Three young lives from the present are mysteriously destined to travel back in time through a portal to an old forgotten city. It is an era of civil war among the people of Siam where the fight is to protect the capital city of Ayuthaya from being conquered and overthrown. Bloodshed is about to unfold among the small group of villagers loyal to their land and prepared to battle to the death with the opposing military troops of Ong Mien, known for their cut throat, piercing swords. Siyama led by, Kru Jom, uses religious sorcery to protect his small village located amidst a ravine populated by only a mere one thousand villagers and two hundred rooftops. By being the choice of passage towards the capital city of Ayuthaya, Siyama becomes a targeted obstacle for the gruesome military brigade of Ong Mien. Anna, Gif, and Bote from present day Bangkok are thrown into a gateway through time after coincidentally conversing about the history of warfare that took place in the ancient days of what.

Three young lives from the present are mysteriously destined to travel back in time through a portal to an old forgotten city. It is an era of civil war among the people of Siam where the ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Siyama torrent reviews

Christina F (de) wrote: Some good scare moments.

Avril M (us) wrote: Amazing film - dare anyone to have any prejudice after watching this. Will make you laugh and cry in equal measure :)

Leigh R (it) wrote: I actually kind of liked this movie. It could easily have been a teen raunch film, but it still had enough heart and warmth in it to make it be a romantic comedy. Leelee was great with her role as the shockable innocent, which was rather endearing. And can I just say... Davis = YUM!

Matt M (fr) wrote: Showing a very overlooked setting of World War II, Max Manus: Man of War may not be the most original film of it's kind, but it makes up for it with a great cast, heart-ponding suspense, and good old-fashioned excitement.

Jamie C (ru) wrote: Hard to review this film as most of the film felt like a teenage road trip movie and then all of a sudden a man comes along and kills them and that's the whole plot until the end when the tables get turned, There's a good car chase and the deaths are pretty gory but it's a very uneven film and should of been so much better.

Becky B (fr) wrote: Really great. The best werewolf movie I've ever seen. They didn't make the werewolves cartoonish or hideous like in every other movie. They were simply people who became wolves. And the transformation was incredible.

David C (mx) wrote: Very good chinese film based on a novel written by the very Sijie Dai. Without high pretentions, the director achieved a moving and beautiful love story in the years of the Cultural Revolution in China.

Movie F (jp) wrote: This film wasn't great, but it wasn't that bad either. Yes it has its flaws, I can agree that the special fx wasn't half that special, but I still enjoyed its fight sequences and the cast was good. It can be pretty entertaining, but OK overall.

Angelina C (de) wrote: Vanity Fair tried in vain. Reese was miscast in this role, her British accent is good enough but she still appeared too American here. She failed to portray the character Becky Sharp, there s scarcely a semblance of what she is portrayed as in the book.

Cal (br) wrote: "We coulda bin good together, eh gil?" Lee Tamahori's 1994 low budget New Zealand film Once Were Warriors was critically commended and praised for its uncompromising, potent examination of the sinister side of the Maori population. Due to its colossal universal sensation it was virtually predestined that the studio would demand a sequel. In this case, Once Were Warriors is far too brilliant and unbeatable; consequently nobody ever expected this sequel to surpass its forerunner. Films like Once Were Warriors are austerely one-off successes. Nevertheless, What Becomes of the Broken Hearted? stands on its own intrinsic worth as an outstanding movie that is different in its own unique way. It has been five years since the events of the first movie. We resume the story of Jake 'The Muss' Heke (Morrison): a man whose sweltering temper interfered with his family, progressively giving them additional incentive to leave him. The first movie was a story of his wife Beth (Owens); however this film barely concerns Beth at all - in fact we hardly even see her - instead this is the story of Jake and his search for redemption. Jake realises that his fiery anger only detached him from his family. He recognises that he has serious problems affecting his life, and he must confront them to prevent further loss. The story of What Becomes of the Broken Hearted? is separated into two threads. The first thread is of Jake Heke's pursuit for salvation, and the second is of Jake's son Sonny (Eruera) who clouds his future by joining a rancorous street gang. Sonny wants revenge on the gang who were responsible for the murder of his brother. These two threads of narrative are united with a bang towards the film's conclusion. This film is extremely different to the style and storytelling of its predecessor. What Becomes of the Broken Hearted? still delivers a mighty kick in the gut and is an uncompromising story; however the original is far more raw around the edges and abundant in mature themes. This film showcases a lot of profanity and some strong violence, especially when it comes to utilisation of firearms. Lots of brutal violence is featured in the scenes that feature Jake bashing up a few characters. The end gang fight is especially heavy and really hits home. This potent drama is fuelled by some terrific performances. Some people will complain about the thick New Zealand accents. This complaint is obligatory for most American audiences. However the accents add realism and potency to the film. Temuera Morrison is nothing short of outstanding with his a passionate, poignant portrayal of a man living a tragic life. When the sizzling temper of Jake Heke takes control it's impossible to fault his complete concentration. Towards the end of the film in particular his performance will leave you absolutely speechless. Morrison's performance towers above anyone else in the cast. In a sense he's the prominent leader being supported by a group of grunts. Of course the rest of the cast do a good job...they just can't match the brilliance of Morrison. Ian Mune must have been nervous about taking the reigns after Lee Tamahori directed the first instalment. Similar to the first movie, Mune is able to establish a raw atmosphere that examines people at their lowest ebb. The first film was shot using grainy photography to make it feel raw and authentic. This effect has been completely retracted here, unfortunately. Overall, What Becomes of the Broken Hearted? is a solid, strong sequel to the excellent Once Were Warriors. It's fascinating to see a refined Jake Heke who has changed his ways and has confronted his problems. On the contrary the character is a lot stronger and better developed in the first movie. This character alteration is both good and bad: draw your own verdict. Do not consider watching this film if you haven't seen the original. If you have seen the original it is not vital to see this one, although it is an interesting continuation of the story.

Ai V (gb) wrote: I had heard and read so much about it .... true to its reputation. Felt closer to reality than any other of the high budget movies.

MarShawn M (ca) wrote: best house party every

Chalisa M (ru) wrote: i have seen this movie along time ago

Travis C (kr) wrote: What's Bad / What's Good ? Bad: -This movie is poorly contrived. What makes the characters so amazing is ruined by the final events of the movie. So much thought went into the bulk of the plot, but very little thought was put into the climactic point of the movie. The movie simply fails logically. In hindsight the whole movie is based off irrelevant information. Without spoiling the movie, I think any observant viewer will find that the strengths that built these characters fall apart illogically. It's like Albert Einstein forgetting multiplying two negatives makes a positive. Good: -The acting in this movie is amazing, most everyone does a superb job. The development of the story nicely distributes the suspense. With just a couple major changes to the fundamentals of this movie it would of been in a whole other league of great movies. The potential was there, and I think that's a good a thing. Perhaps: -I'm seeing this for the first time in March, 2011. The movie was made 25 years ago. I don't think I'm contradicting myself by saying, "the movie was great for it's time".

Tasos L (de) wrote: It has nothing to say..

Sarah H (es) wrote: It's nice when characters have reasons for bursting into song and it helps when Elvis plays a performer. You know pretty much the whole storyline at the begining of the movie, although they did throw me a curve with the father actually liking Elvis. It is one of the better Elvis films I've seen and Elvis actually loses a fight. I am wondering about the bastard child of the UofM and State though since you can't tell in the song who he is talking about they pretend they are the same school and have a green sweater with a Maze M.

Doris R (ru) wrote: Again, like part one, a brilliant effort by all cast and crew and then some! This time round it seemed that the story focused more on Ivan's life rather than just his coming to power and homelife with his beloved - although they portrayed him as a man mourning the passing - or poisoning - of his soul mate and never seemingly getting over it. Was told that he actually had seven wives all in all as well as plenty of concubines ... well, we all know that movies are never documentaries and, at best, based on the life of someone but dramatised for the cinema audience. It needs conflict - which is something that was literally drummed into me at film school ... and there was definitely plenty of that in both parts! The sub-titles seemed to be a little more easily read in this one - not sure whether that has to do with improvements in cinematography between parts one and two - though with the same over-acting, meaningfully close-up expressions of the various actors as well as the magnificent camera and shadow work thrown in yet again. If you want to know details of Ivan The Terrible, read a book or find a documentary on the man, but if you are happy to just get the gist of who he was, what he did and what the life was like then, I am sure you'll get just that by watching both parts. Even with the comments by someone seemingly in the know of his life, I do feel that both movies combined gave a farily accurate general picture of Ivan's rise to power and his fight to stay there with all the drama and conflict they could muster.

Thomas M (kr) wrote: Samurai movies struggle to improve on this story. The stakes never drop and each actor contains worlds of expression. My only (ONLY) nitpick is that the action choreography is not convincing for the level of buildup that goes into it; nonetheless, this is a gorgeous and masterfully told story that has multiple lessons embedded about authority and honor.

Ben T (es) wrote: A classic Disney movie with amazing animation and a great score