Operation Mad Ball

Operation Mad Ball

In this wacky military spoof, Lemmon plays a terminally bored Army private waging a war of wits as he tries to throw a party under the nose of his obnoxious commanding officer.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:105 minutes
  • Release:1957
  • Language:English,French
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:based on play,   band,   nurse,  

Private Hogan must raise his ability to scheme and plot to a new level to put on a madcap dance to celebrate the closing of an Army surgical hospital in post WWII France while evading the ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Operation Mad Ball torrent reviews

Ken B (nl) wrote: This movie was flat and just weak.

Kiara R (jp) wrote: This movie cool I want to see it over again.

Mohamed G (nl) wrote: I've watched this movie since a relatively short period of time and I think it's one of the best films that dealt with the issue of time travel change that has happened in the community to become a gold and silver are traded currency return to the past but in the future where no return of money value and how can future change because doing one such murder or child, but there is one thing mysterious in the film when he kills the hero himself in the past and then go into the future is supposed to occur the same events, but recognizes the woman and kill and decide while returning to the past to change it in order not to die, his girlfriend and cause the achievement of the future as if it is the reason why the future of the hero changed

Walter C (jp) wrote: A girl is raising her younger brother while she's having a pyschotic mental breakdown. This is one of those horror movies that I consider dark drama. The acting is bad, the script is bad and almost all of the violence in this movie is against young boys and women. It starts off with the main character getting on a bus to beat up a nun and urinate on her. Then she kidnaps the bullies that have been picking on her brother at school and makes one of them kill the other two. I'm not even going to tell you what she does to a couple she kidnaps at the end of the movie (it's sexually violent). It's an awful movie. Don't waste your time on it.

Jason C (jp) wrote: It certainly does troubled relationships and depression well enough. The bouts of retro levity are surely necessary in the face of such gallic pontificating but as a whole it comes across as more vague than nouvelle. It's difficult to get a long with, often infuriating but nevertheless interesting. French then.

Giancarlo G (ag) wrote: Che meraviglia, era da tempo che non vedevo un film cos.

David J (kr) wrote: Enjoyed the hell out of this film. I could watch Colm Meany read the ingredients of the back of a cereal box.

Brian W (au) wrote: Still a fave of mine, Denis Leary is priceless as the leave no witnesses gang leader. The rest of the cast are great as well especially Jeremy Piven, Peter Greene and Cuba Goding Jr.

Bill T (au) wrote: I remember going to the theatre to see this. The Starlight theatre on Denman! Why? Who knows. I think I was still stunned by The Adjuster that I wanted to see what Egoyan would put out next. I'm pretty sure I was underwhelmed by this. This is OK, about a couple breaking apart while he's shooting ancient churches in Armenia, and there's flash forward of his life in present day when he's trying to date. Has none of the flash typical Egoyan films have, which may or may not be a warning.

Greg D (mx) wrote: It's a fun ride, especially in the back half, but there are a variety of flaws sprinkled throughout

Steve S (fr) wrote: What a great movie! It's fun to watch and the acting is good. The story is pretty unbelievable at times but who cares. There is some over the top gore such as faces melting which is pretty entertaining. The movie hasn't aged perfectly but it's a classic.

Antonius B (ru) wrote: As Einstein said about Gandhi, a quote included at the end of this movie, "Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this ever, in flesh and blood, walked upon this earth." Critics of this film will say that's in part because of the mythologizing of Gandhi, which director Richard Attenborough contributes to by not showing us questionable aspects of Gandhi's personal life, or some of the opinions he held. Just one example of the latter was his very nave attitude towards Hitler, which I chalk up to the limits of his idealism more than anything else, not evil on his part - but that would have been 'fair ground' for a more accurate and balanced portrayal of the man. However, I have to say, those who focus on these omissions miss all that was absolutely accurate - and truly inspiring - in the film. This epic movie has beautiful shots of India and is beautiful in spirit. Who can possibly not be moved by this great man, whose simplicity and nonviolent approach to oppression and violence inspired Indians and the world? He endures beatings without raising a hand, and his moral rectitude and dignity never waver in dealing with the British, his countrymen, and his peers in the 'Home Rule' movement. He eschews pomp, embraces poverty, and demands authenticity. In testifying in his own defense while on trial, he says simply "Non-cooperation with evil is a duty, and that British rule of India is evil." In speaking with British officials, he says "In the end you will walk out, because 100,000 Englishmen simply cannot control 350 million Indians, if those Indians refuse to cooperate - and that's what we intend to achieve - peaceful, nonviolent, non-cooperation, until you yourselves see the wisdom of leaving." He tries desperately to hold Hindus and Muslims together in the aftermath, but is frail and then is of course assassinated.Perhaps the most difficult to watch or even fathom is the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in Amritsar, which Attenborough shows us right before the intermission. The brutality and cruelty of British Colonel Reginald Dyer is staggering, as was his callousness in the inquiries afterwards - and there is no exaggeration in the film. There are aspects that can be questioned about the film - why a white man was hired to play the part of Gandhi (even though Kingsley is fantastic), why Jinnah was portrayed in too negative a light (possibly due to the influence of the Indian government, who helped sponsor the film), and why Gandhi was overly idealized. It's not perfect, and neither was he. However, the truth is that the man was courageous, enlightened, and an awe-inspiring moral beacon to us all. His words were beautiful - and the film gets all of this right. For companion reading, try 'Mohandas Gandhi Essential Writings', which has a number of fantastic passages, and provides a more complete view of the man. In the meantime, I highly recommend this movie. Just one more quote, in his speech in front of a packed house, which threatens to become violent in the face of unfair new British Laws:"In this cause, I too am prepared to die; but my friends, there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill. Whatever they do to us, we will attack no one, kill no one, but we will not give our fingerprints, not one of us. They will imprison us, they will fine us, they will seize our possessions, but they cannot take away our self-respect if we will not give it to them. ... I am asking you to fight. To fight against their anger, not to provoke it. We will not strike a blow, but we will receive them, and through our pain, we will make them see their injustice, and it will hurt, as all fighting hurts. But we cannot lose. We cannot. They may torture my body, break my bones, even kill me - then, they will have my dead body - not my obedience."Hallelujah.

Cameron F (au) wrote: Young cop is recruited to police aliens in this sci-fi comedy adaptation. Although entertaining in brief moments, the plot seems pedestrian and the direction feels sloppy and at times, forced.

Jason S (ca) wrote: The civil rights film I've been waiting for. A film that has a real story and some interesting messages.

Steve F (it) wrote: Maybe the beer helped, but I think that's Tarantino's best in a long while