Three Hours to Kill

Three Hours to Kill

After three years on the run, Jim Guthrie returns with the scar of a rope burn on his neck. In flashback we learn how he was framed for murder but then escaped from the lynch mob just as he was about to be hung. Tired of running, he has returned to find the real killer and the Sheriff has given him just three hours to do it.

After three years on the run, Jim Guthrie returns with the scar of a rope burn on his neck. In flashback we learn how he was framed for murder but then escaped from the lynch mob just as he... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Three Hours to Kill torrent reviews

Jeannine F (gb) wrote: Boring and not believable. Poor editing - just jumps from one scene to the next. Young actors and Matthew Broderick were good, but Beatty is very disappointing as Howard Hughes (I believe the man was a genius but Beatty portrays him as a bumblehead.)

Jeroen V (ru) wrote: Ouch, this one sucks!

Xavier M (us) wrote: si c'est le documentaire contre le da vinci code, je crois que je l'ai vu

Rebecca T (us) wrote: Somewhat interested.

Martin P (au) wrote: I didnt expect too much from this movie but man, it has been impressive to realize that this is a true story of an existing living person, of Nong Toom. It would be hard to believe without knowing that this actually has happened. Story amazing, movie well made and refrecting her life pretty accurately. And really beautiful she has become :) . Touching. Impressive. Maximum respect.

Kevin N (ag) wrote: Surprisingly quite funny, crude humour.

JH K (de) wrote: Posiblemente, demasiado camuflada como peli de catastrofes, tiene ciertos puntos muy interesantes basados en momentos personales, qu hacer con tus ultimos momentos de vida, como quedan las cosas con tu gente, qu ultimas palabras tener cuando decides morir... La muerte en el cine suele tomarse muy a la ligera, por recurrente y falsa. Aqu tiene una aproximacin interesante en un marco SciFi.

Dan R (us) wrote: Not Dangerfield's best.

Arturo M (gb) wrote: Excelente pelcula.

Liam P (nl) wrote: I adore Gena Rowlands and believe that she is one of the most under-rated and overlooked actors of all time. This film is just as forgotten as some of her incredible performances are. Woody Allen doing Ingmar Bergman is about as appealing as Ingmar Bergman doing himself (Ahem!). By this I mean that I find a lot of Bergmans 'go to' methods (lengthy wordy dialogue, voice over and less than subtle cinematography) often annoying. Allen has taken them and whilst I still have issues with the voice over, he's toned them down; the dialogue still feeling like his own.Gena Rowlands, who is (as always) wonderful and the strength of her captivating performance can make me forgive some of the films problems.

Greg W (ca) wrote: charles martin smith goes all native runnin with the wolves-woof!

Francisco F (kr) wrote: Petite forme pour JLG, c'est-a-dire grand film par rapport aux autres...

Richard L (fr) wrote: This is clearly a 50's science-fiction movie with horror elements (and the saucer men probably inspired the martians in the movie Mars Attacks !). However, the mood and the musical score are so happy-go-lucky that this movie could easily be remade into a cartoon.

Ken S (au) wrote: Sort of like a poor man's Fantasia with popular music of the day instead of classical. It is missing the imagination and depth of Fantasia, or the fun of the Three Caballeros, and in the end its mostly boring with hits in Casey at the Bat and Peter and the Wolf. The biggest problem is that the popular music of the day SUCKED (this film could be evidence for anyone who thinks pop music has only gotten worse, it ain't true pop music has always sucked, and only the good stuff ever endures). The animations in these package films don't feel like there is as much effort put into them, they feel like the Disney shorts, not like the epic quality of Bambi or Snow White.

(gb) wrote: Creative, fun and, believe it or not, colorfully childish. Modern Times is an ageless classic for all ages, and a true pearl that none shall forget.

Cheryl C (us) wrote: my first full length silent film, i do believe. i (perhaps foolishly) was impressed with how well i was able to follow the action. def had some worthwhile things to say.

Luke K (ru) wrote: Jackie Brown is Tarantino's third feature; the only one not originally written by him, and it's his least 'Tarantino' film. But that's not necessarily a discredit, because what it lacks in Tarantino's signature hyper-stylization and dialogue, it makes up for in heart and maturity. First off, the film features another show-stealing performance from Sam Jackson. Every line of dialogue is amazing, and he completely becomes this character Ordell who's kind of a washed-up low-life criminal - a big departure from the super cool Jules in Pulp Fiction. But Jackson sells the character so well. The rest of the cast is amazing; Robert De Niro gives one of my favourite performances from him as this quiet-thinking, hardened criminal who's also washed-up and socially awkward after just being released from prison. He's unsure of himself and desperately wants to prove he still has it, and this resonates very effectively through De Niro's subtle, quiet performance. Like Jackson, this is also an unconventional role to see him in (especially after Goodfellas and Casino), and seeing two incredible actors play against-type so damn well really makes me love this film.Bridget Fonda and Michael Keaton are also great, but the heart of this film is the relationship between Pam Grier's Jackie Brown and Robert Forster's Max Cherry - a convicted flight attendant and a bail bondsman. A very odd match, but these actors convey their connection so well. It's such a tender and beautiful, yet understated relationship, and amongst all the backstabbing and double crossing of the convoluted plot, you really weren't sure if Jackie was playing Cherry as well. So when it's revealed that he was where her true loyalty lied, I found it a really sweet and beautiful payoff to an already exciting crime tale.While Jackie Brown doesn't rank among my favourite Tarantino films, it's still entertaining and rewarding. An intricate and intelligent story led by a stellar ensemble, and the more grounded character work allows Tarantino to show that he can play against type too, selling a meticulously-paced story and a sweet, engaging human drama as opposed to his louder, more cinematic forte.

Chris B (mx) wrote: Spielberg showing that he can do it all. This is a great sci-fi action film. It is actually Spielberg's most underrated film. It has good acting, great characters, a great plot, and a very thought provoking underlying message. The visual effects still look great today.

Thomas P (ru) wrote: Interesting and very creative when it first came out, but doesn't hold up as well on dvd where you can see the monsters more clearly upon second view.The element of surprise is compromised outside of the theatre.3 out of 5

Timothy J (jp) wrote: Don't put into movies like this than they were to be. Goofy comedies.