Military investigator Colonel Edwards is assigned a case involving Major Cargill, a Korean War POW who is accused of treason. Although Cargill admits his guilt and Edwards' superiors are impatiently pushing Edwards to move this case to court martial, Edwards becomes convinced of Cargill's innocence.
- Stars:Richard Widmark, Richard Basehart, Dolores Michaels, June Lockhart, Carl Benton Reid, Martin Balsam, Rip Torn, Khigh Dhiegh, Yale Wexler, Alan Dexter, Manning Ross, Joe Di Reda, James Douglas, Kenneth Alton, Jack Webster,
- Director:Karl Malden,
- Writer:Henry Denker (screenplay), Henry Denker (play), Ralph Berkey (play)
Military investigator Colonel Edwards is assigned a case involving Major Cargill, a Korean War POW who is accused of treason. Although Cargill admits his guilt and Edwards' superiors are ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Time Limit torrent reviews
(ca) wrote: a witty well written script I'm not surprised how good this was a great movie with great gags B+
(ag) wrote: Probably the best Kung fu panda short
(ag) wrote: Creepy little ghost story thats far from the turkey its reputed to be--Amusing creepy B-Movie!!
(nl) wrote: I think Hoffman was better as Capote and that film had the better storytelling. But Sandra Bullock's Harper Lee wins over Catherine Keener's
(es) wrote: a moving documentary about the famed ethicist. makes me want to read at some point this year, his seminal work, Ethics.
(ag) wrote: As much poem as film. It requires patience, which it rewards at every languid turn.
(de) wrote: Interesting Dickensian drama about the complex relationship between a bailif and his estranged son. Good perfomances, plotline and direction. A few parts (when the bailif walks into the closed off section of town to confront a young rebel) were not smooth but overall I think the movie had good focus on characters development (rather than shocking the viewer by misplaced sex and violence).
(gb) wrote: Gotti is a gritty, well acted, and complex look at the rise and fall of John Gotti. I thought Armand Assante did a terrific job as John Gotti, slick, bombastic, but also nuanced. It's inevitable to compare this to Witness to the Mob. Witness to the Mob was superior from a factual standpoint, covering much more ground in its' three hour run time than Gotti. Ultimately I'd have to go with Tom Sizemore over Armand Assante for the most accurate depiction of Gotti, as Sizemore mastered Gotti's flare of arrogance and naivet to an extent that Armand didn't quite get up to. At the same time, William Forsythe as Sammy the Bull was superior than Sammy's portrayal in Witness to the Mob. His personality as cold, calculating, and ambiguous, surely matches Gravano more closely than the positive spin Witness took on him. Overall, Gotti is better from a filmmaking standpoint, with sharper, more realistic dialogue.
(br) wrote: Truly horrible, so called sequel. A bunch of kids on their way back from prom are chased and tortured by a gang of mentals. This attempt at a sequel is so strange and doesn't seem to have any real connections to the original. Leatherface is also a crossdresser, what the fuck? But its also the bad script and crappy performances(apart from Matthew McConaugheys mentalist, fair play to him, but a fake leg, again, what the fuck?!)) that just make this a complete waste of time. The original sequel is much better and this also makes the latest so-so sequel look like a work of genius.
(br) wrote: this movie is so fucked up, how could a man made this kind of movie, he's so sick.
(kr) wrote: Laughably pretentious. If ever I become a college professor I will show the Godard segment on the first day of class and make the students write an essay about it. Those who take the assignment seriously will be kicked out of class forever.
(fr) wrote: Marvelous film bringing up timeless issues that still remain unresolved in the Roman church.
(jp) wrote: Hammer films were the second generation color redux of each Universal horror monster classic with their own unique spin.
(kr) wrote: The film is nearly twenty minutes too long and the story, though based on a true one, is rather thin and has a hard time knowing where to end onscreen. However, the script, and more importantly the performances, especially DiCaprio's, really shine bright and help boost this film onto the list of Spielberg's finest.
(nl) wrote: A total spoof on the rap business, and my boy Charlie Murphy is in it too!
(ru) wrote: As if the first film wasn't embarrassing enough, Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle is even more shameless. Director McG cranks the exploitation dial up to 11; as the action scenes are ridiculously idiotic and the sexual gratuity is out-of-control. Additionally, the plot is incredibly convoluted and the characters are poorly written. The green screen effects and wire work are also extremely bad, making the action scenes laughable. Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle is an abysmal film that's unbelievably awful.
(de) wrote: A great chilling piece of psychologically thrilling cinema
(kr) wrote: While not very deep, and light on character development, IRONCLAD is a well-made medieval action movie which is like BRAVEHEART crossed with THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN. The story is about the siege of Rochester Castle during the final years of King John of England's reign. A group of seven men, led by a Knight Templar (James Purefoy) go to Rochester Castle to defend it against King John who his hellbent on retaking lands that he lost after signing the Magna Carta. The reason for it being Rochester Castle is because it was strategically important for the monarchy. During the first part of the movie, the team is assembled and the premise is set up rather well with an expository introduction (there is some voice-over sprinkled throughout the film). The latter part of the movie is the siege, and this is definitely the strongest part of the movie. The battle scenes are brutally violent and bloody, as limbs and heads are hacked and slashed in a variety of ways. What's even better is that most of it was accomplished using good-ole prosthetics, as opposed to CGI. However, up to this point, we don't really know much about the characters outside of Purefoy's Thomas Marshal. During a lull in between battle sequences is when the movie starts to pay attention to the characters. Even Paul Giamatti's villainous King John is given time to shine, which makes the film more balanced. Other than Giamatti, the best performance is given by James Purefoy, who is given the best treatment in the screenplay as a conflicted Knight Templar. As a man who has seen lots of bloodshed in his time as a knight, he begins to have second thoughts about his calling and, in the process, finds love with one of the women at the castle. Normally, when you talk about romantic subplots in movies, particularly action movies, they often feel tacked on or superfluous. Not so here, as the romance is in service of the characters and isn't overplayed. Other standout elements would be the cinematography, and the way the battle sequences were shot. They really put you into the thick of battle and give a good sense of what it might have been like to fend off an enemy in a confined space. The effects work during these sequences was also outstanding. The score was also well-done, and stirring when it needed to be. Overall, this movie is pretty good and definitely worth seeing. There are some philosophical questions pondered late into it, and while nothing really deep is said, it does add a little depth to what could have been just an ordinary medieval kill-fest. Recommended, especially to people who enjoy period war movies.
(de) wrote: Scared the pants off me as a kid...I never forgot it