When You Comin' Back, Red Ryder?

When You Comin' Back, Red Ryder?

Marjoe Gortner plays a drug dealer whose car breaks down in a small U.S. town. In turn, the town's people become victim to his unique brand of physical and mental torture.

Marjoe Gortner plays a drug dealer whose car breaks down in a small U.S. town. In turn, the town's people become victim to his unique brand of physical and mental torture. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


When You Comin' Back, Red Ryder? torrent reviews

Al M (ca) wrote: A tedious, derivative, and unscary Australian found footage film, Muirhouse kept offering promising scenarios but never delivering on them.

Neil S (mx) wrote: First 30 mins is romance montage. Middle bit is boring. Ending is ok. I got a little excited. Again too long.. I see a trend with Hindi movies! Kapoor hot as usual. Full version is more like 2hr 47m btw :(

Thiago H (kr) wrote: Comeando o Domnigo com um filme super alto-astral!

Sanity Assassin (au) wrote: a documentary narrated by judi dench and told by a select few of the now elderly whom were children during the kindertransport times of world war 2. very miserable and dis-heartening at times when you get to hear about what went on in germany and the countries surrounding that the nazi regeime took control of, but also on the plus side there are some heart-warming stories of how the british public took these children in and looked after them as the british government was the only country in europe to relax its laws on immigration at the time

Cyrille L (ru) wrote: I think it's all about beeing tied up, or loosen between 2 partners (couple). How is yours?-) Cinematography is incredibly good, sensual, with a brillant & disturbing sensibility, as (i think it) can be expected from Shunji Iwai :)

Brett B (de) wrote: A horror show of the highest order. Benigni is awful, the plot stinks on ice, and Edwards' direction is uninspired at best. Only the presence of series veterans Lom, Cardinale, and Kwouk keeps this thing from sailing completely off the deep end, but they're given little to do. This is a true insult to the earlier films, and the fact that Edwards went ahead with this project is a real disappointment.

Jason S (kr) wrote: its a pretty funny 90's movie

Kyle M (us) wrote: Well shot and with meandering dialogue (that occasionally makes fascinating observations), the film doesn't hold together for me. I don't know what it's about -- I know it's about memory, but it meanders once every two or three minutes from one topic to another. By the end, I had a headache and was checking my watch frequently; boredom was creeping in -- in spite of the great photography. The dialogue continued. Finally at the end I was relieved when the credits rolled. I have no animosity towards this film -- at times it is interesting, and it is artistically shot -- I can tell it's about something, it's not about just nothing like many films -- but by the end I just kept asking, "Why should I care?" I fully admit I don't understand this film. I think maybe only a certain kind of person can love this film; maybe someone with the same mind as Chris Marker. For me though, it was like boarding a train, looking at beautiful sights out your window, but listening to a narrator describe random objects for an hour and a half as the train goes nowhere. Impenetrable, slowly more exasperating, and eventually somewhat sleep-inducing.I don't rule out watching it again -- it seems like a movie you can gain a new perspective on each time you watch it. But for now, it leaves no sizable imprint on my memory, my thoughts, or my feeling. On my first viewing, I didn't completely enjoy watching it for its full duration. To be honest, it reminded me of a long meditation retreat I went on, and in the last hour or so of the retreat I really was pushing myself to finish the meditation. Like that, during the last half of this movie I really had to push myself to finish it and it was a challenge to not just give up -- it was definitely testing my patience, which is typically pretty vast (this is coming from someone whose favorite science fiction movie is "2001").If nothing else, it's a beauty to look at, despite some violent images I couldn't bear to look at (or regretted seeing).

Spencer P (ru) wrote: A flashy popcorn actioner that is pretty stunning and politically tense in the future/robot sense, but also dizzying, shallow and cliched.

Kieran L (nl) wrote: The stunning Jackie Bisset just about steals the movie in her eponymous role with about 5 minutes of screen time. Audrey Hepburn is a bit on the scrawny side for my taste. If only she hadn't had chicken pox when she was 12. Beyond that the tale of Joanna and Mark Wallace captures marriage / long-term romantic relationships in a nut shell. It was tantamount to watching my life story played out on screen. The film's fast paced editing and nonlinear structure was ahead of it's time. The latter and the principal's family name were later borrowed for Pulp Fiction. It holds up rather well after 45 years.