Fling in the Ring

Fling in the Ring

The stooges are the trainers of "Chopper", a beefy boxer, and they bet their bankroll on Chopper to win his next fight. When "Big Mike", their boss, tells them to have Chopper lose or they'll lose their lives, the boys try to soften up Chopper so he'll lose. The fight gets canceled and the stooges have to contend with an angry Big Mike and his goons.

The stooges are the trainers of "Chopper", a beefy boxer, and they bet their bankroll on Chopper to win his next fight. When "Big Mike", their boss, tells them to have Chopper lose or ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Fling in the Ring torrent reviews

Sandeep G (ag) wrote: Finally a happy ending, super cute movie!

Andy P (ag) wrote: The wife was singing to all these songs lol

Haydn W (ag) wrote: One of the worst "horror comedies" I've ever seen. Horrible, horrible 12a rated piss.

Nathan M (it) wrote: I'm usually all for sequels, but did people really think you can ad to the classic story of "War of the Words"? Especially if you have like a 10 dollar budget? Saw this on tv once. Complete rubbish!

Cyn T (au) wrote: So well done. Dakota Fanning did an awesome job and Joan Jett is always so inspirational. They toned down the excesses quite a bit I'm sure to appeal to a larger audience.

War sucks L (mx) wrote: open relationship is bullshit

Thrse F (ca) wrote: Not at all interested

Bevan S (br) wrote: If you're one of those people who watches everyone else when traveling or sitting in doctor's offices and tries to figure out their stories - like me - you might quite like this lovely little trilogy of tales about a train journey in Italy.

Charlie R (it) wrote: Honestly, I'm not sure if I want to see it. I keep swinging back and forth.

Velma S (es) wrote: This was an interesting movie but kinda pissed me off. All in all it was okay.

James M (ca) wrote: An incredible, almost epic, depiction of a reclusive artist and the painting that has been his obsession for over a decade, "La Belle Noiseuse". The film stars Michel Piccoli who plays Edouard Frenhofer, a well known painter who spends most of his days in his chateau, living an almost reclusive existence. His wife, Liz played by Jane Birkin, was his original muse and modelled for "La Belle Noiseuse" ten years before - a project that is all but abandoned. Edouard has grown tired and despondant about his work and claims it doesn't hold his interest like it once did. One evening, Frenhofer's agent, Porbus (played by Gilles Arbona), introduces the beautiful Marianne (played by Emmanuelle Beart) to his client with the intention of reigniting his artistic fire in hopes that he'll recommence work on his unfinished masterpiece. Jacques Rivette's film is almost hypnotising as it shows the audience the painful and beautiful moments that go into creating a painting that is portrayed as the ultimate psychological achievement for Frenhofer. It cleverly plays this out alongside Marianne's often misguided perception of the artist and herself in this role as Frenhofer's nude model. It's impeccably shot and at 4 hours in length, it's a gift that we're allowed enough time to drift into every scene of the film effortlessly. The film is edited in such a fluid and graceful way that it's pace allows the audience into these characters lives. So intimate is this transition that you can almost taste the French coffee, smell the paint on canvas and feel the Roussillon sunshine on your face. A wonderful film.

Graham L (br) wrote: One of my favorite action movies ever. Hilarious, explosive cheese and just a rollicking good time.

Ben L (gb) wrote: This is a movie about a young man who escapes his massive gambling debts by enlisting in the Peace Corps. It is a movie that is loaded with problems, and can't seem to deliver enough laughs to overcome all those shortcomings. The first big flaw is the casting of Tom Hanks in the lead role. He is just too likable to pull off the part of this scuzzy gambler who takes advantage of his father and objectifies women. Also his attempt at a British accent is atrocious and really unnecessary. The next thing that really stands out to me as a glaring fault in this movie is the fact that they squander the talents of John Candy. Almost every single genuine laugh that Volunteers managed to get from me was because of the amazing skill of John Candy. Yet someone decided to write into the script events that had him disappear for almost half the movie. However, the ultimate misfire in Volunteers is the entire plot. They devised a film where there are at least 4 different factions all at play in the bridge-construction project assigned to the Peace Corps team. Normally this would be where you create tension in your film, and yet they stupidly have every single group want the same outcome. It completely takes away any interest we might have in the bridge's construction and made me wonder why we even should care about anything that happens in the movie. There are more deficiencies in the film (like the illogical romance) but they didn't bother me quite as much. In fact there were moments when I would say I was enjoying Volunteers. I still think it is a poor movie and I wouldn't recommend it, but I can't say I entirely hated watching it.

Knox M (de) wrote: Slyly satirical, edge of your seat, and a perfectly constructed thriller that stands with the best films of all time.

Curtis I (br) wrote: Simply fascinating in its stripped down, no frills approach to the hereafter and very Japanese.