Hard Core Logo

Hard Core Logo

Bruce Macdonald follows punk bank Hard Core Logo on a harrowing last-gasp reunion tour throughout Western Canada. As magnetic lead-singer Joe Dick holds the whole magilla together through sheer force of will, all the tensions and pitfalls of life on the road come bubbling to the surface.

Bruce Macdonald follows punk bank Hard Core Logo on a harrowing last-gasp reunion tour throughout Western Canada. As magnetic lead-singer Joe Dick holds the whole magilla together through ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Hard Core Logo torrent reviews

Thomas B (au) wrote: Polarising for sure but a great performance from Theron and a barbed script from Cody put this firmly in my thumbs up column. Full review later.

Adrian B (br) wrote: Good acting but the story is very dreary and not much to shout about.

Eugene K (fr) wrote: Sunday, February 3, 2008 2:00 pm, Meyer Auditorium In person: Tadanobu Asano

David L (ru) wrote: With absolutely terrific animation, memorable and very well developed characters, greatly established relationships between each and every one of them, stupendously well executed action sequences and some great tunes with Son of Man being so catchy and a lot of fun, Tarzan is such an underrated Disney film that is one of my favorites from the studio, a film that is rushed in pacing and with a typical villain, but is simultaneously emotional, dramatic, romantic and adventurous and well crafted on almost every level. It was a great film to end the Disney Renaissance.

Tobias M (ru) wrote: Kaurismaki is minimal with dialogue and has a roughness with his action that alerts a absurd but also real world. Best of all he doesn't take himself too seriously.

Jacob G (br) wrote: Premiers Desirs starts off with some promise; three young women stranded on an occupied island, ready to experience their coming of age story.But where the promise hints at a greater narrative, what is actually delivered is a scattered plot that doesn't know which character to focus on, some pretty island scenes, and lots of nakedness--typically in the form of standing in front of mirrors, or lounging on beds or splashing in the ocean. It's very much not-sex nakedness.None of the females in the movie are particularly distinctive. They're all of the same blonde hair, young variety. Even the wife of the billionaire fixation of our "protagonist" is basically a carbon copy of the main trio of girls, just a couple of years older.The males are a bit more distinctive, insofar as you've got two normal pigheaded, randy dudes looking for sex and willing to sweet talk themselves into the discussion. Then there is the brooding kid who is angry because our protagonist doesn't realize he saved her (and fixates her hero worship on the previously mentioned billionaire). And then there is the billionaire himself, a shifty sort of guy who shatters our hopes for his character when we think perhaps he does have a moral backbone. He comes across as completely unworthy of his wife.All of the actual sex that happens here is implied. We assume that the randy boys get their groove on, but we do so without visual evidence. Those two girls and guys are more sub characters anyway, so whatever.We see more between the billionaire and his wife and, later, the billionaire and our protagonist. But even then, it's a whole lot of smoke and mirrors; naked bodies, yes, sensual caresses, yes, and weak kisses fluttering about. It all feels very jr. high. I'm wondering if part of this is due to our protagonists' age? She does look awful young. Then again, the actor playing her friend was 20 when this movie released. Doesn't mean she's the same age, of course. And the amount of nudity all of the girls flash would presume not-too-young, though who knows what the French standards on things like that.Which is a long-winded way of say that regardless of how old the actors were, Premiers Desirs will likely leave you feeling a bit uncomfortable. Either there will be too much nudity with iffily-aged actors, or there will be too much tease without payoff. And least you accuse me of only focusing on the sex (or lackthereof), well, considering the atrocious lack of engaging narrative, there really isn't anything else to try to focus on.

Geoff C (gb) wrote: Surprisingly good for a made for TV movie. Griffith and Cash both turn in good performances, but Griffith steals the show. Griffith is so good at being subtle, that you automatically accept him in whichever character he projects. There is no sense of embellishment in his performances. He delivers with an honest subtlety that we ususually pick up from people to judge their true character. This mastery of skill is evident here. I had never before seen Mr. Griffith in a villainous role, and I was barely a minute in, before I disliked his character. Regarding, production quality- it is a 1980s made for TV movie. Take it for what it is. Also featured, June Carter Cash, as an "Amazing Oracle".

Millo T (ag) wrote: Between 2.5 and 3. A little obvious, but the issue is complex enough to have some interest.

Eric H (ca) wrote: Never viewed this film before and recently viewed this film on TCM and was amazed at the great acting of George Segal, (Corporal King) who was a wheel and dealer at the POW camp and was able to make plenty of money and was able to provide jobs for a few of his American and British POW's. This POW Camp was located in Changi in Singpore and was not a prison with large fences, because the prisoners were surrounded by water and a jungle. The officers had huts made of straw and this was considered a hell hole of a place where you went to bed in sweat and woke up in sweat with plenty of flies to keep you company. Some people were fed rat meat and on one occasion they had dog for supper. George Segal and James Fox both gave an excellent performance in this film about prisoners of war during World War II.

Hayden L (mx) wrote: A great if not perfect feature for A &C. Funny and splendid, the scenes with the mummy mishap are hilarious.

Tom D (ru) wrote: This movie has a few slow moments early on but it really picks up when Humphrey Bogart's character enters the picture. Bogart gives a great performance and Bette Davis is also really good here. The script has a good ending and some interesting dialogue.

Victor T (br) wrote: In these times of superhero saturation and PG-13 franchises a handful of R rated films appear and while they don't get the same box office numbers they earn a following. And what better example of this than the beloved and highly praised "Dredd". Mega City is a futuristic city that's filled with crime and drugs, particularly a new drug called Slow Mo, a Jet looking narcotic that dues exactly what it's name implies. In this God forgotten land the only thing that prevents it from falling apart are the Judges, the ultimate judge jury and executioner. We follow Judge Dredd, an incorruptible Judge, and a Judge candidate on a drug raid but what seemed to be a normal day of 'protect and serve' turns into something bigger.Since its home release "Dredd" has become quite a big cult film, to the point of fans demanding a sequel, so finally I watched it and while I highly enjoyed it, it also disappointed me. "Dredd" has solid acting for an action film (props to Karl Urban for committing to this character thus not showing his face, which is quite rare for a lead actor), an eye catching visual style, competent world building for its budget, good use of violence (even though at times is not needed), action sequences that are well shot (no shaky cam nor quick edits here), a score that's hit or miss but when it does hit it is fantastic, a story that's wisely small in scale (it is not about stopping the world's end or the destruction of a city), and it is overall highly enjoyable. But despite all of its great elements, I have to say I find this film underwhelming. Peter Travis' direction is an attempt to replicate Paul Verhoeven (this film is quite similar to "Robocop", a character that was inspired by Dredd but now the pendulum has swung), the CGI is extremely bad (something that normally can be overlooked but the film keeps putting that cheap CGI up front thus making it hard to forgive), and the violence is tamed. Sure we see some graphic stuff but it is all digital, when this needed that excessive Verhoeven use of squibs (I don't know about you but I prefer makeup over CGI when it comes to violence and every time a digital squib appeared it took me out)."Dredd" is a solid film that truly deserves its cult following. It desperately tries to imitate Verhoeven's style and while it fails at that, it does succeed in being a fantastic sci-fi action film. An extremely enjoyable and stylish action film that knows what it is/what's capable of and goes for it.

William R (ca) wrote: An excellent low budget Australian thriller that has put the industry on the map in years and also for it's budget, very impressive.