No Surrender

No Surrender

Michael Angelis stars in a comedy about double booking a Catholic and Protestant night in a Liverpool nightclub.

A scheduling mixup means two groups of old-timers have reserved the same bar for a party on the same night. The situation is trickier than expected since the bar is in Liverpool, and one ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


No Surrender torrent reviews

Eryk J (ag) wrote: It's ok, kinda funny! Throw some popcorn at the projector and you'll have fun!!!!

Trevor D (fr) wrote: Predictable but entertaining

Zack B (ca) wrote: The cinematography is orgasmic.

June B (fr) wrote: This is a fun little thriller. Think of it as a teenage Fatal Attraction.

Brandon W (br) wrote: Ehren Kruger is one of those Hollywood writers that keeps writing scripts that are not good and still gets paid and work for it. The films that he wrote that are actually good are Arlington Road and The Ring, that's it. He either writes films that are inspiring, just have laughable lines, or ruined the whole movie, b and en I'd it was a bit of a minor part. So with him replacing Kevin Williamson as the writer for Scream 3 and actually discarded many of the original writer's notes, it's a really bad idea. But with that said, Scream 3 is a good third sequel that is a flawed conclusion to the series, or would've been. So for Ehren Kruger's script, it's actually not one of his worst, but it's not one of his beats. It's just mediocre writing that doesn't have the right amount of meta and the tongue-in-cheek from Kevin Williamson, although I'll give it credit to him that he didn't made it obvious about who the villain is and kept us guessing like the other films. The cast are still great as usual and try to make the lines sound a bit more tolerable, although some of the new cast were a bit odd and are just there to die. Some of the deaths are a bit silly, and doing the Dewey and Gale chemistry for a third time is very tedious as you would already know what's going to happen between them two. There are some nice ideas like how you find out about who's next to die, and the chase scene in Sidney's house movie set, but there's some that don't work like Sidney's flashback of her mom which was really not needed and was feeling more like a "movie" than the previous films, and some of the other stuff that are minor. The twists in it are actually pretty effective and is the closest thing to be like Kevin Williamson's script. There are some funny moments, and some moments that weren't so or is just unintentionally funny. One of h E funniest and best parts of the film, is Randy's cameo as it has some funny lines, some interesting rules for a concluding trilogy, and felt more of a satisfying farewell to the character than Scream 2 which is the only time that Scream 3 got right that the previous sequel didn't. The jumpscares are all over the place and they were becoming mor annoying then they were laughably done in the first movie. It still has the thrills like the previous films, and it still felt like a Scream film which I'm glad that Ehren Kruger at least knows what a Scream film is about. Scream 3 is a satisfying movie that I wished that it could've been more satisfying, until the much improved Scream 4 comes in and fixed this.

Franci G (kr) wrote: I was fortunate to stumble upon this gem. I saw it on television actually. I was mesmerized by the animation, the characters and the story.

Jonny P (ru) wrote: "Croupier" is an atmospheric piece that captures the reality of casino life. While there is nothing mind-blowing about the plot, the film shines through the interior monologues that expose the dark emotions of its characters. Clive Owen's unique voice is perfect for these monologues. It isn't his best film, but I can see how he gained notoriety in the film world with this performance. The setting is different than most gambling movies. We aren't used to seeing casinos without the glam and lights of Vegas, but it focuses the attention on this character being sucked into the underworld of casinos. I was excited to see that this film had a heist in it but was disappointed that we didn't get to see any of the details; instead, the heist is just an event that happens without much pomp and circumstance. There is a minor twist at the end that is executed without much surprise, but that is not surprising since the focus of this film is not the plot. If I'm going to watch "Croupier" again," it will be for the atmosphere and not for the gambling.

Hugo G (ru) wrote: I was intrigued about this movie and it's premise, but also because it starred Julianne Moore and it was going to be released on the Criterion Collection. But I had to admit that it was a very odd and ambiguous movie that left me not with that many questions but perplexed as to what had happened on the movie. Because it was all so inexplicable and strange but at the same time very helpless to watch Moore's character without any type of identity nor with any sign of what was really going on with her. Furthermore, the movie itself was very slow paced and it therefore affected it, but just to follow her character and go through everything with her was a fine experience and a very unique one. Therefore, I feel like the movie could've been better if it wasn't too ambiguous without compromising any of its value but also if it had developed more Moore's character and what was going on inside her head to kind of understand her more and her life. But overall, I feel like I should watch the movie again just to try and understand it more but also to see if I missed anything else of the movie itself. However, it did have a very good performance from Julianne Moore and the movie was good too, but it was maybe too pretentious or not enough, and I'm just thinking it too much but still it was hard to understand and to get my head around it. ~September 20, 2014~

Stephanie F (gb) wrote: I thought this movie was very interesting, but a bit confusing at times, and it didn't help that the sound crew seemed to be asleep for certain parts of the movie! D:

Eric H (it) wrote: All in all, Thunderbolt And Lightfoot is definitely a movie that's worth a viewing or two. If you want to see Cimino direct a movie that was before Heaven's Gate, then watch Thunderbolt And Lightfoot, and if you haven't seen it already, then watch The Deer Hunter, as you will say that that movie is one of the greatest movies that you've ever seen. It's a shame that Cimino's reputation had to get smashed following Heaven's Gate, because before then, he was thought to be a director on the rise, following the successes of both this movie, and The Deer Hunter. But anyway, you'll end up liking this movie when you watch it, as it is a very interesting and original movie. Don't let Heaven's Gate affect your judgement on Thunderbolt And Lightfoot, as it was before Cimino directed the former. Anyway, this movie is a very good movie, don't miss it, you end up really enjoying it!

Brad S (au) wrote: This well known "cult classic" from Alejandro Jodorowsky was one of the first films to start the midnight screening phenomenon, it played for month in some theatres. that being said, it just wasn't for me. It's a very bizarre story, and though it does have some striking images, the lack of a coherent story confounded me. For fans of "cult classics" only.

TheMrs i (ru) wrote: I watched this movie again yesterday for about the 3rd time and I am usually not one for repeats but I loved this movie. It was like it was the first time!

Ryan K (nl) wrote: Although this remains a relatively unengaging effort, the emotional coldness of the film is obvious evidence of Breillat's (scriptwriter here) later work -- especially in Marceau's character. Not Depardieu's strongest hour, however. It has been claimed by editor Yann Dedet that Pialat's films often tend "more towards emotion than comprehension," but we're left with little of either at the end of this -- and probably less emotion.

Les E (ag) wrote: This could have been a powerful story but the performances were not powerful so let it down.

Mark H (au) wrote: To fully appreciate Caligari for what it is, is to imagine it is 1920, and it is probably one of the first times you have ever entered a theatre or seen a moving image... Caligari comes on the screen... the accomplishment in horror vs storytelling and that it is a silent film, with score/s added makes this film one of the earliest major achievements in cinema

Bals A (ru) wrote: A slow, quiet but intelligent spy flick, it is as far from the Bond-Bourne etc like spy movies as it can. No gunshots, no eye-catching action scenes but pure espionage. Fractions and interests against each other.

Armando P (ag) wrote: Couldn't find anything relevant

Raphael S (nl) wrote: Um poltegeist reformulado mas bem mais assustador. bem bacana ver algumas coisas que o diretor usa depois em seus outros filmes mais recentes.

Harry W (it) wrote: With Gia Coppola being a fresh face among the Coppola family, Palo Alto had to be seen in hope of witnessing a return to Coppola glory.The film captures the carefree lifestyle of American teenagers from the perspectives of those who try to seek people to talk their problems away and those who drink them away. The way that it focuses on the forgotten people and their alternative approach to life is not pretentious like The Fault in Our Stars (2014), it is more reminiscent of The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012). Yet one of the differences is the way that the film uses interwoven title text that is styled like the kind used in films of the 1970's. The 1970's were the glory days for the Coppola family due to the international success of names such as Francis Ford Coppola and Talia Shire, and the fact that Gia Coppola's film offers a return to that. As a result, Palo Alto subtly uses the lifestyle of the contemporary youth while appealing to viewers with a sense of nostalgia to an earlier era. The way that the film focuses on multiple characters in a world which doesn't understand them particularly serves as a reminder of Francis Ford Coppola's The Outsiders (1983), a personal favourite movie of mine. Gia Coppola also captures the feeling of damaged innocence in a lonely neighbourhood of Sofia Coppola's The Virgin Suicides (1999) while characterizing the female characters as if they were the Lisbon sisters. Gia Coppola also grasps the feeling of Francis Ford Coppola's Rumble Fish (1983), so even though she refused help from her family in completing the project it is all too clear that Coppola blood runs prominently in her veins.Many people criticize Palo Alto for having a story that drifts on. In all essence, this is true for better and for worse. The story doesn't really go anywhere as the film is an exercise in style and subtle storytelling elements so it is not always the most tenaciously entertaining film, but at the same time it is a film rich with its grasp on reality. There are many characters in Palo Alto who all have a variation of relevance to the story. Though not much happens in the story, this allows the film to be genuinely more focused on them than the story itself and characterizes them through a lot of subtleties. Gia Coppola is able to keep the film moving this way, and even if its movement is a slow one there is enough style to keep the viewer engaged consistently engaged in the narrative. The screenplay is one with a lot of natural language to it, giving the cast characters that they can naturally embrace on their own to form their own creations. But there is also a sense of mystique to the language, as if the characters maintain individual wisdom that the outside world has blocked out to the point that it seems like a distant concept. The realism in this is intriguing because part of individualism is maintaining knowledge or skills that others do not, and Palo Alto reminds us what extent that can go to. As a result, the film conveys a touching, if somewhat familiar message about the uniqueness of all human beingsVisually, Palo Alto puts maximum use into the stunning scenery by capturing it with a colour scheme which is so vibrant that it is almost trippy. The cinematography uses a lot of clever techniques to capture April's isolation. Sometimes the camera slowly pans in on her while others are talking, refusing to acknowledge them. Sometimes, there are multiple characters in perspective but everyone aside from April is blurred by the lack of focus. Sometimes, the camera focuses so closely on April that it's almost as if she is the only one who exists in the world. Even when the cinematography is not focused on April, it consistently uses a lot of extensive single shots which are edited between shorter, more atmospheric angles. What's beautiful about all this is the way that Autumn Durald is able to find imagery in everything and just what that imagery means. The same way that April's isolation is conveyed by the cinematography, many other characters are determined by their surroundings. Emily lives in the room of a little girl who never grew up and she still maintains a child's desire to have everyone like her through doing what she is deemed good at while Teddy is always surrounded by paintings, drawings and books as it comments on the artistic side of him. All this is buried into the undertones of the film as none of it is explicitly stated, and that's the real beauty of it all. Also, it all unfolds against the backdrop of a musical score which gently creeps its way in to the film. Silence is frequently used to add to the reality of the situation, but the light touch of instrumental pieces is subtle enough not to feel like forced dramatization but also working to genuinely add more feeling to the film. The music works so naturally that it doesn't seem as if anything has changed when it comes in. The only time it really stands out are the sequences in which the music is cranked up to drive the scene a lot more such as when Die Antwoord's "Enter the Ninja" is used in the party sequence. Not only does this work very well, but any film with Enter the Ninja on its soundtrack is one worth listening out for.What I really admire about Palo Alto is just how it feels because the atmosphere is remarkable. Everything is so dank and melancholic that things always feel sad to some extent. As a result, whenever dramatic plot points actually occur there is no sudden shift in mood or unexpected strike that the viewer takes. In actuality, it feels natural and therefore makes the film feel genuine as if it does capture reality. There is one scene in which April walks into her room and starts talking to herself as if she is rehearsing an argument, a very brief sequence that stands because of how real it is. This scene signifies how viewers can channel the humanity of the film, and that can be credited to a combination of Gia Coppola's tenacious direction and the work of a talented cast.Emma Roberts gives her greatest performance to date in Palo Alto. Recognized in Hollywood largely as the daughter of Academy Award winner Julia Roberts, Emma Roberts made me forget everything about her in Palo Alto as both her and the film strip away everything that is Hollywood. Viewers are left with a character by the name of April, a girl much like one that countless viewers have known in their life without having truly known who they are beneath what we choose to believe about them. You can tell through her facial expressions and the way the camera emphasizes them that there is a world of confusion beneath the character, and Emma Roberts captures that with natural articulation in her line delivery and physical energy. Emma Roberts really makes Palo Alto a strong front for her own performance talents, and her natural charms are undeniable.Emily is an interesting character. At first the viewer is presented with the idea that she is just another one of the flock, another character following on with popular social trends. But as the film goes on, the viewer is able to gain an understanding of the subtle implications regarding how she genuinely feels lonely and how the world has grown to see her as little more than a sex object. She has to use that status in hopes of getting close to people, and the sentiment is sad. It is a sublte theme, and the efforts of Zoe Levin convey this really well. Zoe Levin delivers the lines of the character with a gentle spirit to her, and you can tell everything she needs to say through the scenes where she says nothing and is silent. Through little details, Zoe Levin is able to convey Emily's emotional state very well be they through how her eyes move or the slight changes in voice tone. Zoe Levin's understated talents match the subtle nature of Palo Alto very easily.Jack Kilmer is also an interesting face to see. With the eyes of his father and the charms of Ezra Miller so he has an intrinsic handsome appeal to him. Teddy is the most ambitious character in the film, only at peace when in the presence of artistic creations yet burdened by the people around him and what they inflict on him. We gather the most about Teddy during the scenes where Jack Kilmer is engaged in reading or drawing, and you can just see his eyes light up which illuminates the underlying passion he has for creativity. And when he speaks, his tone of voice easily conveys a sense of just how confused he is by the weird world around him. Jack Kilmer captures Teddy inside and out, adding another promising talent to the cast.Since James Franco is a currently very popular actor in mainstream circles and maintains an Academy Award nomination for Best Actor, his role in a small budget arthouse piece like Palo Alto is very much against type. Since he wrote the collection of short stories that the film is based on it is clearly a very personal piece to him, and he dedicates himself to capturing Mr. B with the utmost tenacity. James Franco does his part to ensure that the spirit of his material is brought to life through his talents as an actor, and it is a refreshing reminder of his talents in simpler dramatic material.Nat Wolff also delivers a powerful supporting effort, transcending the subtle dramatic nature of the film with a restrained yet energetic over-the-top nature to convey someone who is truly lost in his search for existence.So though Palo Alto is slow and rather familiar, the beautiful subtlety in its themes and acting combined with a strong script and brilliant sense of style make it the best Coppola film in years.

Al H (ca) wrote: Better than any Milla Jovovich films.