• Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:0 minutes
  • Release:1998
  • Language:
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:Patriot 1998 full movies, Patriot torrents movie

. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Patriot torrent reviews

Arnab C (it) wrote: Excellent movie on the horrible plight of the Kashmiri people torn between the army politics of India and Pakistan. Thought provoking and thrilling. Very good supporting cast.

Willard G (es) wrote: The film's plot is too incredulous.

Eliabeth C (it) wrote: pretty good, great cast

Henry M (kr) wrote: I really enjoyed this spin on the Apes franchise. Caesar's origin story was executed brilliantly in my opinion, and James Franco's acting didn't disappoint. I loved the plot, the CGI was great, the action scenes were seamless, and the conflict between man and ape was portrayed beautifully. This movie gave new life to The Planet Of The Apes and it's no wonder why.

Thomas B (ag) wrote: Peter Capaldi's Malcolm Tucker is just as fearsome on the big screen as he was on the small, and having a sparring partner like James Gandolfini gives him the opportunity to truly let loose. Full review later.

Dan D (jp) wrote: This could've been 15 minutes long and have the exact same effect. Yeah, this is definitely something that will not gain any strongly positive or negative opinions. Such a BLEH film.

Jerico T (nl) wrote: Quentin Tarantino films are all about sweet revenge but this one is the sweetest of them all.

Shashank T (ru) wrote: Can't go wrong with Geoffrey Rush. A beautiful "Shine" like story from down under with an interlaced narrative.

Mark L (au) wrote: I feel like it was rather daring of Woody Allen to cast Jason Biggs, who is of course best known for the American Pie movies, as the young Woody Allen in this film. And it nearly nearly comes off. I can almost believe in Biggs' character, but unfortunately I think the presence of Allen on screen with him spoils it, not because Allen isn't brilliant as usual, but it's a bit like seeing Leonard Nimoy in the new Star Trek films. It ruins the suspension of disbelief.

Carol H (au) wrote: Doesn't hold a candle to the original.

Esther M (mx) wrote: I just checked it out from the library and I love that movie.

Colin W (it) wrote: There is no other movie I am more nostalgic about.

Chris C (ag) wrote: This was going for goofy & funny, which I knew going in... I laughed only once in 47 minutes before giving up. Even Mr. T as The Bearded Lady... still wasn't funny.

Rhonda (gb) wrote: I love rainbow brite! Awesome show no matter how old i get

Alex r (mx) wrote: Pretty good sequel to Airport that is more of the same. The problem with these films is that they predictable, thus you know how it'll turn out. There's a slight variation in the plot with a twin engine plane slamming in the side of a Boeing 747 instead of a blizzard and a bomber, like in the first film. This sequel has a good cast, but like the first film, suffers from a so-so script that has limited potential. Airport 1975 is entertaining, but lacks effective build up, and the climax isn't that great. It's good fun from start to finish, but it's never anything special. The direction is unfocused at times, but it improves over the first one by being a bit more serious and not including tongue in cheek moments such as the stowaway in the first film, which was pretty annoying and made the film silly. If you're looking for a mindless disaster film, this is a good sequel, but it never is great. As a whole, this film is basically the same film as the first, except for a different plot, so don't expect anything new or really exciting. What's supposed to be thrilling is at times dull, but strangely this is still a good flick. I would view this one as a guilty pleasure. What's fun about this flick is that despite the fact it's a disaster film, it's one that you can't take too seriously, but that's what makes it good entertainment in the end. Nothing too special in terms of a sequel, this one still has enough entertainment value to make it worth seeing.

Marc L (jp) wrote: Soubresaut tardif des guerres de religion, l'affaire des Dmons de Loudun conduisit, en 1634, au procs de l'abb Urbain Grandier, matre de la cit dont l'indpendance et l'oeucumnisme se dressaient comme un obstacle face la politique absolutiste et centralisatrice du cardinal de Richelieu. Accus de viol et de commerce avec le dmon par une nonne contrefaite que son infirmit avait rendue folle, le prtre tolrant fut promptement expdi au bcher, tandis que les murailles de la ville taient dtruites. Le britannique Ken Russel, ralisateur dtraqu et provocateur, vit dans ce fait historique matire tourner un film qui ne l'tait pas moins ! A travers "Les diables", c'est moins la raison d'tat qui est dans la ligne de mire de Ken Russell que la religion organise, et la licence artistique toute neuve des annes 70 permet justement au ralisateur de se montrer licencieux ! Hormis Grandier, prsent comme un prtre la probit trs lastique mais dont la grandeur provient justement du fait qu'il reconnat et accepte sa condition de pcheur, personne n'chappe la vindicte du ralisateur, ni un Richelieu dont le dlabrement physique fait cho la pourriture morale, ni le roi de France, sadique inconsistant, ni les divers habitants de Loudun : nonnes capricieuses et menteuses, moines obtus et cruels, notables veules et conspirateurs, le film ne lsine ni sur la violence ni sur le sexe mme si dans les deux cas, les squences les plus explicites furent coupes au montage. A peu prs dpourvu d'ossature narrative solide, le film se laisse regarder comme il peut et alterne dans le chaos le plus total tractations politiques, humour vaseux, fantasmes surralistes et orgie lesbienne de nonnes se livrant des actes impies avec de Saintes Reliques. Il faut dire que Ken Russel, compltement alcoolis lors du tournage, tournait son film plus ou moins au jour le jour et au gr de ses humeurs du moment. Le film tmoigne galement d'un certain jusqu'au-boutisme dans l'exprimentation plastique, qui voit la cit mdivale de Loudun devenir un chef d'oeuvre architectural de polystyrne, le roi s'entraner au pistolet sur des protestants dguiss en merle et le grand inquisiteur arborer le look d'un John Lennon survolt. Contre toute attente, ces anachronismes ne choquent pas du tout tant ils s'accordent parfaitement avec le folie du film, qui ne brigue jamais le statut de reconstitution fidle et se contente de cracher son venin la face de la morale bourgeoise. On sort en tout cas de la sance fortement dstabilis, pas convaincu d'avoir tout assimil d'une oeuvre qui fait se succder sans crier gare des interrogations philosophiques sur la condition humaine et la sodomie d'une nonne par deux tortionnaires hilares...mais clairement marqu par ce film dfinitivement frappadingue, qui alterne gravit et gaudriole sans le moindre complexe, et transforme un fait historique devant supposment tre trait avec srieux en une hallucinante sarabande blasphmatoire.

Jennifer X (kr) wrote: Jane Fonda really intrigues me as an actress. She's so obnoxious and noisy and loud and annoying it's no wonder Robert Redford couldn't tolerate her towards the end. But he eventually returns, drunk and barefoot in the park, because there's something truly compelling about her ... I wouldn't call it charm, more like spunk. This is a surprisingly vulgar movie, what with the time period and genre, and really gives you a picture of what it was like to live in the 1960s, slightly exaggerated of course.

Jenna G (nl) wrote: The cast is so good, I love Jessica Lange in well, everything, and Elizabeth Olsen continues to impress... but In Secret really isn't all that good.

Orlok W (ru) wrote: Grungy-But-Very Funny Dracula Spoof--Sink your teeth into this!!

James A (br) wrote: As enjoyable a film as you will ever see.