It Started in Naples

It Started in Naples

Mike Hamilton, a Philadelphia lawyer, comes to Naples to settle the estate of his long estranged "black sheep" brother. Once there, he discovers that the deceased has left an 8 year old boy who is being raised by Michael's sister-in-law Lucia Curcio. To make matters worse, Lucia happens to be a sexy nightclub dancer.

Mike Hamilton, a Philadelphia lawyer, comes to Naples to settle the estate of his long estranged "black sheep" brother. Once there, he discovers that the deceased has left an eight-year old... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

It Started in Naples torrent reviews

Dexter D (ru) wrote: it a pretty good movie kept me on my toes the entire time.

Tom M (de) wrote: One of the better TV Christmas movies and R,hm and Breckenridge gave solid performances. Implausible at times but hey, it's Christmas, Idn't it? Together in a crashing elevator plummeting to certain death the happy couple decides a kiss would be good. Personally, I think they'd be holding on and screaming for dear life. There's a spark between them but it turns out he's the boyfriend of girlfriend's evil boss. Enter Priscilla (R,hm). R,hm is just deliciously wicked as Priscilla. Controlling and demoralizing at every turn, she goes out of her way to make life a living hell for Wendy (Breckenridge). Priscilla is certainly a narcissist and she proves it over and over again. After a bash in the nose sends her off to New York, Wendy spends time with Adam, falling head over heals in love. On Priscilla's return, the two are caught red handed with their pants down. Well, almost but it is rated G. It doesn't take much to figure out the rest. I love this one. The acting is OK but I think the two ladies do an excellent job and you will love to hate Priscilla. So, watch it over and over. I do.

Mark D (jp) wrote: I heard a lot of bad things about this movie, so I went in with low expectations.Yeah, it's bad, but it's not as bad as I was expecting.I don't get the goofy take on Luthor or the maniacal version of Brainiac, but there is at least a lot of feeling in this movie, due mainly to Clark's crush on Lois. The action scenes are competent and so is the animation. Still, the choice to make this a childish take on Superman is still an odd and unsatisfying move.

Chinmai R (de) wrote: The film actually handled its subject matter very well and created some very interesting relationships between the characters. This movie was quite good, though ridiculously silly at times to the point of where you don't know whether to laugh or be serious, because its seems like the filmmakers didn't know either. John Abraham's and the white girl's acting were horrible, but Arshad Warsi, the driver, and the taliban member managed themselves to keep the movie very good through phenomenal performances. This movie could have had five stars if some of the actors were changed, and some of the scenes and dialogue that was stupid were fixed.

Billy D (us) wrote: The story of Chuck Barris, a TV producer/CIA agent as he navigates the world of show biz and espionage. Much more interesting if you know who Chuck Barris was and knew his story. If not, its a very hard to believe story about a shady tv exec tooting his own horn. Rockwell, Clooney, and barrymore are meh. Only worth the 124 minutes if you are from the era.

Nicki M (us) wrote: Realised 10 minutes in I have seen this before and forgotten it. Then half hour later I realised why and switched it off. Just not very good. And this from someone who gets on YouTube and actually seeks out made for tv thrillers.

Sean C (kr) wrote: Pretty solid comedy, but rarely gut busting and the "surprises" are a little too obvious all around.

Cassandra M (gb) wrote: Chinese gangs vs. Italian gangs in NYC in 1987. Tony (Richard Panebianco) and Tye (Sari Chang) meet and fall in love. Meanwhile Tye's brother hates all Italians and Tony's friends hate Chinese.If you've seen "West Side Story" you know how this ends--but a bit more tragically in this movie. Plotwise it's very obvious but it's beautifully done. Filmed with energy, beautifully atmospheric (the sets and lighting are incredible), and full of bursts of ultraviolence. Most of the roles are well acted, especially by James Russo, David Caruso (chewing the scenery) and Russell Wong. As the young lovers Panebianco and Chang are, unfortunately, not that good. In a way it's understandable--he was only 16 when this was made and it's the first role for both. They're both very attractive (Panebianco is pretty buff with a baby face; Chang is delicate and beautiful) but have little to do other than kiss and act like they love each other. That isn't believable either since they have zero sexual chemistry. Still, they are sympathetic characters. Also, in a nice touch, Panebianco shows more skin than Chang in their sex scene.This is really obscure and it doesn't deserve it. It had nearly no release in 1987 (there were no stars to sell it) and was never a big hit on cable or video. Also Chang never made another movie and Panebianco disappeared after making a few more films (Whatever happened to him? He showed a lot of promise.). That's too bad--this deserves a bigger audience. Worth watching on cable or renting.

Private U (es) wrote: all i can say is wtf. you cant even rate this in stars.

Michael H (au) wrote: Although he is not generally considered to be an auteur, Dan Curtis is a filmmaker whose work is instantly recognizable. Part of this comes from his love of the zoom lens, his often hurried, chaotic staging, and the sudden stings of dramatic music by his usual composer Robert Colbert. All of it creates an atmosphere that immediately brings to mind the film and television of the early 1970s.The soap operaDark Shadowswas Curtis' baby and it ran on ABC from 1966-1971 hitting the peak of its popularity with the release of this film in 1970. While the show had many long running storylines and even storylines in different eras, Curtis decided that the film version was going to tell the Barnabas vampire tale alone. Audiences were a bit shocked by how much harsher the film version of the show was, with a Barnabas that was much less sympathetic and violence that was, well, violent.With a tightly focused vampire story, Curtis produced a film which has the feel of a classic Hammer film. This is ironic as the real Hammer Films had been struggling with a way to bring their gothic style into the modern era as evidenced by their early 70s failuresDracula A.D. 1972andThe Satanic Rites of Dracula. Curtis realized that it wasn't achieved by including blue jeans, nightclubs and airplanes but by drawing the story back into an insular world that is essentially timeless. The film is aided immeasurably in this regard by its location photography in upstate New York and Connecticut. It's a film of old cemetaries, large monasteries and country houses.The biggest difference between the show and film is that the show often traded on a certain low rent charm. Cheap looking FX, wobbly sets, and actors who became lost in the dialogue. The film is well mounted and stylishly produced. In what must've seemed like a luxury, Jonathan Frid had time to learn ALL his lines.

Matthew H (mx) wrote: Witness For the Prosecution is a witty, intelligent, courtroom drama that is a perfect balance of humor, cleverness, misdirection, and great performances. Charles Laughton is at his best, and the script and dialogue exchanges sizzle with perfection.

Angel M (de) wrote: Crazy stupid plot but for some reason it worked for me. I found the movie entertaining and funny. I'm sure guys can relate to the fact that sometimes we are controlled by our dicks lol

Andy F (es) wrote: A terrific slasher that's obviously inspired by Friday the 13th and Halloween but is all of its own, predominantly due to its setting. This film is made and set in Canada so isn't churned out of the holiday machine. It captures the fun of 80s horror cinema without ever being too annoying.