1492: Conquest of Paradise

1492: Conquest of Paradise

1492: Conquest of Paradise depicts Christopher Columbus’ discovery of The New World and his effect on the indigenous people.

The movie depicts the fictionalized story of the discovery of the New World by the Genoan explorer Christopher Columbus (Gérard Depardieu) as well as the effect this has on the indigenous people. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

1492: Conquest of Paradise torrent reviews

Lauren M (fr) wrote: This was the worst movie I have ever had the misfortune of paying for.Absolutely deserves many ROTTEN tomatoes!

Simon C (us) wrote: Truly awful. Not the bad in a good way kind of bad, or even comically bad, it's just bad bad bad. Half a star for gratuitous titties.

Peter H (fr) wrote: Imagery reminiscent of Michel Gondry, great cameos, intriguingly dark mood, and an EXCELLENT opening credits! This is certainly a movie outside of The Mighty Boosh universe but still uses the same level of creativity! Noel's character could have been a little bit better but Richard Ayoade's was most definitely my favorite! Some of the scene transitions were just MIND BLOWING! I hope to see Paul King pump out some more movies like this!

Dana F (br) wrote: the maddest movie ever, i cud watch it over and over again

Steve M (kr) wrote: Chasing GhostsStarring: Michael Madsen, Corey Large, Shannyn Sossamon, Tom Wright, and Michael RookerDirector: Kyle Dean Jackson A week before he is to retire, corrupt homicide detective Kevin Harrison (Madsen) finds himself in pursuit of a serial killer while trying to train his replacement (Large). It soon becomes apparent that all the murders are somehow tied to the mysterious death of Harrison's old partner (Rooker), an officer who after death was largely blamed for Harrison's crimes. Will all of Harrison's past come back to haunt him? "Chasing Ghosts" is a low budget crime thriller that should be required viewing for anyone thinking about making their own movie. The film is so well put-together that is a more successful effort than similar films with ten times its budget. Unfortunately, it also suffers from the same problems that many films with ten times its budget have, namely a "twist" that is so obvious that any member of the audience who is paying the least bit of attention will have figured out at least half an hour before "the big revelation." Aside from that obvious script issue, the film is pretty decent. The characters are mostly stock, but the actors portraying them do good jobs; the mystery aspect of the film is well structured, even if the plot of the "criminal mastermind in the shadows" is a bit like a Rube Goldberg Machine [as in a bit over-complicated]; and even the slightly sideways redemption story that peeks out from the innards of the film is nice and believable. There is a slight problem with some of the lighting and camera-work, though. For reasons I don't quite get, most outdoor scenes are shot with a tinge to them--not so much that it looks like a bad attempt at passing day-for-night in the shots, but enough to make it seem like the scene is happening during the early dawn or late twilight. In the scenes where it is indeed early dawn, the coloring makes sense, but there are others where it doesn't. (This is a minor complaint, though. Overall, the camera work and lighting is very competent and serves the drama of the film well.) "Chasing Ghosts" is probably worth seeing for huge fans of the "surprise revelation" genre, or if you want to see an example of what can be done by truly talented filmmakers who understand how to make the most of a limited budget. Anyone else can safely pass on it.

Jason D (fr) wrote: God dammit, Brian Yuzna, what happened to you?? Before you fled to Spain, you were making some really terrific movies here (Re-Animator sequels, the Dentist franchise). Now, you are stuck over there making god awful movies using god awful actors whom you are trying to pass off as Americans in an American movie when we know damn well that they aren't. This movie was terrible. You only get one star for that small child having his face ripped open at the beginning of this, but nothing else. Seriously, Yuzna, come home and get your groove back, homegirl!!! Seriously, something about cults and ghosts underwater, I have no clue, this movie was plain terrible. I cannot believe the SAME guy who directed the awesome Society, Return of the Living Dead III, and Progeny did this horrible movie.

victor l (br) wrote: :fresh: [b]Dinner with Friends is a very simple story with a very interesting screenplay, a master direction by the legendary Norman Jewison and very achieved performances by MacDowell, Quaid and Kinnear, but definately the whole show is stolen by Toni Collette. Divorce is analized watching both sides and not blaiming anyone directly, Kinnear and Collette give very valid reasons to justify their step. There were two things in this film I disliked: the very forced end the film had and the egoism by MacDowell and Quaid in trying to form their perfect family thinking that the couple of Kinnear and Collette must be together to make MacDowell and Quaid happy, with the divorce friendship was over. [/b]

Mike R (ru) wrote: One of the best 'bad' movies ever. Seriously, it's hilarious.

Joseph H (fr) wrote: freakin chuck norris,lol.

Ken S (es) wrote: Hitchcock makes his second Cold War thriller in a row, this time without even a star like Paul Newman to headline and make it mildly worthwhile. Hitchcock was such a capable filmmaker that this film isn't a total loss. Well photographed and staged, the film suffers from a weak script, few engaging characters, not many memorable moments, and a fairly forgettable cast. "Torn Curtain" may not have been the best film, and Newman and Andrews may not have had strong chemistry, but at least Newman can lead a picture...no one really leads this one well...and it just feels like a lesser film near the end of Hitchcock's long and sturdy career. The film is also far too long and padded with useless scenes that don't mesh with the whole story of the film.

Naomi G (it) wrote: For some reason the James Bond factor, come for the action, women watch for whoever is portraying James Bond's hadsomeness, didn't work out for Raquel Welch. Maybe it relies on the fact that Welch is a skydiver who has a Bond girl name. Obviously, Welch's character doesn't have acrophobia, but maybe she should have given the success of Hitchcock's lame Vertigo.

Bill M (ag) wrote: In a harpoon vs gun showdown, who do you think will win?