You may also like
Pirate TV torrent reviews
Jim S (au) wrote: This movie is not very good. It has its moments, especially in the first few minutes, but ultimately, it's a horror movie looking for a good scare...which it doesn't really have. It's only saving grace is Sarah Snook, who gives a fairly solid performance although it's not at the same level as her one in "Predestination", in which she was excellent. But, I think she's an actress to watch and may end getting some strong award buzz in the future.
Ui M (us) wrote: By Lollywood standards it'd be a perfect 5
Victoria (fr) wrote: He should of just given Alec the carrot. :0(
Emily A (es) wrote: A heartbreaking coming-of-age film that commits to exposing Mia's grimy surroundings in their entirety. The plot has an arc, but the main thing that changes as the film progresses is her level of awareness. Effective, but it is not for everyone.
Jamie I (fr) wrote: This movie begins with Naveen Andrews (Lost's Sayid) playing one fucking creepy scientist. And he's good. Very good. Bruce Willis spills on to the screen in more ways than one. And zombies! The most disgusting zombies ever! Zombie with boils. There were two scenes where I physically choked back vomit. That's how disgusting this film is. Rose McGowan is delicious as Cherry Darling (great name for a chick who ends up with an automatic weapon for a leg). Freddie Rodriguez is kick ass as Wray as his job throughout the film is to kick ass. Marley Shelton is awesome as married (to a man) lesbian Dr. Dakota Block. Josh Brolin is equally as fucked up as her jealous husband Dr. William Block. And takes that title to new levels as he repeatedly stabs her in the hands with an anesthetic needle. And trust me her friends do work fast. The Babysitter Twins cause more than a few laughs. Both Willis and Tarantino make you want to throw up a lot. But in the end this movie is fucking funny.
Walter M (ag) wrote: In 1992, Sasha Greenberg(Sam Robards), a cosmologist, returns to Moscow after living 17 years in exile with more than his share of baggage, along with Helen(Ally Sheedy), who depending on the day of the week he may still be married to, and Jill(Jicky Schnee) who is his current squeeze. He is in town to talk at a conference that will also be attended by Professor Henry Gross(F. Murray Abraham), his mentor. "Perestroika" is set at a fascinating junction of time and place, as the Soviet Union is transitioning into a supposedly democratic Russia, while bringing up important issues like anti-semitism in the Soviet Union along with the fate of the Refuseniks. And then promptly the movie falls flat on its face. Part of this is due to its shabby look despite being filmed on location. And the acting is nothing to speak of either with the exception of F. Murray Abraham. What makes this all especially disappointing is that it is directed by Slava Tsukerman who once upon a time directed the exuberantly funky "Liquid Sky."
Clifford L (mx) wrote: I always like those movies which build a powerful story silently. Anna is such a manipulator who is seductive and hazardous.
Brendan H (mx) wrote: This is his most boring film of all, worst film he has done,not enough in it of anything.
Goms B (de) wrote: haha. kiss the captive.
JC E (nl) wrote: So, if you?ve seen Judi Dench (Nine) in ?Notes on a Scandal?, you know that she has a knack for being able to come across as creepy ? and cougar-esque. Though she does set her sights on a much younger man ? Daniel Bruhl (Inglorious Basterds) ? it comes across as more for her longing to have what her sister ? Maggie Smith (Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince) ? had before her husband died. The film is decidedly British, but still somewhat heartwarming. The real joy of the film is in the beautiful music. Though Bruhl wasn?t actually the one bringing the music to the screen, he skillfully portrayed the beauty of violinist Joshua Bell?s (Music of the Heart) notes. Honestly, the film is a little dry, but when the music is being played, it?s quite enjoyable.
Andy W (it) wrote: A nostalgic, meloncholy story, lifted by a great cast. I believe it was adapted from a book, and it feels like a book most of the time i.e. it jumps back and forth through the ages at the drop of a hat. Didn't quite have the emotional impact that it was aiming for, and some of the characters felt a little redundant (Tom Courteney & David Hemmings, for example). Other than that, it was an interesting watch, rather than 'enjoyable' as it was too maudlin.
Giovanni M (ru) wrote: It gives you a nostalgic reminiscence for Gremlins but Small Soldiers is an uneven attempt at re-capturing the spirit of Gremlins.
Matthew S (ag) wrote: It's actually not so bad.
Claudia F (mx) wrote: It is an adorable movie! One of the best romantic comedy!
Matt C (jp) wrote: It's really weird re-visiting this film, I'd kind of forgotten what a big deal it was. From the plethora of merchandise to the cartoon which ran for years and years, in the 80's this was THE kids film. Except re-watching it,. it's not a kids film at all, it's basically a long SNL sketch, mainly dominated by Bill Murray. This must have all gone right over my 8 year old head. It's not quite as funny as you hope, Hudson is completely wasted (seriously what is the point in him?) but it's such good natured fun you can't help but still enjoy it. Still a catchy tune as well, I ain't afraid of no ghost!
Darryl S (fr) wrote: An extraordinarily sublime and hilarious and serious film! This is Hal Ashby at his absolute peak as a director! Everything about this film is perfectly pitched. I've seen this film well-more than two-dozen times and it never fails to move me. (And that scene with Shirley MacLaine on the bear-skin rug is gut-bustingly hilarious!) Peter Sellers, in my opinion, truly deserved to get that best actor Oscar.... (Such a shame....) One of my top-25 all-time favorites. :D
Akshay S (kr) wrote: Makes Clint Eastwood seem like a sissy..By far one of the best westerns ive seen..
Nick D (br) wrote: At the end I was a little disappointed. Not with the acting, but with the fact that no justice was served, and Ralph didn't get his money's worth. Why, I have been waiting to see that scrawny, skinny, obnoxious, cocky, bastard, Jack to get stabbed by Ralph and die a slow and painful death all movie. And in the end, it was just the sergeant's look of disapproval to the boys. I bet everyone else feels the same way I do. But, it is still worth seeing.????????????????????????????????????????????
Paul Z (nl) wrote: Max Ophuls' indulgence in mobile camera work is given its utmost fulfillment and flourish in his adaptation of three stories by popular 19th-century French writer Guy de Maupassant, considered one of the fathers of the modern short story. There is largely a rationalization for what may seem like intemperance: Ultimately, life is motion, so this continual progression is the intonation of a notion that doesn't exist in physical form. An enthusiast for immutable motion, Ophuls knew that, due to its pure texture, existence can never be entirely fulfilling, finished, or conclusively satisfied. His world is full of inextricable oppositions, a feature most overtly drawn out in the middle segment of this hilarious, melancholy amalgam. That is why, whether or not one interprets the end as a happy note, it commemorates life. One can trace, throughout the three tales, a clear-cut evolution in the women's statuses. The wife in the first story, embittered, deserted at home every night while her aging husband frolics in the nearby palais de danse in his escapist mask of youth, is completely involved in his compulsion, even content with him in her serfdom. The women of the middle episode are prostitutes in the town brothel, shown as a crucial community establishment, exercising a kind of control over men and, in the instance of Madame Rosa, beginning to spy promise free of the brothel. In the third story, the woman, acting out against the painter and lover who has retained her like a vendible, defies in the sole manner available to her. Admirable in their cleverness, rigor and craftsmanship as the surrounding segments are, it is the middle episode whose pleasure, assured by the movie's title, is most affectingly troubled by inferences, by a feeling of defeat surrounded by merriment, by underflows of dissolution. What is introductory is decidedly presented as a usual night. What follows is decidedly unusual: a night when the lights are out, the den is forsaken, and society falls apart. Within minutes, the businessmen, the town hotshots, their evening's escapade turned down, are fighting, fussing, nearly waging war. When eventually they dissolve, one straggler finds the solution, on a paper that has dropped from the door. The whole bunch has gone on a daylong trip to the country, to be at the first Communion of one of the madames' young niece. The central tale reverberates, in model, the triangular form of the film. A single transient twinkle of shared bedroom eyes is at the crux of Ophuls' arrangement of Maupassant's narrative trifecta. One might say that this lavish tragifarce is structured around it: The sole benign love match in the entire film, and indeed hopeless to attain, the categorical Ophuls love story, nipped in the bud by both an elderly wife and business priorities. Going outward from this axial bond, Ophuls gives us the two train journeys, to and from the country. Being is moving.
Tanner B (nl) wrote: Cast Away (2000) ??? 1/2 C-143m. D: Robert Zemeckis. Tom Hanks, Helen Hunt, Paul Sanchez. Arresting, tremendously entertaining movie about a FedEx executive who crash lands on a deserted island and must survive under the most intense conditions possible. Visceral, evocative, and completely absorbing, anchored by a captivating performance by Hanks, who is simply superb. Script by William Broyles Jr. Don't miss this one.