Major League II

Major League II

Those Cleveland Indians are at it again! After losing in the ALCS the year before, the Indians are determined to make it into the World Series this time! First, though, they have to contend with Rachel Phelps again when she buys back the team. Also, has Rick "Wild Thing" Vaughn lost his edge? Are Jake's knees strong enough to make it as a catcher another year? These and other questions are answered as the Indians recapture the magic and win the championship "their way".

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:105 minutes
  • Release:1994
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:sequel,   baseball,   mirror,  

The Indians are now a World Series contender. But last year's hunger is now replaced with complacency, and bad decisions by the new owner threaten to tear the team apart. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Major League II torrent reviews

Matt G (ru) wrote: An explosive blast of family friendly fun. COULD NOT stop tapping my little foot!

Kinch K (de) wrote: Wow... I severely underrated this film when I first saw it. Beautiful.

Thomas C (br) wrote: Another movie that makes us shake our heads and give up hope for an eventual resurrection of Argento's long-gone moviemaking talent.

F B (es) wrote: Started off pretty good but got a bit stupid at the end which was to be expected with the nature of the film. Simple to watch for me and easy for me to follow.

ida25 c (ag) wrote: ..daisy..korean movie

Harlot B (ag) wrote: The less you know about Solondz's films before watching them, the better. I would even extend that beyond the entirely apt generalization that every moment confuses the viewer between heart breaking sobs and gut busting laughter.

Ash M (mx) wrote: I thought "The world is not enough" was bad. Wait till you see this one. I cannot even believe they made this film and call it a Bond movie. It's pathetic.

Samira G (kr) wrote: A beautiful love-story told through chilling rainstorms, rising steam, and harrowing self-sacrifice. Majidi uses the medium of cinema to tell you a love-poem. Rich and beautiful, even amidst the grit of its street fights, cement, and poverty.

Jeremy P (de) wrote: There's something about this film that makes it feel absolutely real. It's probably the use of non-professional actors. You know you have a great film when people can't decide whether it is pro-government or anti-government.

Jason P (fr) wrote: i love this movie!!!

Jennifer L (jp) wrote: An odd film about a cross-country horse race. Candace Berman is young. Fun scenery.

Kenneth L (de) wrote: This is a truly unique, odd little movie from the vaunted Orson Welles. It's somewhat difficult to review it, since it's basically impossible to compare it to anything (the closest comparison I can think of is to Banksy's Exit Through the Gift Shop, which was made much later). It's a sort of documentary/essay by Welles on the concepts of fakery and deception. Much of it is about a couple of cases of fakery (some of the most important and famous frauds of the 20th century, actually), but the movie also incorporates a good deal of Welles's personal musings on the idea, as well as some fakery of its own.The movie spends about its first two-thirds telling the story of two famous fakers, Elmyr de Hory and Clifford Irving. Elmyr de Hory was known as the greatest art forger of the 20th century; he could easily, almost effortlessly, reproduce the styles of many famous painters, and he could do it so well that museums routinely bought his works as if they were originals with no questions asked. He apparently even fooled one actual artist into believing that he himself had painted what was actually a fake. Clifford Irving, who wrote a biography of Elmry de Hory, was also a very famous fraud in his own right for producing the ostensible autobiography of famous movie producer Howard Hughes. (The story of Irving's fraud was adapted into the film The Hoax with Richard Gere, and Hughes's life was portrayed in Martin Scorsese's film The Aviator.) Welles tells the stories of both of these guys, and then (spoiler alert) does a little fraud of his own with a made-up story about Picasso and Oja Kodar (who was actually Welles's girlfriend).Welles's technique in telling these stories is so technically dazzling, so intricate and so constantly playful, that you're left wondering what precisely it is that you've seen, or if indeed you've really seen anything at all. He edits the film with the flair of a magician or a guy performing an incredibly confident shell game. Welles's famous ego is all over this movie. There are a lot of scenes of Welles himself talking directly to the camera, sometimes while sitting in the editing room, ostensibly putting together the movie as we're seeing it. It's quite an impressive cinematic performance. As long as you're willing to go along with what Welles is doing here, you'll probably enjoy it (or at least not forget it anytime soon).

Sebastian H (ca) wrote: not as good as Il Mercenario, but very very close. a great revolutionary spaghetti western. the actors are all magnificent

Phil H (de) wrote: Ello gov'na, what's this then, another bit of vintage tomfoolery courtesy of some classic horror legends? By Jove we'll ave some of that then...what! So this popped up on my radar out of absolutely nowhere, never heard of it before, a complete shock...a complete pleasant shock. Apparently this movie is a follow up of sorts to the classic Poe/Corman 1963 adaptation of 'The Raven', which also had the same trio of greats. That trio of course consisting of Karloff, Price and Lorre, only this time the epic Basil Rathbone joins the fray. Not to mention the fact that Rathbone, Lorre and Price all starred together in another horror comedy called 'Tales of Terror' the year before (milking it much?). Anyways, I say follow up, that's only in terms of the main lead cast, this isn't a sequel or continuation of the 63 Corman picture, merely a new project bringing the classic cast together again. Bloody good show! (no pun intended...wait, yes pun intended).Sooo Vincent Price plays the titular Mr Trumbull, a grumpy, miserable, Scrooge-esque type of rotter. He runs an undertakers business (what else) in New England circa the late 19th century. He has a close personal assistant by the name of Mr Gillie played by the ever kooky Lorre. Gillie is a more submissive, quiet man who tries to stand by his principles and do what is right, alas he is bullied and overpowered most of the time by his boss Mr Trumbull. The dastardly duo con people by dumping their dead loved ones into graves minus their coffin. They then reuse the same coffin over and over for other customers, saving the cost of buying new coffins. Unfortunately business is drying up and Trumbull owes his landlord (Mr Black played by Rathbone) a years worth of rent. So, in order to gain some income, Trumbull decides to start snuffing people out so he can then get the business of burying them. After what promises to be a good start, things start to go awry and the duo end up going after Mr Black. What follows are the humorous complications of Trumbull and Gillie trying to kill off Mr Black whilst not getting caught, trying to keep Trumbull's wife at bay, and hoping ancient Mr Hinchley (Karloff) doesn't dip his little fly in the ointment.So bottom line, is this funny? Errmm...not really, I mean its not terrible or anything, but its just not particularly funny. Was it funny back in the day? errmm...I don't think it was actually. I can't be sure but the film generally didn't do very well on release and a sequel was cancelled, so I must assume the general public didn't think much of it. Dare I say its quite possible that just maybe the general public might have been a tad bored of seeing these old horrors legends doing the same routine? I don't wanna be put up on charges of blasphemy of anything but the films I have already mentioned earlier aren't exactly vastly different in terms of tone. Essentially they could all be the same movie if you really wanted to believe that, or an anthology at least.I mean looking at the film, visually it does look cool and atmospheric for sure. Everything we see is generally sets and admittedly you can easily tell its all sets (nothing unusual), but it all looks quaint and charming in its dusty, olde worlde type way. The main location of Trumbull's rented house is clearly a set on a studio lot with a matte painted background, its obvious but cute. The interiors are also clearly sets and they tend to range in quality. Trumbull's house is easily the best looking with vast array of period pieces, props and a downstairs cellar which houses the coffins, all perfectly creepy and weathered of course. Other sets for other interiors looked OK in places with certain props but for some reason or another would get decidedly more ropy as the scene would progress. For instance, the sequences within a big old mansion (lovely exterior matte painting) were fine on the ground floor, but as the protagonists proceeded upstairs the sets and props became more and more fake looking, to the point where it didn't really look like the interior of a creepy old 19th century mansion at all. It just looked like an average shitty set with not very olde worlde looking props, atmosphere gone! To add to the problems, exterior shots are so very clearly in California it hurts, OK I can't be 100% sure its CA, but its definitely not New England that's for sure. Again this kinda takes you out of the movie, one shot spooky 19th century New England, next shot dusty present day (for the time) Californian countryside.Performance wise again its a bit of a mixed bag really. Lets be brutally honest here, although I love them both and enjoy their kooky talents, both Price and Lorre pretty much do their usual shtick here. Price again plays a total cad and bounder with his famous tash that seems to do half the work for him. Where as Lorre again looks a bit uncomfortable playing yet another whining sidekick that gets pushed around. Indeed his role was actually very physical and demanded a stunt man for many bits of fisticuffs. Alas this was pretty obvious as was the stunt man for Price who was clearly about 20 years younger! Lets not forget Karloff who...well he kinda does nothing really, he plays the old owner of the undertakers and merely dithers around half asleep or deaf. His role feels more like a small cameo just to fit him and make up the grand cast. The stand out performance must go to Rathbone who seriously gets carried away here, he's clearly having a hell of a time and is chewing up the scenery like there's no tomorrow. There are sequences where Rathbone is reciting long pieces of dialog (that I presume are actual pieces from Shakespeare or something...gulp! do I sound ignorant here?) whilst bounding around the sets, fencing, chasing, dying etc...I was genuinely surprised at the amount of energy Rathbone has in this because he's not exactly a young man here, kudos Sir.As I've already said earlier, the main problem here is one, its not really funny, its kinda falls flat. The pratfalls and general capering are dated (probably even then) and routine stuff, its nothing special at all. Watching Rathbone pretend to die in an overly exaggerated way is maybe amusing for the first time, but not for the umpteenth time. Watching Lorre's stuntman slide down a rooftop or roll down some stairs isn't really funny sorry. Karloff raises a few smiles as the bumbling old man and Price's devilish ways are enjoyable but nothing you probably haven't seen before if you're a fan. Although his devilish, fiendish ways are still top notch if repetitive. The other issue here is the plot, which in all essence could so easily have been a short for an anthology, but its clearly been padded out big time here. So really what we have here is a horror comedy starring three blokes, in the same year which there was also another horror comedy starring the same three blokes. The year before that there was another horror comedy starring the same three blokes! (Minus Karloff, enter Rathbone). The theme through all three movies being horror comedy with similar sorts of tales which people will have seen before. So really you can see why this didn't go down too well in its day. Its not a bad film by any stretch, but its not a wondrous piece of cinema either. Like with many of these old horror flicks, the joy comes from seeing the classic stars, at times the films can be fantastic of course, but at other times the films can be bottom of the barrel crapola...but with a star in it. This film comes somewhere in the middle for me, I think its better than the other two movies mentioned here, but only just.

Jakki J (de) wrote: Such an adorable and funny film, starring Bobby Darin and Sandra Dee. Such great chemistry and she's a real beauty. No wonder Bobby Darin fell for her in such a big way!

Flike S (kr) wrote: Static camera and minimal cuts. Today, this is virtually extinct, but here we see a picture that is driven on the people and their interactions. I really enjoy the openness of this ending. It makes us decide for ourselves rather then the picture making the decision for us. A huge precursor to many of Antonioni's future pictures, very well done.

James B (nl) wrote: When the opening sequence has the detonation of a nuclear bomb launching the title at the audience, you realize that the people behind the film were thinking. When, in the film's end, the characters run into a building and then proceed underground, only to look out a window at a mushroom cloud from above, you know that the thought process aforementioned did not go that far. So in the end, this movie was limited in my mind, but it still held enough to surprise me (I was not expecting the plot development of the giant animals as an army, and found it to be a saving factor in the narrative, no matter how absurd the concept).

Ryan K (it) wrote: I'm not entirely sure who we were supposed to root for -- that may not even matter. What matters is the great sadness that become madness... so vividly portrayed by Michael Douglas.

August C (ru) wrote: Never before have I witnessed such utter waste of talent.