The story is set 70 million years ago, when dinosaurs ruled the Korean Peninsula the same way they ruled the rest of the earth. Spotty is a curious and playful Tarbosaurus child, and along with his mother and siblings, he lives happily in the forest. One day the cunning One-eye, an older Tyrannosaur looking for a new home, attacks Spotty’s herd and separates Spotty from his family. Alone, he befriends another lost girl Tarbosaur who becomes his friend and constant companion for two decades and the mother of his own children. But Spotty’s troubles with One-eye are not over, and revenge, death, fear, and sadness are all in Spotty’s future―as is happiness and hope.
70 million years ago dinosaurs ruled the Korean Peninsula the same way they ruled the rest of the earth. At that time the part of the land now known as Jeonnam Yeosu was the forest habitat ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Dino King torrent reviews
(ca) wrote: Perhaps the best documentary of a presidential campaign since "War Room" and quite unusual from its vantage point of the candidate himself. A warm, funny and calm Mitt Romney emerges.
(kr) wrote: It's a lot more serious than you'd think it was. Growing a beard serious. Morgan Spurlock takes a trip to the middle east in search of Osama in order to make the world safer for his soon to be born child. It's obviously not that literal in searching for him and he takes an interesting look at the different places and peoples. Not bad.
(ru) wrote: I haven't watched it yet but I really want ti
(us) wrote: [font=Times New Roman][size=4]This Korean production really surprised me. The plot has some similarities to [i]Blade Runner[/i] with a few different twists added in. There is a good balance between the drama and the action and (despite its nod to [i]Blade Runner[/i]) it is still a pretty original storyline. The actors really do well in bringing the story and the characters in it to life. All the characters are quite complex and so playing them had to a challenge but the actors met that challenge well.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=4]The special effects are pretty good. They do a good job in portraying the world of 2080 AD. The effects never over take the story or the actors. They are a very important part of the movie, but with out being the driving force of the movie. The effects and the costuming all did very well in trying to show us a future earth with out being corny or ridiculous. The soundtrack isn?t too bad. It?s not epic or sweeping, but it does help the film in parts and does not distract at all. If you are like me (not afraid subtitles) and are looking for something fro the sci-fi genre that?s a little different, then this movie is definitely worth a look.[/size][/font]
(jp) wrote: Not exactly a good film but an interesting one.A Life in Pictures comes across as a prototype biographical documentary about a filmmaker. It's more about Kubrick's films than about the man behind them, and if you can accept that, you'll have a good time with it. There are lots of clips from all of his movies and a big bunch of interviews with relatives, people related to his films and other filmmakers (it's actually a great list, I'd be happy if they'd have made a real film together).It captures Kubrick's life chronologically, sober and without any experiments. I'm not sure if "The Man" would have approved of such an uncreative treatment of his life, but chances are good that there will be a fictional feature about him someday (Even though there are not that many colourful stories to discover like in Hitchcock's life. But a lack of source material has never hampered Hollywood).Anyways, beside the awesome fact that you get to see Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, Sydney Pollack, Tom Cruise, Malcolm McDowell, Keir Dullea, Shelley Duvall, Jack Nicholson and many more in one film, it's also a nice chance to rethink what you liked or disliked about his movies, and look back on all his films. The film clips help in triggering the imagination and you can sink almost into the atmosphere of the movies.Well, that's about it. I don't think I know Kubrick better now, after seeing this, probably I got a higher understanding of his movies and his basic philosophy but it's more of a historic crash course on what his legacy is than an exploration of his nature. I can kinda live with that though.
(gb) wrote: Comedic timing doesn't get any better than Roberto Benigni. This movie is a classic. Even for cake eaters.
(ag) wrote: Hats off to Omar Mukhtar for such a brilliant rebellion,also to Moustapha Akkad so sad he got killed.
(ru) wrote: could be good. sounds like The Shaggy Dog movie.
(es) wrote: Another Mel Brooke's classic! Gene Wilder is by far my favorite part of this movie. The comedy is light and in-your-face at the same time. Wonderful.
(fr) wrote: I had a blast watching this film in 2013 - it's one of those classic Saturday morning westerns that I had somehow missed as a kid in the 1950's. The good vs. evil character actors come through in the grand tradition of Roy Rodgers, the Lone Ranger, and Rin Tin Tin. It was a jolt to see a bearded Carl Denham (King Kong's Robert Armstrong) as one of the baddest of the Bad men! It's comforting and nostalgic to recognize lots of the actors in this old western! The romantic triangle sub-plot kept me guessing as good girl Madge (Jacqueline White) and bad girl Cheyenne (Ann Jeffreys) vie for Randolph Scott's attentions - I was pulling for both of them and had no idea how the writers would resolve it. Could one of them get shot like Rhonda Castle (Ruth Roman) when she saved Jeff Webster (Jimmy Stewart) in the Far Country?
(br) wrote: Not my favourite Lewton. okay.
(au) wrote: My guess is that the people who liked this never saw "Fight Club".
(br) wrote: Not very good, not very bad.