Clay Lomax, a bank robber, gets out of jail after an 7 year sentence. He is looking after Sam Foley, the man who betrayed him. Knowing that, Foley hires three men to pay attention of Clay's steps. The things get complicated when Lomax, waiting to receive some money from his ex-lover, gets only the notice of her death and an 7 year old girl, sometimes very annoying, presumed to be his daughter.
- Stars:Gregory Peck, Patricia Quinn, Robert F. Lyons, Susan Tyrrell, Jeff Corey, James Gregory, Rita Gam, Dawn Lyn, Pepe Serna, John Davis Chandler, Paul Fix, Arthur Hunnicutt, Nicolas Beauvy,
- Director:Henry Hathaway,
- Writer:Will James (novel), Marguerite Roberts (screenplay)
A former bank robber searches for his double crossing partner who left him for dead, while having to look after a 6 year old girl. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Shoot Out torrent reviews
(us) wrote: Fable un peu trop niaiseuse pour tre cr (C)dible servie par un casting o la concurrence au niveau de la m (C)diocrit (C) fait des ravages.
(de) wrote: Having never before watched a Bollywood movie, I rented this one because the title song featured in an International Day performance at uni, and I was curious why some people reacted as if it was a legendary thing.Singh is Kinng is the story of a clumsy but good natured guy in a small village. Because he is so clumsy that, every time he tries to save the day, he does more damage than good, the village conspire to get rid of him. Fortunately for them, two brothers who emigrated to Australia, Lucky and Mika, are gangsters (kings). The gangsters end up in the newspaper for some misdeed, upsetting the parents and family of the two emigres. Happy vows to save the day by bringing the gangsters home and reforming them.A brief diversion to Egypt, a romantic interest, and lots of corny but cheap music video moments later, and Happy ends up as king, with Lucky in a sort of coma. Then the main plot starts.This movie felt like it was 3 hours long. A lot of plot. A lot of attempts at humour, but the comic timing is not there, and the film feels like its slapstick is too slow, but its plot too fast. Music videos interrupt the story, and the characters are never really interesting. A lot of hamfisted acting...Well, it isn't really up to the standards of movies I enjoy, on every single level. It is a shallow movie, and a pretty boring one. Mostly, I ended up convinced that Bollywood is not the right genre for me - if even one of the most expensive and successful Bollywood movies is this disappointing, I am not sure I want to see any others.The one thing that did surprise me is how white the cast was. I had not expected the film to look like a made-for-TV Brit-flick, with a cast whose skin tones range from pale English to slightly Mediterranean. I am sure that India is an ethnically diverse nation, where not everyone has darker skin, but the cast in this movie made me worried that Western beauty ideals are somehow undermining local culture everywhere else. (A recent news story mentioning how many women in Africa use skin bleaching products perhaps sensitised me to this issue). I'm all for economic (and even linguistic) globalisation - but not for the globalisation of beauty / skin colour / race ideals!
(ru) wrote: A straight to DVD sequel, now that's never a good sign. This sequel tries to hard to refrence the original and in the end almost insults it.Having said that, on it's own, for this kinda B-movie it's watchable with a few fun moments and nice gore.
(it) wrote: Although this was about a Hungarian water-polo team, I was disappointed to find that it had few laughs and not so much as a cameo from Will Ferrell. Still, better than Balls of Fury, probably.
(ag) wrote: I really don't like Chris Tucker - I find him way over the top obnoxious and not in a good way.
(au) wrote: All the 3 stars are for Angelina.
(es) wrote: Possibly the strangest viewing experience I've ever had in the best way. Peter Jackson makes so many bizarre and wonderful choices that it's difficult to count.Shut your brain off, have a seat (without snacks or drinks), and enjoy this gruesome, over-the-top, tongue-in-cheek cult masterpiece.
(br) wrote: After watching this Steven Seagal action flick from back in his heyday, I realized I'd never actually seen this one. It's nothing spectacular but it's an effective vehicle for Seagal and competently made, which you really can't say for most of his direct-to-video action flicks. Directed by Dwight H. Little, who would follow-up this film with Brandon Lee's breakout film, "Rapid Fire," which during my video store clerk days I would frequently make the case for as the best American approximation of a Hong Kong action film, though that argument ended once John Woo came to the states and became the first Asian director to direct a major studio action film. But back to this film in particular, this time Seagal is pitted against voodoo worshiping drug dealers who challenged him with the magic, machetes, martial arts and lots and lots of guns. It's pretty much everything you can hope for in a Seagal action flick and it does deliver if that's your sort of thing. Joanna Pacula appears as one of his better female co-stars.
(ru) wrote: I enjoyed the concept of a comet wiping out the whole LA (and I think America or world?), and two teeny bopper females being the few to survive out of very few. I'm not sure what they did, but considering how lower budget it is, they really make LA look like an abandoned wasteland, so props on the art direction here. The action delivers too, but I'm not sure if this movie's clever or downright stupid at some points? The girls are clever but so damn dim-witted to the point where it's a little annoying. Still, it's a little cheesy but there's a little fun to be had. As far as post-apocalyptic movies go though, it's barely original. but it's got enough "camp" I suppose?
(ru) wrote: Cary Grant is delightful and has such a natural flair for comedy. It's his performance that makes the film work. It's a very funny premise and the writers do not disappoint. Very entertaining, Ann Sheridan is great. Light and fun. Great fast paced direction from Howard Hawks.
(it) wrote: The image one remembers most from 1948's "Easter Parade" is not of a refined dance sequence but of a comedic musical piece reminiscent of a vaudeville number. The stars of the image are Fred Astaire and Judy Garland, who are dressed up as dirty street urchins. Their faces humorously soiled and their smiles characterized by faux rottenness, they pander around the stage singing Irving Berlin's "A Couple of Swells," which is about as self-deprecating as one might expect in a showpiece that calls for the Hollywood Golden Age's most respectable talents to look ridiculous for a couple of minutes. So it's odd that it works as one of the most iconic performances in the careers of Astaire and Garland. It doesn't show off Astaire's frenetic feet and it doesn't hurl Garland's velvety vocal talents at us either, rather tapping into their remarkable abilities to make any scene appear to be the most important of their profession. And I think that's why they've never been considered to be anything other than esteemed: to go on autopilot was never an option for them. They easily could have in "Easter Parade." Astaire considered himself to be retired before being coerced into starring (he replaced an injured Gene Kelly); Garland had only recently been released from a psychiatric hospital after multiple mental health issues. So it's nothing short of a miracle that the film is the bubbly Technicolor musical that it is - as we enjoy ourselves tremendously, never does it cross our minds that our leading man was perhaps slightly tired of dancing for a living, that our leading lady had bigger fish to fry (psychologically, I mean) than singing her heart out for adoring audiences. "Easter Parade" is a commanding achievement in the powers of star quality and the powers of a great soundtrack; it's a satisfying, frothy delight that plays into the enviable capabilities of its headliners. It's never much more than a collection of what MGM does best - anything not revolving around singing or dancing is overwhelmingly lightweight - but what MGM does best is still unfathomably good. And it's a treat to see Astaire and Garland, in their only partnership, do the representing. In "Easter Parade," Astaire portrays Don Hewes, a Broadway star whose career is at a standstill due to his dancing partner's (Ann Miller) decision to leave him in pursuit of a solo offer. Uninterested in doing anything else with his life, Don almost immediately searches for someone to take her place - anyone with a sense of rhythm will do. Hastily, he picks Hannah Brown (Garland), a chorus girl who captures his interest at a local bar. The quick choice turns out to be a good one: though not graced with the dancing abilities of Rita Hayworth, Hannah has a chocolatey voice that could melt the heart of any audience member. Don is forced to adjust his style in order to create better balance between him and his newest partner - unfamiliar to him is the incorporation of extensive signing - but, before long, success meets the recently formed pair. Dubbed Hannah & Hewes by the press, popularity is a given. But things cannot always be so idyllic in a Hollywood musical; romance is waiting in the wings, and such could harm the occupational perfection of the situation. Like the partnership at the center of "Easter Parade," smart is the way the screenwriting team of the film (consisting of Sidney Sheldon, Frances Goodrich, and Albert Hackett) recognizes the strengths of Astaire and Garland and counterweights them with notable symbiosis. Emphasis is put on their individual specialities, of course, but the choosing of the numbers they perform together is ingeniously wise. "A Couple of Swells" being a befitting instance, downplayed are broader singing and dancing elements (as, clearly, one actor is better than the other). Essences are left behind to ensure that our stars both appear to be in their comfort zones, and the results are spotless. There isn't a weak component within "Easter Parade." It's an adroit showcasing. I additionally like Miller's vaguely villainous role (which is forgivable only because the actress was also one of the finest dancers of the Golden Age), and I like director Charles Walters's intelligent, inviting staging. If only it had the wit of "The Band Wagon," of "Singin' in the Rain" - then "Easter Parade" would have the potential to stand among the greats. For now, though, it's pretty damn good.
(it) wrote: Fun, but not worth going out of your way to see. Written & produced by Billy Crystal doesn't guarantee us anything magnificent; he's at his best when someone's writing & directing him (When Harry met Sally, City Slickers). Hank Azaria, Stanley Tucci are really over-the-top in scenery-chewing performances. The only nuanced performances here come from Cristopher Walken (who, admittedly, is given very little material) and Julia Roberts.
(mx) wrote: With C. Amusing. Dialogue and acting was punchy / batty at times. A little overdone but some fun scenes especially if one suspends the comicality. Enjoyable but not ground breaking, quite rough.