The Emoji Movie

The Emoji Movie

Gene, a multi-expressional emoji, sets out on a journey to become a normal emoji.

The Emoji Movie unlocks the never-before-seen secret world inside your smartphone. Hidden within the messaging app is Textopolis, a bustling city where all your favorite emojis live, hoping to be selected by the phone's user. In this world, each emoji has only one facial expression - except for Gene, an exuberant emoji who was born without a filter and is bursting with multiple expressions. Determined to become "normal" like the other emojis, Gene enlists the help of his handy best friend Hi-5 and the notorious code breaker emoji Jailbreak. Together, they embark on an epic "app-venture" through the apps on the phone, each its own wild and fun world, to find the Code that will fix Gene. But when a greater danger threatens the phone, the fate of all emojis depends on these three unlikely friends who must save their world before it's deleted forever. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


The Emoji Movie torrent reviews

scott s (au) wrote: Way scarier than "It" but too weird for Amurica. Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer play the world's worst houseguests in a world gone mad. Javier Bardiem is quite creepy as a writer version of Anton Chigurh

irma p (ru) wrote: Definitivamente me encantan como actores!! Pero est vez le fallaron con esta pelcula!! Dejaron ir una buena oportunidad para a verla echo mejor!! Muy aburrida!!!

caitlin f (us) wrote: Very intense!! Jennifer Lawrence is amazing!

Tyler d (us) wrote: People are stupid. This movie is brilliant.

Tona M (fr) wrote: This was the dumbest movie ever!!!!!!!

Tomislav (kr) wrote: Great ride, great cast. Very strange and emotional film. Very D. LYNCH like.. Love it..the color palette is smazing and tge scenes are unerving. In the end reward is in.what you dont see. .

Tanya M (fr) wrote: Simply the worst film ever

Steven Y (nl) wrote: Haunting, audacious, and utterly insane, mother! is one of the finest contributions to the cinema that I have ever seen. While it is definitely not a mainstream type of movie, I still feel that those who have a strong appreciation for cinema and the horror genre need to see this movie as soon as possible.

Steve J (es) wrote: Okay, wow. Wow, wow, wow. This was upsetting, but then it would hardly be an Aronofsky film if it weren't! It's a tough film to comment on, because one doesn't want to give away the surprises (or SHOCKS) that supply the film's impact. Basically it's a metaphor, steeped in Biblical imagery, but addressing the human experience specifically in terms of the male-female dynamic. Also built into the film is a commentary on artists and their relation to their loved ones; an environmental message; a vicious satire of the eternal battle of the sexes; and more. Having seen the new remake of Stephen King's It, and then seeing this, I must say that this had all the impact I expected the former to carry. I'm stunned that Paramount gave this a wide release, which is a bold move considering its unrepentantly nasty tone and its obscure subject matter. While I don't think it quite holds up to the best of Aronofsky's work, it is excellent. Highly recommended to those who do not wish to spend their hard-earned money watching men in leotards karate-chopping 'evildoers'. I don't want to say more, for fear I'll give something away. Mother! is a film that relies heavily on the unexpected. Some people -- hell, many people -- will absolutely hate it. But I'm so very glad the film got made. Oh, and in my view Michelle Pfeiffer, playing one evil bitch, nearly steals the show!

Spshelle R (us) wrote: I've never seen a movie so twisted yet beautiful at the same time.

Serena L (jp) wrote: Before deciding to watch this movie, I read this crtitcs comment calling it the worst movie of the year, I dismissed it and still watched it anyway. Big mistake, I came out of the cinema fully agreeing it was the worst movie of the year. This movie had a very intriguing start but the metaphors and messages to convey the rest of the movie were horribly done. Just Awful

Scott M (de) wrote: This movie is almost like the movie "Third Person" because the script us similar on how the movie starts and ends. Jennifer Lawrence doesn't have a big script to remember because the scenes are of her reaction not script. So it was really a movie of instinct of have to react to the events happening.

Santiago A (nl) wrote: A pretentious waste of time with an almost intriguing cinematographic proposal

Rugby H (mx) wrote: A master piece. Yes it is hard to watch because it is representation to what we have to done to each other and this this earth. Brilliant acting . Touches s nerve. Master piece

Rob C (ca) wrote: This is an experimental film. It refuses to follow cinematic norms in pacing, lighting, plot line, camera work (66 mins are close-ups of J Lawrence's face), even having no musical score, just relying on the sounds created in the house and silence to keep the audience in suspense. Because of this, it is a film that needs your full concentration (& patience) to follow what is happening and to engage with the characters' experiences. It therefore relies far more heavily than normal on the individual viewer's willingness to do this, hence the reason many find this film heavy going - we're all used to having our attention and feelings guided by musical scores, formulaic narrative and easily digestible dialogue. Of course, others will find some of the content distasteful, still more are politically turned off by the message and those with religious beliefs may be offended by the allegorical imagery. Add to that the flawed marketing campaign that has clearly miffed a lot of audiences (or is that CinemaScore F actually going to improve the film's art house pedigree long term?). Is it any wonder therefore, that this is an immensely polarising film as borne out by the reviews on this and other sites?If, however, you don't fall into one of the above groups, then this can be an extremely rewarding film. You need to be prepared to invest yourself in it and allow the tension & irritation to build in a way rarely experienced especially in a multiplex!, The whole point of this film is that you should not be a passive viewer, simply witnessing someone else's suffering, the film aims to make you feel uncomfortable in a way we're not used to in a cinema, to identify with the character's pain so you feel it too. Is that entertainment? Probably not. Is it Art with a capital A? Maybe. And that may be why many find the film pretentious.To me, what it is, is exciting. For a filmmaker to try and create a sort of "virtual reality" for the emotions while watching a film is like taking cinematic viewing to the next level. To get there you have to accept the narrative is not time-linear, that the camera work is claustrophobic, that many scenes are chaotic and extreme - that's the point, the film wants to disorientate you, shake you up, wake you out of your emotional slumber. "Feel something" it shouts, "Anything, just feel it!" That probably all adds up to commercial suicide but I suspect it's protagonists already knew that. This is a film with performances so committed (especially that of J Lawrence & M Pfeiffer in what might be awards worthy performances if the film's divisiveness can be overlooked by awards bodies), the camera work, sound and direction so "out there", that I think they only really cared about the message, the experience of making "mother!" and the cinematic legacy it's likely to leave behind.

Reini U (nl) wrote: Great black satire, in the style of the classic Polanski.

Ralph W (mx) wrote: This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Over the top gore. Just awful and I like most movies.

Rafael L (fr) wrote: Worst movie Ever Made! You'll want to punch yourself in the face when it's over.

Pat M (mx) wrote: Absolutely the worst film of the year. Don't know how Jennifer got talked into this one.

Margaret B (kr) wrote: Maybe this is what happens when Darren Aronofsky tries to make a nature documentary. Instead, with mother!, we get an uncanny vision of redemption that makes the possibility of a fresh start for humanity both appealing and revolting. The feeling that most endures throughout the movie is one of claustrophobia. Aronosky traps his characters in a world where destruction and renewal are inevitable. What can we do with Jennifer Lawrence's mother / nature character, who can't help but trying to build, in her words, "a paradise." The problem lies in the fact that she inspires abstraction, as Kristen Wiig's character indicates by referring to her as simply "the inspiration," presumably for the work that the poet, and Lawrence's husband (Javier Bardem), labours at throughout the first half of the film. This abstraction between the woman and her relationship to the poet's work extends to the house, which Michelle Pfeiffer, in the role of a depraved Eve, refers to as merely a "setting." The house - standing in for earth - is simply a place for human things to happen, despite our protagonist's evident affection for it. This film is not about the despair and sacrifice that is inherent to human creativity, but about the limits of stories. Or, rather, it is about the chasms between the stories that we tell and the world that we seem bent on creating. Stories frequently seek to reverse our alienation from our earthly roots, but they tend to give rise to it as well. Indeed, the story that the poet finally produces is a false origin story: it tells of collaboration and harmony. It is this fantasy that his wife longs for; moreover, it appeals to the public, ultimately setting in motion a series of atrocities. When the poet's fans execute an unthinkably vile act of communion on her child, they attempt to pacify the mother with a ritual, suggesting that words are immortal, and can somehow compensate for violations in the material realm. The film ultimately seems anxious about its own implication in the myopic stories of progress and inevitability that legitimize the Western world's disregard for those ecological systems that begat us. This is true even for the title, whose lower-case type and emphatic punctuation gestures to the first part of a sentence, suggesting that we're only getting a partial version of a larger possible account. Both Lawrence's character, as well as the house, do eventually transcend their peripheral status in the poet's main story, but not for long. We get the sense early on that death is not forever, and even the most perverse act will be forgiven. The poet's question in response to his wife wanting to evict their rowdy visitors - "Where else will they go?" - seems a flimsy reason for letting people stay in a house that they have such contempt for. After all, how many chances do we get before we finally get kicked out for good?