3 Strikes

3 Strikes

Brian Hooks plays a character who is just released from jail. And the state adopts a "3 strikes" rule for felons that involves serious penalties. Hooks has 2 strikes, and wants to change his life for the better. When a friend picks him up, they are pulled over, and his friend shoots at police officers, and Hooks escapes. Now Hooks, a wanted man, must clear his name of having nothing to do with the shooting.

Brian Hooks plays a character who is just released from jail. And the state adopts a "3 strikes" rule for felons that involves serious penalties. Hooks has 2 strikes, and wants to change ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

3 Strikes torrent reviews

Stuart M (kr) wrote: This is an embarrasingly bad film that could have been so very good. The leadup to Cleese and Palin's interview was a topic that had potential as a comedic drama, but the decision to make it a lightly dramatic comedy instead was a bad one for one reason: the lead writers don't have a comedic bone in their body. This film is aggressively unfunny. Every. Single. Joke. Falls. Flat. Not a one hits its target. Just by the laws of probability we should get at least one working joke. Heck, even serious dramas can pull that off. But the jokes here suck.The basic approach to humor is to ramp up the absurdity to ten and then continue on as if nothing happened. This was basically the Python approach so kudos for that, but the Pythons clearly knew the limits and style of their humor. They could make serious points provided that they exaggerated the beliefs of others into absurdity thus poking fun at the basic ideas they espoused. They also loved to make absurd characters who argued their viewpoints very seriously. In short, it was the contrast between absurdity and mundanity that made them so funny. Here the characters who are supposed to be absurd act absurd and when people are supposed to be serious they act serious. There's really awful interplay between these two modes.And these absurd bits are absolutely trying too hard. Take the following scene: Terry Gilliam upon getting early reviews immediately tears them apart to put them into one of his typical animations, which has the Pythons seated around with the devil arguing only to have Graham Chapman struck by lightning and run off setting the paper on fire to which Terry goes 'oh damn' and drops it. Now that doesn't make sense. The Pythons rarely do but they could get away with it because it was a comedy. This is structured like a drama but with random interludes like that every few minutes because 'hey, aren't the Pythons funny?' Needless to say it's very jarring. Like Michael Palin and John Cleese turning into puppets and fighting with lightsabers and swords. Why? There has to be some contrast with reality to be funny, certainly in the Python mode.Which is too bad because some of the performances are quite good, even if they are more focused on caricture than character. If they had been given a better script I don't doubt that they could have done wonders with it. As it stands though, they never get the chance.

Eva M (ag) wrote: Nice enough. The best thing were the costumes and the superb soundtrack.

Private U (kr) wrote: A great film no-one has heard of.. i read the novel before i watched the film.. gotta love Dylan! lol

Raji K (ag) wrote: After a child is killed by a know mobster's nephew, an investigation begins on the how such a man with a known criminal record was not behind bars. The investigation leads to crime, drama, cover ups, scandal and corruption in the Big Apple. City Hall has all the right components, but somehow just fails to be a good movie. The film just a bit weak on all fronts, and its understandable how this film is not mentioned much.

Ryan C (jp) wrote: A genuinely good movie. You don't have to be a skiing enthusiast to enjoy this movie. Give it a whirl!

RA L (kr) wrote: WEB. Un xito tanto en lo narrativo como en la presentacin visual. Simple, espontnea y directa, sin excesos. / A success in both the narrative and visual aspects. Simple, spontaneous and direct, devoid of excesses.

Ceph J (de) wrote: A puzzling romantic triangle between a possessive wife, philandeering husband, and shy mistress that's only of interest because of the leads. Unfortunately, Elizabeth Taylor overacts and basically is playing her bitchy "Who's Afraid Of Virgnia Woolf" role. Michael Caine is unlikable and Susannah York underacts too much that we wonder what the fuss is about. Taylor is best when she acts as a bitch, not as a maschoist. I didn't like the gay stereotyping of her friend or York's assistant. If movies were artifacts, this one would be reminscent of the 70s or swinging London. The costumes are right and the art direction is fine. Didn't anyone smoke drugs? There's lots of booze but the participants are so civilized at the parties. Not a movie that any of the main actors or their fans would recommend.

Kevin R (it) wrote: Quick with guns but slow with the brains A slick talking young Mexican revolutionary talks the leader of his organization into investing $600 to hire some American outlaws to help their cause. The American accept the money and join the revolutionaries in hopes of rescuing their captured leader and helping the Mexicans earn their freedom. "Have fun with both of your wives." Paul Wendkos, director of Fear No Evil, Gidget, Face of a Fugitive, The Underground Man, Honor Thy Father, and The Bad Seed, delivers Guns of the Magnificent Seven. The storyline for this picture is fairly straightforward and common for the western genre. The script was okay but the characters were a bit under developed. The cast delivered solid performances for the genre and includes George Kennedy, James Whitmore, Bernie Casey, Monte Markham, and Joe Don Baker. "He was sick...a bullet in his belly." We were huge fans of the original Magnificent Seven picture so we decided to give this picture a shot. This picture was interesting and had some great action sequences and characters; however, the characters could have been better developed. Overall, this is a worthwhile western picture but does not live up to the previous Magnificent Seven picture. "Buffalo Bill? Never heard of him." Grade: C+

John L (mx) wrote: This is a lost classic. Another one for your October viewers list. The climax is wonderful creepy, and the payoff makes it all worth it. It offended the sensibilities of movie goers in 1932. It'll probably offend yours, too.

Brendan M (gb) wrote: Most disappointing Hitchcock movie for me. :(

i dunno (jp) wrote: umm idk i neva seen dizz movie lolz i clicked it on on accident