Four female convicts break out of prison, and during their escape they take hostage a bus full of young female tennis players. They drive the bus to the house of the judge who originally sent them to prison, where--since this is after all a women-in-prison picture--the hostages undergo various forms of physical and sexual abuse in various degrees of nudity.

Four female convicts break out of prison, and during their escape they take hostage a bus full of young female tennis players. They drive the bus to the house of the judge who originally ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Jailbirds torrent reviews

Shayna A (gb) wrote: Good but not as good as the book.

Oliver K (us) wrote: We are probably somebody's dream. Scary and comforting at the same time.

Luke W (nl) wrote: Hateable characters, hateful plot, either way its still kind of funny.

Ross M (mx) wrote: In the year 2204, the human race is on the brink of extinction. A deadly bacteria is sweeping through the world. There are a few with immune systems strong enough to battle the super bacteria. John Foster (Dolph Lundgren) is one of those people. In an effort to stop the bacteria from attacking humankind again, John is ordered to go 200 years into the past and stop the bacteria from being discovered. In the middle of the flight, half the crew mutinies against John, causing the ship to crash in 2004. John escapes the ship with the only survivors being him and the mutineers. His ultimate destination is a research vessel where they've been studying meteorite chunks for proof that life began out in space. The bacteria breaks loose, and it's up to John Foster to stop the bacteria, along with the mutineers for the fate of humanity! Retrograde is a failure of a film on two levels. The first level is as a good film. Science Fiction can be a tricky genre to tackle when it comes to film, and when done beautifully, its effective, though provoking, and a bit mystical. Retrograde happens to posses non of these qualities. Instead, it manages to be a slow paced bore, with lame action sequences and a dull plot. Matters are only made worse by the ending. Final say: Avoid this film if you can, unlike Dolph, you won't be able to travel back in time to stop its pain.

Nathaniel B (gb) wrote: I remember that I liked this movie enough to watch it more than once. So I guess 3.5 stars would be a good estimate for this movie.

Paul F (mx) wrote: (This is an old review, but I'm going to start transcribing stuff from the website I was doing reviews for five years ago. It's just to keep them in one place. Consider this "Paul Classic" or something.) [b][color=#ffffff] Kid?s movies can generally get weird enough so that it?s not that hard to see how Matilda got made. I mean, [i]The Garbage Pail Kids Movie[/i] got made. [i]Kazaam[/i] got made. The Mexican [i]Santa Claus[/i] flick got made. So it?s not completely inconceivable that someone just walked into a producer?s office, said ?I want to make a G-rated movie with Elliott Gould and a boxing kangaroo,? and the producer, so high on coke that he was having visions of Gould right then and there, agreed to it.[/color][/b] [b][color=#ffffff] Hence, [i]Matilda[/i]. As far as I know, the first and only movie in which a mob boss hires an assassin to take out a kangaroo?s tail. Thank God.[/color][/b][b][color=#ffffff][/color][/b] [b][color=#ffffff] Now there are certain casting errors in movies that clearly make no sense and you wonder how the hell they got into the final cut of the picture without anyone getting up and saying, ?You know, guys, this is a really terrible idea.? Charleton Heston playing a Mexican in [i]Touch of Evil[/i]. Mickey Rooney?s ?Miss Go-wightwy!? screeching in [i]Breakfast at Tiffany?s[/i]. Keanu Reeves as a nuclear physicist in [i]Chain Reaction[/i]. Christopher Walken playing a human being.[/color][/b][b][color=#ffffff][/color][/b] [b][color=#ffffff] On top of all of these, more than John Wayne as Genghis Kahn or the illiterate Demi Moore as Hester Pym, is one little bit of casting in [i]Matilda[/i]. You see, Matilda is a kangaroo. And yet, Matilda is not played by a kangaroo. Matilda is played by a man in a kangaroo suit.[/color][/b][b][color=#ffffff][/color][/b] [b][color=#ffffff] Okay, so the casting of humans in animal suits isn?t really all that new or shocking. After all, most gorillas in movies were played by humans before they were replaced by computers. But [i]Matilda[/i]?s kangaroo suit is unusual in one respect. It is, clearly and simply, the most unconvincing, unbelievable animal suit ever made for a major motion picture.[/color][/b][b][color=#ffffff][/color][/b] [b][color=#ffffff] The plot is crap, of course. A washed-up Irish boxer (Clive Revill) with a pet kangaroo (some guy) meet up with talent agent Elliott Gould. Gould needs a hit, and gets the idea to turn Matilda into a boxing champ. Due to some Gouldian trickery, Matilda quickly makes his way up to being a champion, and the flick climaxes with a battle for the Heavyweight championship of the world. Meanwhile, bad guy mobster Uncle Nono (Harry Guardino) wants a piece of the action, and a sports columnist (Robert Mitchum, looking terribly embarrassed) investigates.[/color][/b][b][color=#ffffff][/color][/b] [b][color=#ffffff] It?s the usual barrage of dumb gags (?He?s herbivorous!? ?I don?t care where he comes from!? Ha. Ha. Hah.) and Gould trying to be cute, and it wouldn?t have been any good even if there was a real ?roo behind the punches. But the suit sinks it to Ed Wood levels of ineptitude. Just watching the boxing sequences, with the human combatants dully flying out of the way of the roo?s punches, the furry fighter?s dead, black eyes and forced, awkward hops around the ring getting cheered on by audiences? this is cinema at its? purest.[/color][/b][b][color=#ffffff][/color][/b] [b][color=#ffffff] It?s clear that the makers of this film knew how unconvincing the whole thing is, simply because no character brings attention to the fact that Matilda looks more like a guy in a brown rabbit suit than an Australian hopper. In normal animals-play-sports flicks, there?s at least some character that theorizes that it?s a guy in a costume. Not here. Everyone?s completely convinced. That is, except the audience.[/color][/b][b][color=#ffffff][/color][/b] [b][color=#ffffff] To be fair, the costume does allow for some movement, and the phony pouch-packer can blink and move its? ears. But the fur looks like it was stripped from a cheap rug, and the eyes... oh, those haunting, creepy, cold eyes. Words don?t do them justice.[/color][/b][b][color=#ffffff][/color][/b] [b][color=#ffffff] As a special bonus, you also get ?Hee-Haw??s Bob Clark as the state boxing commissioner. At the end of the film, Revill tells the audience what?s happened to all the characters and presents Gould (and his family) was a li?l baby kangaroo. It is played by a real kangaroo. So the film does, in fact, feature a real-life kanga. But it sure as hell isn?t Matilda.[/color][/b][b][color=#ffffff][/color][/b] [b][color=#ffffff] It's no wonder that this was one of the movies that killed American International Pictures, already nearing their casket in 1978, and only managing to churn out a couple more pics before becoming the similarly-doomed Orion.[/color][/b][b][color=#ffffff][/color][/b] [b][color=#ffffff] (If you need another reason to run screaming from [i]Matilda[/i], here it is: The theme song is by Pat and Debby Boone. You have been warned.)[/color][/b]

Patricia L (ag) wrote: This was actually a really good movie. It was all about what is moral and not and justice regarding the death sentence. It was also based on a true story of which I didn't know till the end. I also liked how the title of the movie is the most important line of the movie which determine his sentence.

Selome C (au) wrote: While this movie will contradict major social taboos, and make you squirm inside with discomfort, you simply cannot deny the fact that this is a well crafted film. The key is the excellent use of suggestion which rests on risky boundaries. Also, the use of camera angles (at the climactic scene in particular) was very well thought out and enhanced the characterization of Laurent and his mother. In fact this was crucial to maintainng the power of suggestion throughout the film. While I was shocked by the end of the film, I appreiciate the almost freudian take on Laurent's maturation (both socially and sexually). Though not a favorite, it was well done.

Amelia S (nl) wrote: i'm no movie critic nor am I american, but I love this movie because to me personally as I christian it highlighted some things I see happening in the Caribbean, we are rejecting the true meaning of Christmas and turning away from God. I hope more people watch this!

Matthew H (it) wrote: A lesser Hitchcock film, but a gem nonetheless, Marnie grew in likability over the years the same way "The Shawshank Redemption" did. The suspense Hitchcock is known for his still there, and Connery puts on a pretty good performance. Definitely not at the top of the best Alfie films like Rear Window and Psycho, but definitely not at the bottom either (Family Plot).

Joey G (it) wrote: It's good, but the movie itself dosen't have too much sense to it, but the movie is good at its graphics and characters and the storyboard is a exactly alike to Finding Nemo and Finding Dory.