Johnny Mnemonic

Johnny Mnemonic

A data courier, literally carrying a data package inside his head, must deliver it before he dies from the burden or is killed by the Yakuza. In a dystopian 2021, Johnny (Keanu Reeves) is a data trafficker who has an implant that allows him to securely store data too sensitive for regular computer networks. On one delivery run, he accepts a package that not only exceeds the implant's safety limits - and will kill him if the data is not removed in time - but also contains information far more important and valuable than he had ever imagined. On a race against time, he must avoid the assassins sent to kill him and remove the data before it, too, ends his life.

The film concentrates on a data courier whose mission is to carry an important data package inside his mind and must deliver it before he can be killed. What challenges will he face? . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Johnny Mnemonic torrent reviews

Arsala P (fr) wrote: The beginning was so amazing and relatable! It was all so magical, I thought it was gonna be an awesome movie UNTIL... until she actually stepped through that magical door. The 'magical world' was less magical and more...well, stupid. It was more like a candyland than anything. And the dance, oh the stupid, cringe-worthy dance! :D Lol. (It had the same kind of cringe-worthy dance moves as 'Princess and the Popstar' had.)Anyway, if we don't count the beginning(which was awesome), it was an 'ok' movie.

Alexander Z (mx) wrote: Fantastically absurd.

Jackie M (us) wrote: A tad over-acted but interesting nonetheless.

Jack C (ca) wrote: Tokushima is beautiful !

Countess N (fr) wrote: January 10th 2011 Below average vampire movie...nothing more nothing less.

Jeff B (jp) wrote: This was pretty good. The story was interesting. I liked Tim Allen as the "bad" guy.

Taylor M (de) wrote: Disjointed and unbearable!

Joseph C (kr) wrote: Danny DeVito and Anne Ramsey are amazing and very funny in this dark cleaver story film with some good humour.

Truman R (it) wrote: I was sure Beverley and Howard were going to duck...

Michelle G (ag) wrote: Pretty good movie. It was slow though. It had a good story also. It started getting interesting in the last 30 minutes. I hated that the dad died at the end, it looked like he was going to survive.

Nate T (fr) wrote: Not one of the better Rat Pack outings but mild fun at some points. Loose remake of Gunga Din.

Blake P (ca) wrote: Ah, the French New Wave. And poor "Jules et Jim"-- it's probably the best film of the period and Godard's "A bout de Souffle" gets all the credit for being the big one. I love the latter, but it doesn't have that total magic that "Jules et Jim" offers, and it doesn't feel the same the second time like this film does. Franois Truffaut is my personal favorite French director, and this is certainly one of his best films. Jules (Oskar Werner) and Jim (Henri Serre) are fast friends in 1912, traveling the streets together and having mini-adventures to pass the time. Their relationship is rocked quickly when the charismatic and outgoing Catherine (Jeanne Moreau) becomes a part of their lives, working as a sort of love object and temptress. Eventually, Jules is the one that gets the girl, but it isn't happy for long. The war separates the three friends for a period of time, and once they're reunited, Jules and Catherine are married, with a young daughter. Jim has shaved his cartoonish mustache, and sports a more mature outlook that suits him better. The two men have aged, and their friendship seems more trusting than ever, but Catherine, who inside is still the the inconsiderate, unstable woman, desperately wants Jim's affection once again. He knows it's completely the wrong decision-- after all, she cheated on her own husband multiple times-- so he doesn't take the opportunity. But Catherine isn't the kind to just "let things go". "Jules et Jim" moves along with the frenetic energy of a silent movie. Something is always happening, and the characters are either animated, and if not, capture the look of a '20s film star. Serre especially, has the awkward lankiness that fits perfectly to be a comedic actor, whereas Werner is his foil. The film isn't really funny, and neither are its characters, but there's something in the relationship that's somewhat exciting and reminiscent of a comedian with the best sidekick in then world. As the film gets darker, the friendship takes a downward turn that is undoubtably a little bit sad. The friendship at first seems solid and friendly, and quickly it turns into something much worse. In the second half of the film, one is left to wonder-- is Jim really that selfish of a friend, or is it Catherine that's turning him into a jerk? I'll pick the latter, but some won't think so. People trying to look too deep might misinterpret the dissolving as artificiality, but truly it shows how much simply "growing up" can change a person. Then Truffaut turns the tables once again and the plot is twisted right under our noses. In the meantime, the technical aspects, especially the voiceover, are highly important to the new wave. While it shouldn't work, the voiceover makes the period setting feel just as chic as '60s France itself, all the while maintaining to give "Jules et Jim" a light touch of experiment and total modernization. Voiceovers were mostly used in America in hard-boiled film noir, but Truffaut uses it as though he's trying to prove everyone wrong. It, if anything, makes the film even better. It's a huge component. The setting is set between 1912 and 1933, but Truffaut, unlike most directors, isn't as concerned about the costumes or the set pieces. He knows this is a character piece, and the focus goes on the trio. The filming style is certainly dreamy, and the editing is artistic beyond belief, but not once can we take our eyes off of Jules, Jim and Catherine. This is certainly one of the best casts in a film, even though there is so few. Truffaut's direction is masterful, and sets the standard of modern filmmaking completely. He throws away the conventions of directing that the '60s brought on and shapes it into a statue of a film that's incredibly appealing. It shines almost with the feeling of a "new car", even though it's 50 years old. "Jules et Jim" is almost exciting to watch because, while it's entertaining like a film should be, it's also artistically fascinating without being pretentious. Truffaut is a better version of Godard, one that can make a film pop all the while maintaining a fascinating story. The men who play Jules and Jim aren't the "actor" types like Alain Delon or Jean-Paul Belmondo (even though they're both important to the French New Wave), and are instead portrayed by Oskar Werner and Henri Serre, more average looking and relatable. They're portrayals are simple, likable and subtle, but the fact that they aren't so good-looking make femme fatale Jeanne Moreau all the more appealing. Moreau is certainly the most talented (and most memorable) of all the French New Wave. The other important actress of the era, Anna Karina, always managed to look cool and mysterious, but never did much otherwise. Moreau on the other hand constantly gave terrific performances and almost always stole the film from everyone else. She has a look that's totally distinct and unique, and a voice that rings with sweetness but can deliver bit. Moreau is the archetypal French actress; while she's beautiful, she has the elegance and range to pull off any role. "Jules et Jim" might be her most intriguing role. She is the focal point of the film, even if she isn't a titular character. There isn't a second where we don't believe she isn't a seductress, but there also isn't a minute we don't like her. She's to enigmatic for that. Catherine is a character unlike any other, and Moreau is probably the only one that could have pulled it off so well-- Catherine obviously has a few mental troubles, but Moreau doesn't once overdo it. "Jules et Jim" is obviously a film I could go on and on about. The point is-- see it. This is the definition of what an important film is, and there isn't one doubt in my mind about that statement.

Angela P (br) wrote: Not the best early Hepburn movie, but Kate was fantastic in it. The story isn't particularly great, but it has a lot of funny moments and Kate really did a good job with the material.

Matthew L (br) wrote: A great, great film ruined by a stupid, stupid ending. Revolutionary, important to the history of film, but I was so angry about the end I just can't look back on watching The Last Laugh with enjoyment.

Dustin I (au) wrote: Not Disney's best but there wasn't a moment I was bored. A slight story compared to some of their more epic films but still worth checking out especially for those enthusiasts out there!

Jesse O (it) wrote: Here's a comparison that no asked for that I'm gonna do anyway. I don't know, I don't usually care to read forums, it's just not what I like, but I'm assuming there's some people out there (because there's always at least ONE person) that feel that Kevin James is this generation's version of John Candy. I even shudder to compare the two and I feel dirty even mentioning the two in the same sentence. While I completely disagree with this assessment, I can sort of see why some might think that. Both typically play (or played in Candy's case) a fat, jovial man who was, typically, just trying to do the right thing. So far, so good. I can see that. Where I come to disagree is the fact that, quite frankly, Kevin James is a horrible comedic actor. There's just no way around it. He gives off the appearance of being likable, but it's clearly a farce. That's not the problem though, the problem comes in the fact of Candy's comedic style versus James' style. The latter relies almost entire on 'fatty fall down' slapstick comedy or, generally, just making fun of the fact that he's fat (watch Grown Ups 2 for this). He also does not have the best timing or delivery. Candy, on the other hand, while I'm not saying the fact that he wasn't fat wasn't used to, maybe, poke fun at him a little bit, he didn't rely entirely on that. Candy had great presence, timing and delivery. He knew what to say and when to say it. And that's the difference between the two and why, really, they should never be compared to one another. John Candy would be offended at this. The closest thing we have to John Candy in this generation is Melissa McCarthy, though McCarthy isn't afraid to do raunchier stuff where she's kind of a dick to people. Damn, I miss John Candy so much. Anyway, on to this flick. This is another one of those movies that I remember seeing bits and pieces of on TV, but I never actually saw in its entirety. Well, actually, I do believe I saw it when I was younger, like maybe when was from the ages of 8-13, but it's been so long by this point (I'm 29), that it's almost like I'm watching it for the first time. I'm honestly surprised that, before this movie, John Candy's transition to film hadn't exactly translated to box office success. So, realistically speaking, while he was part of some memorable films, his 'success' as a box office draw wasn't even that long, since the 90s up until his death weren't great for the guy. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. What did I think of the movie? Much like Big, a film I reviewed a couple of days ago, I enjoyed this movie. I think I actually enjoyed it more than Big. Problem with Big, as much as I did enjoy it, was that I felt it wasn't as consistent with its comedy and that held it back, a bit, to me. This movie, while certainly not perfect, is more consistent as it relates to comedy. The story set-up is fairly simple and straightforward, you've certainly seen a variation of this movie before and since. The basic gist of it is that Uncle Buck comes over to his brother's and sister-in-law's house to take of their children while they go back home as the sister-in-law's father has had a heart attack. Uncle Buck is irresponsible and has no job, so the sister-in-law is worried that having take care of the children could end up disastrously. Buck has no time winning over the youngest children of the house, Miles and Maizy, he has a harder time with Tia, the typical 80s angsty teen. Tia, for one reason or another, hates her mother. Tia's anger is as a result of the fact that they moved from Indianapolis to Chicago (at least I believe they do), but there's no real reason outside of that. I get it, teens are dicks sometimes (and I've been watching 13 Reasons Why too, so I've gotten my fill of asshole teens), but there's no depth to Tia. She's just a dick because she is. This is a John Hughes comedy, so I can't fault him for being one-dimensional about his characters, but Tia is really kind of a detestable character that you legitimately don't like. And I don't mean that in the 'this is fake and I'm suspending my disbelief' kind of way, I mean in the 'I just wish she would go away' kind of way. But, you know the reason the character is like that. It's done so Uncle Buck's kindness and wise words can turn Tia into a loving daughter once again. Again, this is something you've seen before and will see again, but I didn't mind it because this movie was quite good. I thought it was a funny movie, the most memorable scene being between Macaulay Culkin asking a lot of consecutive questions and Buck just answering them in quick succession. It sounds silly writing it out, but it is a funny scene. There's some a very sexually suggestive scene here with Buck and Chanice (his girlfriend) discussing Buck's nicknames for several of Chanice's private parts. The scene ends with Buck saying Felix is what we called your...and then it cuts away as we hear a cat yowling outside the house. I was certainly surprised by this joke. Don't get me wrong, it was a pretty fucking great joke in how clever it was, but I'm surprised that they got this through in a PG movie. By this time, PG-13 had already been put into place, so it's not like there wasn't a rating for them to go with. Nowadays you get an instant PG-13 rating if you look at someone with intent to kill. Your movie might not even have any cursing or any other "questionable" material by the MPAA, but they'll give you a PG-13 for a fart and an R-rating for one instance of someone using the word fuck. The fact that they got a subtle PUSSY joke (that only the adults and some teens) would get past the MPAA was pretty great. There was another instance of this, with the washing machine scene where Marcie, Buck's family's neighbor) comes in and thinks Buck is talking dirty to a woman as they're having sex. The pussy joke is more memorable though, but they do mention putting loads in, so there you go. A tip of the hat to who ever convinced the MPAA to give this a PG rating with those two jokes in. You, sir or madam, are the real MVP. But I digress, I really liked this movie. It's a lot of fun to watch. The casting is great, though the characterization of Tia left a lot to be desired in some parts, and the film is lighthearted and funny enough for me to give this 3.5 stars instead of 3. It's not perfect, but it's one of those movies that will, most likely, keep being good no matter how many times you watch it. Or if you watch it 1000 years from now. Like I said, that doesn't mean it's perfect, but it's got a timeless quality about it. I'd certainly recommend this if you haven't yet seen it.

andy s (nl) wrote: What happens when a Yuppie meet Mr Nasty/Cool as Ice lol. Great 80's thriller that I'm sure you'll enjoy