You may also like
Vichitra Kutumbam torrent reviews
Simon E (jp) wrote: The bourne movies have always set a high benchmark for the modern action movie and this one delivers the same goods as before but it does feel a little unnecessary and therefore does not pack the punch of its predecessors.
Ignas P (ru) wrote: Dumb in the beginning, but funny in the end!
Joey S (au) wrote: I reluctantly went to watch this one in the theater and ended up enjoying it.
Elise P (br) wrote: An oddball comedy, focused around a dysfunctional family. It's definitely of the dysfunctional drama, but isn't quite the same calibre of Ice Storm (1997), but the performances are good and story is interesting. It's quirky and funny, well worth the watch with some big name characters (including Alec Baldwin) who give subtle and interesting performances.
Laurel S (us) wrote: I watched this. Not that bad really.
Fenrir I (fr) wrote: Excellent performances by all. It's good to see Jennifer Connelly in her prime. (She beats Megan Fox hands down!)
Katrina L (jp) wrote: Don't try to make sense of this one, just watch it!
Sandra W (mx) wrote: [size=3][color=lime]While this movie did use some actual Indians the major roles went to non-native-Americans. The basic story is true with the usual Hollywood changes and additions. The most upsetting part was James Stewart as Wyatt Earp. Not only did it not add anything to the story line but it was comic relief which detracted from the plight of the Indians. Not one of James Stewart's better roles, the movie was sometimes boring and a little long.[/color][/size]
Aj V (it) wrote: A bad Godzilla copy cat from Europe, if you think this movie might be fun anyway, you're wrong, it's boring and stupid and very poorly made. I wouldn't recommend it, and I'm mad that I actually rented it from Hollywood Video.
Steve G (au) wrote: "Fags in the shower! Fag alert!" I lol'd. Solid soundtrack. Good arc, but the moral is absolutely horrible.
Alec B (ru) wrote: There's an argument to be made that the more convoluted the "plot", the better these movies are . . . none of what's happening in "Retribution" makes any kind of sense and yet I found it the most enjoyable in this improbable series. No one is going to call Paul W.S. Anderson a great filmmaker, but he demonstrates some minor visual ambition here that I would not have expected from him.
Antonius B (ca) wrote: A poor man's Hitchcock film, which lacks tension and coherence, and with many instances of questionable character motivations. On the other hand, it is nice to see a 47-year-old Barbara Stanwyck in the leading role, and there are some nice scenes in the mental hospital. It's got so many problems, though, that you're happy it's only 83 minutes long. You can certainly do better.