So Proudly We Hail!

So Proudly We Hail!

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:126 minutes
  • Release:1943
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:explosion,   fight,   fire,  

A group of nurses returning from the war in the Phillippines recall their experiences in combat and in love. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

So Proudly We Hail! torrent reviews

Cody M (ag) wrote: Mega awful outing from the mockbuster studio The Asylum in which a buff and grimacing secret agent (Paul Logan) must team up with a former 80s pop singer (Tiffany) to stop a school of genetically engineered (and horrendously animated) piranha that double in size every 24 hours, all the time clashing with a idiotic Venezuelan dictator who believes everything is an American conspiracy. Even at 90mins this rubbish goes on way too long and the wannable Tony Scott editing is inexcusable. The ending, which involves trying to get the piranha into eating each other, is just special.

Robert T (de) wrote: I loved this movie, watched it tonight. And, I will watch it again !

Yael F (gb) wrote: SUCH a cute movie I love it!!!!

Tlaloc R (au) wrote: What a pleasant surprise! Marivaux is provocatively transported to the Parisian projects where culture and gender differences clash amongst working class youth rehearsing a play at school. No special effects, no quick edits, no sentimental music. This is a raw and powerful film with brilliant, honest performances.

Doug C (ru) wrote: Have to see more from this guy... New Argentine cinema.. it's not just about dicators any more. sorry if this a repeat I'm trying to figure out why rottentomatoes isn't working.

Mohammed A (us) wrote: It's good movie to watch

Scott C (mx) wrote: Terrific concept having the film play out in real time, but it's real B-movie stuff.

Mark W (ag) wrote: Makes me long for the days of USA No Class Movie Daze.

Claude B (au) wrote: modern experimental psychological horror. Grotesque images reflect on the viewers. Persona channeling between two characters as to the viewers. the shooting scene at the end of the film, is the motif that everything is an act, like an actress in a film portrays the persona of her character role.

Bruno L (ag) wrote: Great movie. It's so trashy and funny at the same time. What makes "Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!" great is the way that it takes the sex and violence of the trash film and distills them into something more iconic than explicit. A real grindhouse classic flick.

David S (au) wrote: Possibly my favourite martial arts movie of all time, superb

Eddie H (mx) wrote: So funny it's great more for children than adults though

Jesse O (gb) wrote: Watching this movie, the thing that sticks out most in my mind is the fact that goddamn if Mickey Rourke isn't a great fucking actor. Not trying to suggest that Nat Wolff isn't good in this movie either, because he is, but it's obvious that Mickey Rourke is the character that holds this movie together. I just can't imagine what this movie would've been like without his character. It wouldn't have been a bad movie, not at all, but it would've just lost something. It would've certainly lost its most interesting character, for sure. And I'm not even saying that Ashby's inclusion helped make this film different from all the indie-comedies like this out there, because it wasn't what I would call a completely unique movie. It's your typical new kid in town indie flick. He struggles to make friends, neither of his parents aren't there when they really need him, so he befriends an older person that turns out to be a former CIA hitman. Well, I mean, not every one of those films go like that, but you've seen similar movies, where two very different people start a friendship out of mutual needs. I already mentioned Ed's motivations for wanting a friend. Ashby is, essentially, looking for redemption after coming to regret the very last person he killed But the film is certainly solid, like I enjoyed watching this movie. But that's mostly because of Mickey Rourke and Nat Wolff having strong enough chemistry to carry a lot of the load. The scripting itself isn't great, I don't know if I made that clear already, but the writing and the narrative is a little predictable and generic. There's no real problem with the former every once in a while. For example, The Fundamentals of Caring is a perfect example where predictability and adherence to indie comedy formula didn't really hurt the film a lot. I feel that if you have a really strong script, in terms of dialogue at least, and a cast that's into the material then I feel that they can elevate the film past its limitations. This isn't exactly that movie, because I don't think the dialogue is truly great and it's not like Mickey Rourke and Nat Wolff have the chemistry of, say, James Franco and Seth Rogen. They do elevate the film, somewhat, past its limitations, but I still wouldn't call it a completely good movie. It was certainly on its way there, but it just never quite reached that level. This is another one of those films where quarter ratings would be beneficial. This is a two and three-quarter star movie if I ever saw one. Eh, it is what it is, but the rating doesn't necessarily reflect that. It's certainly better than average, but it's not a good movie. The good performances simply weren't enough to overcome for a predictable and generic script. It's not bad, not even close, but it should've been better considering how great Mickey Rourke is in this movie. Wouldn't recommend it, but it's on Netflix, so you could do considerably worse.