Rough Night in Jericho

Rough Night in Jericho

The only business in the Wild West town of Jericho that corrupt sheriff Alex Flood doesn't control behind the scenes is the stagecoach owned by tough-willed widow Molly Lang and her right-hand man, Hickman. Former marshal Dolan, recently hired by Lang and Hickman as a driver, wants to stay out of the mess, but when he sees Flood's henchman Yarbrough assault Lang, he steps up to fight the corruption.

A former deputy and a strong-willed widow determine to stop a ruthless town boss. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Rough Night in Jericho torrent reviews

Adriano A (de) wrote: Great movie for those who like Surf and wnat to know more about the origins of the surf culture.

Leonardo Malacay S (fr) wrote: absurda historia de terror francesa con algunas situaciones gore interesantes

Liam C (nl) wrote: One of the things that makes this quite unlike the rest is that our main character is actually given a real reason to go back into the line of duty as opposed to just being goaded back in because he's, 'one of the best'. This film gave our main character a real reason to care and actually want to go back and solve this case, the person behind it all was unique also because of his reasoning behind what he did and overall I really did appreciate the amount of creativity that was put into this film, regardless of what reviews say. There were a few things in the plot that happened that I felt to be really coincidental, like, the fact that the specific heart that McCaleb needed just so happened to be available when he needed it, or the fact that a criminal would wait around and watch from a car or on foot as investigators look at their crime, and while that is a clich of many cop-based stories, this film actually explains those and makes it fit into its plot in a realistic way. Even if McCaleb had caught up with that person at the start we wouldn't have a story. There were a few things that seemed a little odd, like, it did seem kind of odd for someone to just grab McCaleb at the ATM, would someone really do that? But they even make that fit into the plot. I thought they would say no to that worker being there but he was, however, I feel like that supposed suspect at the factory was odd, would an innocent person really attack McCaleb, force his way to see his badge, break a window and run off? Perhaps I missed something but it also felt like that character was pointless after they exited the film, in a way that really wouldn't make much sense for them to run away if they were innocent either. However, it is in their as a red herring and perhaps that character was blackmailed by the actual person behind it all.I thought the film was well told and very intriguing, the film had a very good introduction with good music and, like I have noticed in other films directed by Eastwood, starring him, they seem to circle back on themselves with how they start and end, with the opening and closing shots, also with the same music. I also noticed how the camera seemed to zoom in on McCaleb's face when he first appears, which seemed funny. The pace was fast and I was very interested in what happened, mostly because of the three stories being told at once and the attention to detail our characters get, the family that requested the help in particular are good, especially Raymond. The cast was well chosen and very good but I did notice how big actors were chosen for the smaller roles and given where the plot goes, it makes sense. I feel like they only cast Angelica Hudson because she was a big name in a relatively small role to make it seem less odd to the other big actor in a small role that eventually goes on to be the one behind it all. I also found that the film had its funny moments, mostly thanks to Paul Rodriguez, who reminded of me Vince Vaughn for some reason; I found the amount of attention given to the doughnuts to be oddly humours, while Arrango says they don't need them and yet eats them anyway. The film also has a couple of great one liners in there as well, of course here's one before the big bad is killed but one of which had McCaleb being called a cowboy, which caused a smile. Also, we see McCaleb ignore the drink his friend got and then later on that friend would drink a beer whilst babysitting? The only thing I didn't really like was the reveal of whodunit and the reason for that is because I knew the second that character came on screen that they did it. I don't sit around predicting films because what would be the point of that? However, sometimes things just click when you watch a film and this was one of those times; I don't know, there was just something about the way they were introduced that really spelled it out to me. However, I guess I shouldn't really hold that against the film just because it clicked for me like that, although, I have heard that it was very obvious anyway, so maybe that is a problem in general. I saw that character with an earring at one point and while not the one that the supposed suspect is supposed to have; it flickered in the sunlight at one point and seemingly drew attention to itself, although I'm sure that was a coincidence. Also, after that point, that character just becomes a crazy lunatic which doesn't make sense with the script, up until that point they had been hiding it perfectly and seemed like an ordinary person, so the moment they are revealed they just switch on the crazy? However, I've seen that done many times before and I guess when you don't have to hide it you would just be open about it, there is no reason not to. I also don't understand their way of thinking; they told McCaleb that two characters went home but soon after it is revealed that McCaleb knows what is going on so then the person behind it all reveals they actually kidnapped those two. So, what? If McCaleb did not know what was going on would he go and free those other two? And if he did they would just tell McCaleb what was going on anyway. Never turn your back on a man with a gun and later on when he turns around and shoots that flag quickly because of his reaction, while he probably has those reflexes because of his line of work, best not to waste bullets, especially in the situation he was in. It also seemed kind of weird to have the person behind it all show that number of his before it was really needed. When he mentions his name I did think it was 'noon' from how he said it, but of course it couldn't be, but at least he spells it out so McCaleb could get it right, even though he states he knows how to spell it. At one point McCaleb says something about how the smallest detail can make a case all the more easier to solve and while that line is said casually in dialogue, it really does set up that moment where they solve the issue of the code number. While I said earlier that the pace was good, after revealing whodunit, it does seem like some of the film was just stretched out to reach a passable running time because it is hard to believe someone of his stature couldn't figure everything out. True, he had been out of the game for a long time but when a child points out the mystery behind the code, you do start to wonder; however, it is a very small detail that most adults would over look because of the fact that they would be looking really deeply into it to find some a huge hidden meaning. Although, some could call that an excuse and I thought it was a phone number the very first time we see it.There also some other odd parts, despite the character's history, if someone saw him out in the open with a shotgun, surely he would be arrested right there and then? It isn't like he had a badge. He should have hidden that gun and walked up on that car before doing anything, he'd have more of a chance of capturing that person, then. Also, right after this scene they go and do something else entirely; wouldn't you put out an APB for a seriously damaged car? There was also a point where we see McCaleb writing numbers down in a notepad and I thought that was because the time on the video skipped, but it is brought back in, in a smart way. I also thought, from one piece of dialogue that the people in the footage getting shot in the shop were having an affair of some kind, but that goes on to be explained very well. There was an odd bit where McCaleb pushes someone on the street because of who he thinks it is by his shoes and the proceeds to shoot a gun, it made sense for the plot but like I said with the shotgun thing before, despite what he is doing, surely he would have some repercussions for that. I also couldn't understand a few lines because the audio was strange, it focused on the dialogue in the background so we could pay attention to it but in turn making the dialogue we should have heard, too quiet. There was also a rather odd romantic scene, while thankfully not on screen very long just because long sex scenes are boring in general, it was odd to see that character kiss McCaleb's scar... Despite what I have said, I did enjoy this film quite a bit; it was smart, different, and interesting. Clint Eastwood does typically great work in front of and behind the camera and it is just a very watchable film. I have heard that the book was different though, which is strange when I have also read that the person behind it all was much different and even though I have heard the book does have some very 'out there' moments, it seems odd that they changed it. And when I read, before the film, that the main character's heart had something to do with catching a serial killer, I thought that this film would deal with the supernatural in one way. However, it is funny to read that they make reference to this film in future books. This film is also another example of how reviews can be different depending on where you go, at the moment it has 64/100 on metacritic and a 6.7 for audience as well as a 6.4 on imdb and it has 53% here and 40% for audience, even if sometimes that can be a terrible indication because 'Miami Vice', for example, was well received on metacritic and I really did not like that. I'd say I agree with metacritic and IMDb because I did enjoy this film quite a bit and I seemed to have gone against what I usually do and not write a lot for an Eastwood film that he stars in, but it was going to happen at some point. Blood Work', which is a great title as well, was a very enjoyable film.

Alex L (nl) wrote: ...not the original. Good bye.

Carolina P (us) wrote: I can't recommend this film enough...Outstanding score, one of the best I have ever heard extremely heartfelt film about the great passions in the life of a man, a violinist, during World War II. Music and love(also intended as friendship and family) are the main themes essentially intertwined throughout the film. Playing the violin is indeed "making love" as the violin is a clear metaphor for a woman's body. He falls in love with a pianist and her music, a passion beyond barriers of time and space. A film for dreamers.

Carol H (gb) wrote: I used to like this movie, but that was because I had only seen the TV version. When I saw the real version, I lost all interest.

Edith N (fr) wrote: Hey, Pregnant Women Shouldn't Get Tattoos! It seems the actors I drooled over in my adolescence were, for the most part, not self-destructive in the long run. (Though I bet I know at least one person who can be smug at me about it, given that she always preferred Emilio to Charlie!) However, it also seems they haven't had careers that held after they moved out of their teen-idol days. Now, of course, Johnny Depp sidestepped the issue neatly by being a forty-nine-year-old teen idol, and anyway I didn't get much into him until I was in college and discovered that he can act. It's not that Christian Slater has had a terrible career, and certainly he still has one. In fact, he did about a dozen different things last year. The issue is more that they were mostly obscure, and they were not reliably of good quality. He didn't settle into a dignified middle age as a leading man or character actor of repute, is I guess what I'm saying, and that would have shocked me when this movie came out. In it, he plays George Kuffs, a bit of a gadabout. His young girlfriend, Maya Carlton (Milla Jovovich, then not even out of high school but playing a college student), has just informed him that she's two months pregnant; they've been together for six months. He decides to borrow money from his older brother, Brad (Bruce Boxleitner), and take off to Brazil. Brad offers him a job instead--and then is promptly killed. Brad owned a "patrol special," essentially an independent police force in the City of San Francisco. He has left it to George. George must go through the academy, and then he tries to use the business to bring the killers of his brother to justice. It's the first time George has ever had to be a grown-up, and he starts to realize that maybe he was wrong to run out on Maya and their baby. But first, he has to make the charges against his brother's killers stick, or he won't live to parent anyone. Patrol specials really do exist in San Francisco. They're one of those weird leftovers of frontier justice that you find scattered throughout the West. The first constables were sworn in in 1847, even before the Gold Rush, and once gold was found, it was just easier to increase their numbers than to hire actual city police, I suppose. Owners are probably better paid than the average San Francisco cop, certainly. It is also worth noting that George is far from being a vigilante. Because he is working essentially as an agent of the San Francisco police, he is required to follow all the same rules as they are. He has to obey the same Fourth Amendment procedures as the city cops, and doubtless there is going to be some kind of official investigation into all those bodies left lying around at the end of the picture. Yes, his apartment is full of bullet holes--and pity the neighbours--so he'll probably be fine. Still, he's operating within the law, not outside it. Actually, George comes across at times as a guy who's just seen too many movies. Now, one of the movies I thought of while watching this was [i]Tombstone[/i], specifically the line, "No witness, no murder." (Surely you start building your case with a witness, you don't end with it!) However, this is yet another film where a character is essentially a vigilante with a badge. Yes, the villains are operating in his district; that's why they killed his brother in the first place. He was trying to enforce the law there. However, George blithely ignores the orders of Police Captain Morino (Troy Evans), who tells him not to go after the killers. He even drugs poor Ted Bukovsky (Tony Goldwyn), the officer assigned to make sure he follows the rules. Yes, he feels guilty about it, but that's because he's by then discovered that Ted is a pretty decent guy. It's not because that's, you know, illegal and dangerous. George has seen one too many movie about a loose cannon cop, and he thinks that's what they're actually like. Yes, of course it all works out all right in the end. This movie is a comedy, not a drama. However, this is the kind of movie where, if you know anything about Constitutional law, you start wondering which guys are going to get off. Probably, given how things happen, none of them, not that many of them survive the picture. For the sake of the people in that neighbourhood, though, I hope George never does anything like this again. The plot, as so many movies set in cities with high real estate values do, revolves around someone involved in a land grab. However, if the kind of pitched gun battle that occurs twice in the movie happens anywhere near as often afterward, the land values in that area will end up being the lowest in all of San Francisco. Though of course, that's still a lot higher than in a lot of places outside the city. I guess they hoped that Christian Slater talking companionably to the audience would keep us from thinking about that. If I were the same person I was in 1992, it probably would have worked on me, too.

James M (us) wrote: Good performances but a boring film.

Robert C (us) wrote: This movie's assault on decency is breathtakingly relentless.

Clay B (ca) wrote: FASTER, PUSSYCAT! KILL! KILL! (1966)

Maria V (au) wrote: This is a strange movie. It feels like something may have been lost in editing. There is no clear motivation behind Dietrich's character's actions.

becca t (de) wrote: Amazing film and beautifully directed to show an insight to the real history.

Sean G (kr) wrote: I haven't even seen the original "White Lighting" and I don't think I'll bother now. There were no redeeming qualities in this film. A few great boat jumping stunts, using visible stunt doubles, was not enough.

Berni E (gb) wrote: No idea who recommended this to us, but it didn't really do it for me.