Who Done It?

Who Done It?

The stooges are private detectives looking for a missing millionaire. They wander around the millionaire's spooky mansion confronting various crooks and a dangerous dame. The stooges vanquish the crooks (Shemp uses his "trusty shovel") and find the missing man.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:16 minutes
  • Release:1949
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:Who Done It? 1949 full movies, Who Done It? torrents movie

The stooges are private detectives looking for a missing millionaire. They wander around the millionaire's spooky mansion confronting various crooks and a dangerous dame. The stooges ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Who Done It? torrent reviews

Devyn W (de) wrote: A boring, confusing, and funny when it isnt supposed to be is a perfect description of this film

Amit S (us) wrote: CARRY ON JATTAdirector has given laughter a new term,its called overlapping one. its full on a roller coaster ride,without breaks. audience has been given punching bag treatment,what to say....yup,there is punch after punch,with full of laughter,u bound to feel like that.And as an Indian audience,v r used to c interval sign,but in this movie...when the so called interval sign comes,one start to remember all the bad abusive words,whatsoever one has earned and learned in his backyard,while playing with his friends & leak out the best one towards the sign.well even i leaked out,the best one from my collection... :-)Because interval is the only dull moment in this movie..and who wants it.SO,on a serious note,just kidding...why on a serious note, on a joyful note,the director 'SUMEEP KANG' has given his audience another master piece,a better one, more colorful one.. Never ever in my dreams I thought, any film will reach, at the level of 'chakk de phatte',the movie from same magician, SUMEEP KANG...But 'carry on jatta' has done it...or might be, has gone beyond,although Still I cant absorb this reality.I think it will take time to get absorbed, but I m sure by that time,I would have seen this movie tons of time......yup,it has a great repeat value.Direction is flawless...Writing keep u on the edge of seat and sometime take u further and u find yourself describing a famous internet texting term, ROFL [Rolling On Floor Laughing].Casting is bang on...Lead Actor...GIPPY GREWAL has done superb justice to his role.All the supporting cast including BINNU DHILLON,GURPREET GHUGGI,JASWINDER BHALLA,B.N SHARMA,KARMAJIT ANMOL , has provided a laugh riots.they are known for their comic timing and they are stainless spot on.Moral of the story...Don't wait for leave,holiday,free time or hell of that even company...because u will listen so much laughter in theater that,u never gonna feel alone.So... Carry on guys...catch this one... it's a 5/5.

Ian C (mx) wrote: Seen both these films when they were seperately released. This is the first time I watched it as it was originally set to be shown. Love the fake trailers. Would really like to see Cage in 'Werewolf Women of the SS'. Seeing the legend as Fu Manchu would kill me.

Graham M (es) wrote: The "twist" is painfully obvious right from the start but the rest of the film is so mesmerising it hardly seems to matter; the cinematography, score, acting and story are all delivered with expertise.

Gabriel S (nl) wrote: The original Vampire Hunter D. should be seen by any anime/manga guru.

Carlos M (ag) wrote: Though always intriguing and making use of stunning visuals and an evocative atmosphere, this esoteric Western of religious references is still an unripe Jodorowsky, clearly lacking in narrative structure before he started developing better his ideas in later works.

Lilo C (kr) wrote: You're no blue blood any more, honey. The master bought you...and now he's waitin'! PLOT: The legendary Clark Gable is plantation owner Hamish Bond, who has a secret past of slave trading. Sidney Poitier is outstanding as the freedom-yearning slave who Bond has raised a son. Yvonne DeCarlo is stunning as Amantha Starr, the daughter of a wealthy Louisiana plantation owner. What is in store for her future? First of all thanks to my Friend Chris that you can count on when you are looking for something. I have seen this Movie years ago and couldnt remember the title. But a little bit of the story. I first thought it was gone with the Wind but no it wasnt. I digged and digged finally gave up. Now finally. Thank you somuch Chris Hunt. Its a mix of everything. I loved Clarke Gables Acting in this Movie. I think its far more better then Gone with the Wind, but that is my Opinion. I would love to buy it on DVD. Just love it. lol the first time when I watched this Movie I thought it is Gone with the Wind.

Sarah P (it) wrote: They don't make them like this anymore. Fantastic.

Corey K (ru) wrote: Check it off the List. Not my style of Movie however it was a nice Scrooge story Turned #HappyEnding #ChickFlick #DateNight

Salim I (gb) wrote: one of Spike Lee's most compelling films.

Marc B (ag) wrote: PROBABLY THE WORST FILM I'VE EVER SEEN. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE POSITIVE THING ABOUT IT.

Brett C (fr) wrote: Review In A Nutshell:Parkland is about three stories that are connected to the Kennedy assassination.The film's plot definitely sounds interesting, as it allows the audience to gain a better insight into the day of the murder, showing us the other players involved in the horrible event and how it has affected them. I am not an expert on the Kennedy assassination, but I also am not an ignorant; I know the key players involved in the event and I have a rough idea on what happened to the president but I do lack the understanding and knowledge of how it has impacted the nation. So in watching this, I wanted to learn more, I wanted the film to show me something that I don't already know. In a way that is what I got, it definitely showed me perspectives of the story that I have yet seen or read about, but it was executed in such a poor way. The film's three stories were injected with such high levels of melodrama that all of its objective qualities have been smeared and blurred; director Peter Landesman instead placed all of its power on the film's "emotions". This approach would have been better if he was handling a fictitious story, as that way we are able to come into the film with a clearer mindset. The film is filled with so much cringe worthy dialogue that I found it difficult to care for whatever it is that is happening in the film. Landesman clearly wants us to care about its characters, but how can we when he doesn't even give us anything more than what is already clear on the surface. The only story where I feel Landesman has succeeded in keeping me engaged and caring for the characters is Abraham Zapruder's story about the video he captured of the assassination, because the film was able to go beyond of the story's objective, it was able to explore the emotions of the character, showing us how this event has changed his life forever.The film features a documentary style of photography, utilising the hand held style in order to have its audience transported to the day of the event, like as if we are seeing these stories first hand. Sometimes this method worked for me, other times it didn't. When it did work, tension was elevated and emotional moments hit right on the mark. When they don't, it highlights the film's faults which make it difficult for me to give the film the slightest bit of care. The film's score was, like the photography, so-so. There are moments where it comes off effective, while other moments it simply comes off as manipulative and tiresome.The film features a number of great actors that delivered forgettable performances, and it is such a shame because I truly thought this was going to at least win me over in the film's acting department. The only actor in this film that stood out and maintained throughout an effective performance is Paul Giamatti as he was able to transmit that pain and heartbreak that a human would have felt during that event. Everyone in this film that tries to do this, instead came off as frustrating as just because you shed a tear doesn't necessarily mean it makes your performance better. Zac Efron was severely miscast in this film, his face is way too youthful to be appropriate for the role; I think if he was instead replaced by Tom Welling, who played one of the agents, then it would have been more convincing.Parkland tries to show or tell us something new but fails to have us care for any of it due to its intense focus on amplifying its emotions. I suggest skipping this as it most likely won't change or add to anyone's perspective of the event.

Zoran S (au) wrote: Fantastic, silly, and visually brilliant. It borders on non-narrative at times with its excessive scenes of animal hunting. In fact, there is almost no sense of narrative momentum in the film, but it's all very beautiful and has an engaging rhythm. Some of the shots of animals, the ostriches in particular, are a cousin to Luis Bunuel and The Phantom of Liberty-- almost suggesting the utter indifference of the animal world to the romantic conventions and cliches of the human world, not to mention the obvious genre demands of the entire film.

Greg W (au) wrote: Even those engrossed by the build-up here are likely to kiss off the rest after suffering through Girls' groaner of a wrap-up.