You may also like
Manôushe torrent reviews
Charlie L (nl) wrote: An interesting insight into the history of the Klitschko brothers.
Hannah N (br) wrote: Amazing! Jen & Sylvia Soska are the future of the horror genre. Mark my words!
Shoaieb S (us) wrote: This is the best love story i watch so far. I can't control my tears. I become a fan of Emraan after watching that. Really heart touching.
JY S (ag) wrote: The translation of Tashan is style, and this film from Vijay Krishna Acharya definitely has its own style.The story is entertaining enough and so is the tashan of this movie. The opening credits is catchy and a good way to start the film. From here on out, the first half of this 2 hours and 28 minutes is really playful. There is a lot of upbeat music in the background and one of the characters even talks to the camera. 3 of the 4 musical numbers also appear in this half. The second half is where the story gets more meat, the action comes into play, and the upbeat tempo sort of dies down.Yes, I did say that this film is just under 2 hours and 30 minutes. Yes, I did say there are musical numbers. Now, the musical numbers themselves are more like music videos for each of the characters. It is not that the characters break into song. The film just switches to music video mode. The characters dance and sing in costumes and settings that have nothing to do with the film. They are unnecessary, however the tunes are catchy. So, minus the 4 music videos and a stupid introduction for the Bachchan character, the film is 2 hours.Kareena Kapoor is gorgeous, especially in her music video segment. Yummy. Akshay Kumar, Saif Ali Khan, and Anil Kapoor also provide entertaining performances.Tashan is entertaining in a unique way, but at the end of the day, it isn't something to run home for. It is worth the watch if time allows.
Aaron Q (kr) wrote: This pretty much met all of my expectiations. I didn't think it was going to be anything amazing, but it was exactly as weird as I had assumed. I still really liked it. The acting, for the most part, was mediocre at best, but I think that made the film even more charming. Plus, Adam Goldberg's and Fred Armisen's strong performances truly helped. The story is nothing to write home about, though there are some nice moments. The soundtrack is way better in context of the film. It really does look like a low-budget, 1950s (or earlier) sci-fi flick. Not even close to perfect, but there is still plenty to like.
Rasheed T (nl) wrote: Mad funny! Hard to resist! Jim had me on the floor crying because of how funny he was!
Argyris T (de) wrote: ?? ????? (???????????, ????????, ????????? ??????...) ?? ?? ??????????!
Cameron J (es) wrote: Man, with three of these sci-fi films, that near feature is getting a whole lot nearer, and it's still nearly 50 years away from 1993. It might not take Detroit that long to reach total dystopia (I joke, but Detroit already hit the bankruptcy they were predicting to happen in 2035 in 2013), because at the rate destruction is going on over there, the filmmakers could have just stood around Detroit and waited for a building to collapse before they started rolling, then they wouldn't have blown so much money that they didn't get back to go watch them demolish some buildings in Atlanta, Georgia, for the Winter Olympics. RoboCop needs to be less concerned with the financial crises of Detroit in this film, and more concerned about the financial crisis faced by this bomb of a film... and about how there's someone else in his RoboBody, or whatever you call it! Yeah, Peter Weller finally bailed out (Poor Robert John Burke still had his face remolded like Weller's, though), and Nancy Allen is still stuck, but for the only so long, because she got out of this train wreck as quickly as she could. I don't know, maybe the Rotten Tomatoes critics thought it would be cute to see if they could get the approval rating of "RoboCop 3" down to 3%. I mean, come one, this is our third outing with a cyborg police officer, so did the filmmakers really expect our patience with something like this to hold up for a third installment? ...Well, I didn't, but here I am, that one other jerk who actually likes the film (Leave some room in that sinking credibility ship for me, David Nusair), which isn't to say that I can't see where a lot of people are coming from. One can debate if this film is quite as overlong as the longer and convoluted "RoboCop 2", but because it doesn't try so hard to bloat its narrative, this fluffy affair kind of outstays its welcome at about 105 minutes, fattened up around the edges by a little too much filler, and even some excess in material. The material at least feels excessive once the storytelling finds itself spending too much time with each segment, to where a sense of progression is retarded by major plot points' taking too long to be touched upon, if not by focal unevenness. If nothing else is consistent about the storytelling, it's formula, because a lot of the laziness of this film is reflected in the taking of a once-unique premise and interpreting it in a hopelessly derivative, very '90s action plot, complete, of course, with cheese. The fluff of the film has been viciously condemned, but, honestly, I don't really find the cheesiness of the film quite as cloying as people say, and yet, it's impossible to deny that this film is just plain corny, with more than a few supporting performances which range from flat and borderline embarrassing, and make lame lowlights in dialogue and humor all the more aggravating. The story itself gets a little cheesy, not exactly being asinine, like many say, but nonetheless being either too fluffy or too overblown, to where most any form of dramatic value which was found in the predecessors is lost. The final product compensates with thorough entertainment value, at least in my apparently questionable opinion, but this isn't anything memorable, nor is it especially intriguing while it occupies your time, and bombards you with excess, clichs and cheese. I can't promise the readers that they will stand among the odd men out, but as one of the odd men out, I feel that there is plenty of entertainment value to embrace, with the help of technical proficiency. Now, we all know just how lazy these "threequels" in a late-'80s/early'90s action film can get, so I even expecting the effects to be questionable, unprepared for them to look about as clean as they ever had in this series, being, not quite as technically ambitious as, say, "RoboCop 2", but flashy and convincing enough to help sell this futuristic world, and, of course, compliment action. You always had action to fall back on the predecessors, and although you don't have the flashy gore to fall back on here, there are still plenty of dynamically staged, technically exceptional and entertaining brawls and shootouts which, at the very least, marks heights in entertainment value, even if they don't do as much as they could have for a sense of consequence. Everyone is talking about how they had the nerve to dial down the violence and disturbances for a PG-13 rating, and although I don't find that this film is losing too much of an edge, the action is bloodless, although it is nonetheless fun, and even more recurrent. With that said, the action is still far from consistent, and entertainment value cannot thrive on it the whole way, at least enough for you to get past how silly, overblown an formulaic this film's premise is, but, honestly, there's still plenty of color, maybe even intrigue to this story for Fred Dekker and Frank Miller to do justice with a script that is uneven and, at times, terribly cheesy and trite, but admittedly with more than a few funny moments to help memorable set pieces in keeping liveliness consistent. The film may be overdrawn, but it's never all that draggy, and if the story is as stupid as they say it is, I find a little difficulty in noticing, as structural pacing is kept up enough to establish color, or at least a potential for color to be explored by Dekker, as director. Dekker, as director, can make or break the engagement value of this film, and although his degree of inspiration is questionable, he never lets things slow down, keeping flashy enough with visuals and tight enough with his execution of the script to keep entertainment going through and through, and pretty high. With patience, one can find the film to be plenty of fun, and although it doesn't quite deliver on entertainment value quite like its predecessors, there is enough liveliness to make this a perfectly decent, if overblown fluff piece. Bottom line, the film a little too long and even a little uneven, getting about as overblown with a silly, thin premise story as it does with conventions and cheesy fluff, but where this film could have fallen flat as the tremendous misfire many still claim it to be, fine effective, fun action, colorful scripting highlights and lively direction manage to save "RoboCop 3" as an inconsequential, but fun capper to the cult classic saga. 2.5/5 - Fair
bill s (ca) wrote: The greatest fight sequence in the history of cinema.One of my top five favorite movies and just another wonderful notch in a long glorious movie belt for Kurosawa.
Leo L (ca) wrote: Now, here's a movie from childhood, and one that I can never get tired of watching. An intriguing Native American film. This is a story about one man's life journey in finding true love, having a family, and striving to live after that family is destroyed. Great cast- James Remar, Nick Ramus, and Trevor Howard. Worth seeing!
Mark D (us) wrote: Glorious in its simplicity; John Ford delivers this mediocre material to its fullest potential.