humor is a bit of an aquired taste. If you find wierd stuff funny or insults funny then this is for you, but if you're the polar opposite than this isn't for you. Now is this film filled to the brim with laughs? No by no means. Reason why is because they decided to put some of their no as funny sketches in there for some reason l, but luckily they got their really funny ones in their as well, and when you watch the film you'll immediately start to identify which are the good ones and which aren't.

Alex W (ca) wrote: a very good doc about people who are intellectuality intelligent and emotionally retarded.

Matthew C (ru) wrote: Funny at points but generally just a stereotype romcom with the typical twists and turns. Alive Eve is easy on the eyes though.

Sebastian G (kr) wrote: Bring Back Tobey Maguire!