King of the Gypsies

King of the Gypsies

Zharko, leader of the Romanis in NYC, passes his position of leadership on to his unwilling grandson, Dave, leading to infighting between Dave and his father.

The film deals with the criminal ways and violent lives of a group of modern-day Gypsies based in New York City, following the grandson (Eric Roberts) of a Gypsy king (Sterling Hayden) who inherits the New York clan ahead of his father (Judd Hirsch), who tries to kill him. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

King of the Gypsies torrent reviews

Myke S (ag) wrote: I've seen the film and liked it. I thought it was a pretty clever ploy to tackle the big five questions in most peoples minds. In Africa, when we talk about the "Big Five" we usually are referring to the five big mega herbivores: elephants, lions etc. It's refreshing to here somebody getting down to the nitty gritty issues instead of the frivolous ones watched by most couch potatoes. I give 8 out of 10 for Kawitzky's film.

Ashish G (ru) wrote: Creative but much to be Crafted by the directer

Dean D (es) wrote: Worst movie I have ever seen

Dan Z (es) wrote: Preferred the first part, but this is till excellent. Particularly, or better said still, Vincent Cassel.

Geoffrey D (fr) wrote: Pretty good. More like 3 and 1/4.

Danielle T (br) wrote: I caught this on Bravo! and I really liked it. It's a great Canadian Maritime film.

Gerry M (ca) wrote: Don't overthink it like most of these wannabe critics. Keep it in it's era - 1980's. It's just like every other 80's movie - fun to watch and nothing you want to or are expected to take too seriously or look for some hidden meanings. Just an entertaining movie - break from reality. Enjoy it.

Fiamma K (au) wrote: You've stepped into a time machine.... Dr. Who turned vegan after the first animal slaugher scene and what remains is life as civilisation knew it - in detail- 500 years ago in middle europe. Its gritty and insightful.. we're such soft hands really leading this 21st century existence. Belief in the profane was essential; hardcore optimism or no food on the table. Great reality check for contemporary whitegoods enthusiasts... there weren't ANY in Olmis's masterpiece.

Ana L (ru) wrote: Disappointing. And I'm not even going to talk about the ending.

Coni S (ca) wrote: Love it! Great story, great acting! Have watched it many times!

Adam S (jp) wrote: Hecht/Preminger Fox Noir, reteaming the director with his "Laura" stars, Dana Andrews and Gene Tierney, with Andrews as a sullen, violent detective with a bent on taking down a slippery gangster (Gary Merrill), that proves endlessly difficult.

Paul D (fr) wrote: If the main selling points for a film are its "underground rock soundtrack" and the fact that two people actually have sex on camera, then that's probably a bad sign for the film. But even so, I still couldn't believe how bad this movie was. It didn't seem like there was much writing involved as the two actors were clearly improvising most of their lines, but there was some horribly written narration as well. Here's one of those little gems: "Lisa didn't want to go to the gig that night, so I gave her ticket away. Five thousand people in a room and you can still feel alone." Everything about this is bad: the writing, the lighting (which I'm not even sure they even had), the direction, the acting (which shouldn't come as a surprise; if you're casting actors mainly based off of their willing to penetrate/be penetrated, then you'll probably wind up with porno-quality actors). It looks like it was filmed on a camera phone. I saw a boom mic twice but I'm sure it was in there more. I was shocked to see that there was actually a sound editor and sound mixers on this movie since you can literally hear the jump in audio tracks as the camera cuts from one shot to another. Scenes don't start or end and there is hardly any storyline to speak of. If I was really dumb then I could be convinced that all of the terrible aspects of this film are justified because of its artistic merit, but I just can't bring myself to view this as a piece of art in any way. Honestly, I've seen porno flicks with better production value. The story just jumps back and forth between a couple having sex in their apartment and going to lame concerts (all of which were clearly filmed on the same night at the same venue). Most of the footage of the couple at the concerts is out of focus, most of the scenes with them having sex aren't sexy. This film is just average looking people having dreadfully boring conversations and uninteresting sex. Thankfully it was only an hour long, but goddamn if I still wasn't continuously watching the clock to check how much time was left. This is the type of project that your annoying artist friend makes for a few bucks in a couple days and then has you watch it as you struggle for nice things to say once it's over. If that were the case, all I'd be able to come up with would be, "My favorite part was when she blew him." A less than glowing review. I'm shocked that I live in a world where I could actually watch this movie without knowing anyone who had anything to do with it. Don't watch this, it literally could not be worse. Even if you're interested in watching people have sex, just watch a porno instead.

Wade H (mx) wrote: Very overlooked and underrated. Smith and Fehr have great chemistry, while the effects are passable and the directing reflects the satire it's trying to represent. But, yes nothing original. Just a good time.

Jason D (br) wrote: Mosquito is the hilariously campy send up of old 50's killer bug flicks, now given a modern 90's twist as an alien spaceship crash lands on Earth in the swamps of a National Park, where mosquitos suck the blood from the alien and grow into large killing machines that go on a rampage in the park, killing just about everyone there (best death: a symbolically sexual death involving a mosquito penetrating a very naked woman's ass with its stinger of death), save for a band of survivors who fight the killer skeeters off in an RV, in a sewer system, and finally in a house sitting over the main nest. Mosquito serves as the directorial debut of Special Effects guy Gary Jones, whose gone on to do plenty of campy horror flicks, both good (Spiders, Crocodile 2: Death Swamp) and VERY bad (Jolly Roger, Planet Raptor). Highlighting the film is none other than the original Leatherface himself, Gunnar Hansen, as one of the survivors, who sports a killer mullet and pays homage to his cult classic Texas Chainsaw Massacre with a very fun tongue in cheek reference! The rest of the cast is notably fun in their roles, taking in all of the campy, yet surprisingly entertaining special effects, which range from mechanical to claymation! Overall, Mosquito isn't going to win any awards. It's a silly, low-budget nature run amok film with all of the components that would make this film more enjoyable with friends and booze rather than deep critical observation. If you don't take it too seriously, you'll probably enjoy the hell out of it like I did. Fun film!

Chris M (mx) wrote: It's not the worst movie I have ever seen in my life, but it's still a bad one and a waste of my time. The characters are lifeless and the writing makes George Lucas look like Guillermo del Toro.

Sin B (it) wrote: I acctully loved this movie any for the nay sayers information egyptian gods and pharohs were white people a white and asian mix at least in appearence as its beleived their from somewhere else than earth, but on to the movie Origionality not your regergitated hollywood norm and the youngster reminded me of atrail from the never ending story which was a blast from the past cgi was kill and the way the gods were portrayed was really damn close to accurate as i remember.