Two aspiring boxers lifelong friends get involved in a money-laundering scheme through a low-level organized crime group.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:95 minutes
  • Release:2001
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:waiter,   boxing,   hotel,  

Two aspiring boxers, lifelong friends, get involved in a money-laundering scheme through a low-level organized crime group. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Made torrent reviews

Susan B (es) wrote: 100% of the audience likes this movie on Rotten Tomatoes!WOW.

Leon B (us) wrote: Best movie of 2005. You will never get such a great cast like this again.

Frank D (ag) wrote: Silly rom-com. Phillip Seymour Hoffman was the best part of the movie.

holly r (jp) wrote: It could have been worse for a spider movie. l'm not a big fan of spider movies. It was like a newer version of the old b movies. It had a fee comical aspects but I wouldn't call it funny. It wasn't scary either. It had some gross moments with go o from the spiders. It did have a better beginning than ending. A man collected spiders and a boy come to visit his spider farm. He found some bugs contaminated by barrels being dumped into the water. The spiders got loose and grew to enormous sizes. They went into the mine shaft and then into the town, killing and taking people to their nest, cacooned. It had Matt Czuchry (Logan in Gilmore Girls)as Bret. It was not one of his best roles.

Pete S (es) wrote: Oh boy...I thought this would be bad. Definite "B" movie.

William M (ca) wrote: This doesn't make any sense as a movie. Read the book.

Tim S (es) wrote: What I find to be the most shameful thing about this movie is its lack of recognition, especially by today's standards. In today's film market, any film of the past can be revisited and brought to a wider and more responsive audience if it didn't do that well the first time around and, consequently, fell into obscurity. It's true that it didn't do well, but Knightriders deserves a much bigger following than it has. The biggest reason for its failing, like a lot of other George Romero projects, is that it isn't really much of a horror movie, and in this particular case, it's not a horror movie at all. It's Camelot meets Easy Rider, but without the drugs I guess. It's better than that, of course, but that's the most valid comparison I can come up with. For me it's just another classic Romero piece that it doesn't get the kind of praise or recognition that it richly deserves. Sure it's overly long and feels its length at times, but it's still a wonderful film with so many great character moments and a unique story. In other words, don't pass it up if you come across it.

Evan K (de) wrote: Hit and miss. Some boring stuff in there but capped with a great tracking shot scene at the end.

Anne F (us) wrote: The French Revolution of 1789-92 told from the point of view of "the people". The film was interesting because we saw it told by the French (rather than The Scarlet Pimpernel etc. which aren't showing the French in a good light) but it was a pity that the left-wing biases of the time showed through so strongly. Some of the acting is very good, and some of Renoir's filmography was excellent, and the time that the film was made makes it very poignant - the French people not surrendering..... 7.5/10

Phil M (gb) wrote: Didn't realise how good this film would actually be. Fantastic story, great acting, funny too, just loved it. Up there with the best comic book films I've seen, although nothing comes close to The Dark Knight for me

Blake P (fr) wrote: 1939 is a great year in movies! A full of life woman (Davis) is living her life wonderfully, but is stopped by some painful headaches. She stops by the hospital and sees a doctor (Brent). He tells her she will be fine, but he later informs her friend (Fitzgerald) that she is dying from a brain tumor and only has a few months to live. Bette Davis was fresh from her win from classic 1938's "Jezebel". It's a great movie, and is most of the time just a teeny bit overlooked than this movie. It shouldn't be. To me, this is a great example of a tearjerker. Since I'm not a crier, nothing came out for me, but certainly it's believable why so many people consider this to be so good. Davis' performance is very very good and should have won an Oscar for this one too (though it was pretty rare to get to Academy Awards two times in a row). Fitzgerald made this the same year she made William Wyler's "Wuthering Heights" which she was nominated for an Oscar for best supporing actress. Though her role might not be as vital or as great as the other one, she certainly does a standup job and proves why she was considered so good. Look out for Humphrey Bogart and Ronald Reagen in early roles by the way! "Dark Victory" is a classic, and certainly adds to 1939's list of best movies

Brandon S (es) wrote: The weakest of the franchise. This is where we're supposed to care---before we understand what this series is---and we just so deeply don't care.

Romeo H (fr) wrote: With a promising first half, Martyrs could've been a violent and chilling revenge flick with it's interesting duo, but instead turns into a distasteful torture-porn bloodfest with no substance driving it's second half.