Ivan Vasilievich: Back to the Future

Ivan Vasilievich: Back to the Future

Shurik Timofeev builds a working model of a time machine. By accident, Ivan Bunsha, an apartment complex manager, and George Miloslavsky, a petty burglar, are transferred to the 16th ...

Shurik Timofeev builds a working model of a time machine. By accident, Ivan Bunsha, an apartment complex manager, and George Miloslavsky, a petty burglar, are transferred to the 16th ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Ivan Vasilievich: Back to the Future torrent reviews

Shaun B (jp) wrote: It's understandable that is your lead actor doesn't have real acting chops, you surround him with great actors. Unfortunately that formula doesn't work here. Even DeNiro & Whitaker can't save this mess of a film.

Kevin R (us) wrote: A very unique movie that really kept me hooked. This movie had a unique style of editing and cinematography that I highly enjoyed. Some other things to point out are the great dialogue,sfx,editing, and soundtrack. Overall this is a film that delivers.

Juan A (us) wrote: I watched it on the 6th German Movies Festival of the Goethe Institut of Los Angeles. Extremely good!.

Dave J (es) wrote: Friday, December 2, 2011 (2007) Crazy Eights HORROR Another silly straight-to-rental horror flick centering on a specific group of people set up to be locked up into this institution, directed and planned perfectly conveniently by a figure that's been dead! The problem- it's already been done before, like the "Saw" films, "Law Abiding Citizen", "Dr. Phibes" etc... Stupid, convoluted with plot holes! Movie stars some once well known actors, such as Dina Meyer, Traci Lords(ex-porn actress) and Gabriella Anwar! 1 out of 4

Craig F (kr) wrote: Such a great bad movie, the cast nearly makes up the entire disregard for character development or reasonable progression. Cage is... well Cage, and Biel does what she can as arm candy.

Ivan N (fr) wrote: Does a documentary film losses it'svalidity after several years havepassed? Depends on the "ActualEvents" depicted on the film. For2002's Bowling for Columbine,time hasn't passed that much.The nation has a new Presidentand now we can be hopeful of thenew things to come.But back when the film was releasedthe United States were in turnmoil,the war was recently starting and thenation was beggining to see thecracks of the Bush administration.The media filled the citizens with fearand every major city was expectingterror attacks; no one felt safe.Who can feel safe in a nation that getsover 11,000 people dead by homicide?This is what this documentary is about.Bowling for Columbine tries to answer thequestion, Why are so many killed in theU.S.A. each year by hand guns? Why guncontrol laws aren't more strict? MichaelMoore asks the questions that were plantedon everyone's mind at the time. Why thegoverment wasn't doing anything for this"epidemic". They weren't doing anythingbecause it was in their best interest tokeep selling hand guns and hand gunammunition.Though the film never gets to answerthese questions, it gets you to ask more.The only question it gets me answeredit is that yes, while we're seeingrepercusions of Bush's 8 year hellishadministration and the nation has anew and more promising president adocumentary film (and particularly thisdocumentary) can still preserve it's validityafter years have passed.The documentary is truly entertaning,insightful and at times sad. That's whyit won an Academy Award and countlessother awards.

Craig W (nl) wrote: No idea why i saw this.

andy s (ru) wrote: Great to see this again last night. Was just as good as the first time. One of Clive Barkers best :)

Alexander W (ag) wrote: I'm surprised this tumultuous drama hasn't received more attention. I watched it when I was too young, not fully understanding the relationship between Szanto and Anderson. But i'd be wiling to watch it again.

Maria C (nl) wrote: this "may" be may favortie movie...it's hard to choose just one though

Mr Andrew Sly k (ru) wrote: who wants to live forever and younthness in heaven?

James M (ag) wrote: A complete embarrassment. One of the original songs is called "Drinkenstein". Says it all.

Chris C (fr) wrote: --even though Flixster is listing this as one of my favorite films, it is NOT!The classic 1975 film of the same name with Amitabh Bachchan is the one that should be listed among my favorites.

Zach M (es) wrote: I honestly thought that this would be an awful movie but it turned to be an alright watch.Yes it was mostly fluff, but it had some humour and some decent actors.

Matt D (au) wrote: Meant to be a delightful little comedy, the premise is actually creepy. Really creepy.

Nate O (it) wrote: How to respond? It is feather-light, profoundly silly, and is minorly infectious. This is the sort of movie where, before saving a famous singer from being sawed in half (I'm not making this up), Frankie and Annette MUST go sky-diving for some reason. You know what you are getting going in.