Seven passengers on a trip to Manila escape death and their respective "sundo" by a twist of fate. Soon, they realize that the price they have to pay for gambling with the spirit of tragedy... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
You may also like
Sundo torrent reviews
Jon S (it) wrote: It's insane, juvenile, absurd -- and I loved it.I've never seen a movie like this. It's near impossible to describe. The best effort I can make is: a crazed Wes Anderson's "Weekend at Bernie's" meets "Castaway" (Weekend at Wilsons?). Does that sound awesome to you? It did me.Paul Dano and Daniel Radcliffe are incredible as they fullly embrace the madness and each other. It's hilarious with great writing, a profound heartfelt story, and amazing soundtrack. It's smart. It's stupid. It made me happy. I think it will make you happy. And that's beautiful.9/10 -- Swiss Army Man is indescribably awesome and insane. One of my favorites of the year.p.s. "If you don't know Jurassic Park, you don't know shit."
Andrew L (nl) wrote: A former cop who becomes a gangster & creates his own gang to go against the Hong Kong police and a cop who goes undercover as a gangster. This similar story to Infernal Affairs but there isn't much fun. Anthony Wong plays a very different type of character in which he normally plays.
Edith N (es) wrote: It Turns Out We All Do Quagmires Unfortunately, of course, the people who most need this information will never watch this documentary. They don't care that it isn't the shrill cherry-picking of Michael Moore. All they see is that it is critical of the Bush the Younger administration, and they will assume that, in fact, it really is the shrill cherry-picking of Michael Moore. It doesn't matter that most of the words spoken are by people who in one way or another were there, people who saw first-hand the mistakes. And you must understand, I am not including all supporters of the war in the group of "people who most need to see this." I personally believe the war was always a mistake, but I can understand not believing that, and I think you can go with, "Well, now that we're here, let's finish." What I mean by "people who most need to see this" are people who believe that Bush the Younger and company [i]never[/i] made mistakes, that [i]everything[/i] which has gone wrong can be blamed on someone else. This documentary mostly ignores the events of September 11, 2001, as irrelevant to the war in Iraq. It is mentioned that various of the people interviewed were in the Pentagon that day; a few are explicitly lucky to be alive. However, it gives us a little background from the first Gulf War and really picks up with the beginning of the second Gulf War. For the most part, the highest level of people in on the decision-making process are not interviewed in this film, because for the most part, they declined the opportunity. However, this is a sober analysis, including interviews with many mid-level people who were making important decisions. It examines exactly where all those decisions were wrong, where intelligence was ignored. There are actual soldiers interviewed, executives, people whose job was ensuring that the Iraqi people really did greet us as liberators. And it explains exactly why that did not happen. The biggest failure was that the people making the decisions didn't listen to the people with the information. It seems, reading between the lines, that the Bush the Younger administration decided on a narrative and stuck to that, no matter what was actually happening in Iraq at the time. I don't believe that you need military experience to successfully lead a country during time of war; while Abraham Lincoln technically had military experience, it was only in the loosest sense, and he seems to have done okay. And heaven knows there have been plenty of soldiers who successfully pressed campaigns despite needing translators to communicate with the people in the country where they were fighting. However, the reason they succeeded was that they were willing to listen to the people who [i]were[/i] soldiers and [i]did[/i] speak the language, and that simply did not happen in Iraq. Leaving aside how much time Bush spent fulfilling his obligation in the Texas National Guard, he never saw combat, and it seems he did not in Iraq listen to people who had. This is a very staid documentary. There are no flashy graphics. There is narration through some of it, but mostly, the people and the footage speak for themselves. There is a tone of quiet bewilderment from many of the people who were in positions of responsibility in Iraq, a sense that not enough attention was paid. There are three or four decisions which are generally agreed to have been the worst ones, and all of them were advised against in pre-invasion briefings. Thousands of years of cultural history were destroyed when the national library went up in smoke, but the oil ministry was protected. There were not enough people to protect weapons caches, and instead of working with the Iraqi military, many of whom were no great fans of Saddam Hussein, they were all fired--but allowed to keep their weapons. Armed men with no way of supporting their family make foolish decisions. Those decisions were bad for all of us. This is a simple, quiet documentary. There are a few explosions, but they are shown with a sense of despair, because probably Iraq's best hope for peace was killed in one of them. What's more, this movie is an analysis of how it could have all been avoided, and that analysis is much more complicated than "we shouldn't have invaded." If we were going to invade--and the evidence shows that Bush the Younger was pretty much determined to invade at some point no matter what--there were ways to do it and keep the Iraqi people on our side. We knew how, and we know that Bush didn't even read the summaries painstakingly prepared for him out of long reports. Certainly he didn't pay attention to the people who knew best. I do not believe that all leaders have to know everything that will ever be important, because that's impossible. However, I believe the best leaders surround themselves with people who [i]do[/i] know about the important issues. What's more, when it comes down to it, they listen to what those advisers say.
Esraa A (mx) wrote: BORING, it's really awful..
Tsukasa A (es) wrote: Which is more, things you hate or things you fancy? It must be a good question.
Martin Y (es) wrote: Benhrd socialrealisme p ukrainsk, med et snert af Roy Andersson
Beverly C (nl) wrote: I love this movie so much...The civil war in Spain definitely took it's toll.
David V (ca) wrote: I love ernest movies this guy is funny as hell
David J (ru) wrote: Pretty spectacular, but nothing Star Wars and Star Trek hasn't already given us.
david t (jp) wrote: i would like to see this one..
James H (br) wrote: 73/100. Very thorough and well researched documentary. The interview are very informative. Great use of archive footage. Informative and always interesting. Very well edited and a lot of work went into piecing it all together. One flaw is the length at almost two hours.
F B (mx) wrote: Another great film in the series but not quite on par with the first.
Jordan P (au) wrote: Had some poignant advice for young adults that's should be retaught nowadays...
Marco F (nl) wrote: If you can remember this movie now, I give you kudos. ALFIE is one of the most forgettable, least satisfying cinematic experiences I've seen- never have I felt so empty after watching a film. I regret ever watching it. It is so empty, so banal and so half-witted. This film wants to believe it has charm, wit, and humor- but it doesn't. The movie stars Jude Law (well cast, that's the only good thing about this movie) as Alfie, a British womanizer who gets one of his lovers pregnant and then his life goes downward from there. But that's it, really. There is no resolution for any of the plots; we really just get a pitifully formulaic movie with no ending. Also, we cannot relate to Alfie or any of the other characters in this movie. Talk about a vacuous experience- I didn't feel fulfilled when I watched this film in any way possible. I felt like I was cheated of 100 minutes of my life, and that I have wasted my time. ALFIE is like a damaged, unused empty plastic soda bottle. It has not been used, nothing with it has been accomplished, it is a totally useless and worthless piece of junk.
C H (es) wrote: "Chove em Nosso Amor"
Patrick C (us) wrote: Gregg Araki is back. The indie director hasn't made a film of any significance since 2004's Mysterious Skin which launched the film career of Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Mysterious Skin probably stands as his best work, and it's still almost impossible to recommend it as the lead characters recall the child abuse they suffered in graphic detail. In his early exploration of gay cinema (The Living End; The Doom Generation; Nowhere), Araki was never afraid to leer at the most taboo subject matter while usually throwing copious amounts of blood at the screen in the form of shotgun beheadings and Nazi castrations. Mysterious Skin showed a departure from the gore, and White Bird in a Blizzard is certainly now his most accessible work to date. When her mother played by the always fascinating Eva Green disappears, Kat Connor (Woodley) recalls her past troubles with her family's unhappy matriarch, consoles her depressed father, and explores sex with local hotties and the older police detective working the missing person's case (Thomas Jane). Shailene Woodley is all the rage right now as the star of YA blockbusters like Divergent and The Fault in Our Stars. Here she gets a more adult role - like the one in Alexander Payne's Oscar-nominated The Descendants - which suits her better as an actress. She also gets naked! Risky business for young starlets but it worked wonders for Anne Hathaway's career (Brokeback Mountain). It's all typical Araki though with some scenes working better than others, uneven acting, and a few perv-y moments thrown in just to remind us this is indie cinema. But it's a shame this filmmaker will probably never be given a chance to work mainstream. The potential has always been there.