A True Story

A True Story

Mike and Matt own nothing and share everything, including their life's work, a screenplay, which seems to be their only escape from the harsh reality that is the Hollywood machine.

Mike and Matt own nothing and share everything, including their life's work, a screenplay, which seems to be their only escape from the harsh reality that is the Hollywood machine. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

A True Story torrent reviews

Wraith A (us) wrote: Risible bug hunt that comes off like a cut-price Aliens, with fireworks for flame throwers.

Athena S (es) wrote: excellent acting, funny, original, overall an awesome movie!

Andrew I (es) wrote: Perfectly watchable, but never wildly exciting. Some of the 'they're just like one of us' chavvy exploits at the beginning intended to gain empathy with the viewers rather put me off, making me glad I'm not from Dagenham. Considering the law changed in 1970 but the working classes' pay inequality remains just the same, Ford are gone from Dagenham and the unions are gone too, the big 'victory for the workers' ending seems rather a damp squib. 6.25/10

Erin C (ru) wrote: Pretty similar to the movie "Coco Before Chanel" (2009). There were some slight differences, but the storyline was basically the same. I was hoping to see more of Shirley MacLaine, but this focused more on her younger years. The actress who played Coco in her younger years was very good. Overall, it was interesting enough, but I think "Coco Before Chanel" did just as good of a job at telling the story, and it was shorter.

Paul N (fr) wrote: It wasn't a bad film, but I expect better from Neil Marshall. Even in the context of a sci-fi film, I expect the plot and action to be believable, and this just wasn't. Good action though.

Karleen O (es) wrote: I'd rather hear nails on a chalkboard than to hear those two talk...

Thom H (de) wrote: About a man who tries to save a girl from the brothels. It was deeply disturbing, but I needed to be disturbed. I recommend seeing it, but not at night.

Chuck B (gb) wrote: good acting. however, I suggest that you poke a stick in your eye afterwards, since that will be a more uplifting experience.

Kim J (fr) wrote: I have watched this under-rated comedy at least 120 times, and never tire of it. Each time I see it, there's so much more to appreciate, and I laugh a little louder as every sad, lonely year passes. I see myself in Vicki-Ann and sometimes Dimity, and sometimes the philosophical Albert Lee. Perhaps it's due to the fact that every year brings more awareness regarding the futility of the romantic love myth. This film is brilliant on so many levels. Unfortunately, every woman has encountered a womanizing, cold-fish like Ken Sherry. First-time filmmaker Shirley Barrett perfectly captured his vacuous arrogance right down to his worn-out disco-shoes. So very many of us can connect on a visceral level with her quirky characters, and classic archetypes set in the bleak sepia-toned swamp ironically named, "Sunray" We all understand the need for love, which - when left unmet - sometimes turn to pathological acts of unredeemable desperation.

Matt K (au) wrote: I wish more TV movies were like this. It's creepy and really really dark. TV in the 70's was terrifying, if this is any indication.

Dave J (br) wrote: The American equivalent of a Mike Hammer vampire movie which centers on the exploits of Count Iorga's coffin shipped from Bulgaria for no logical explanation with the setting of 1970. Disguises as a seance teller so that he can pursue a couple of female victims of Donna and Erica.

Billy D (mx) wrote: Solid war movie about the first major battle of Vietnam. A little heavy on stereotypes, but this was also one of the movies that introduced many characters who would become stereotypes later. Gibson is Lt. Col. Moore: stone faced and calculated, but a man of his men. If you like men putting their lives on the line for their country, if you like good old war films, this is a flick for you. Well worth every minute of the 139 minute run time.

Rob S (de) wrote: Small Soldiers is one of those B movies which you would probably skip if you heard the premise of it. I revisited it today since it was on the Encore Action channel at the cabin I am staying in, and I can say there's a reason I did not remember much of this movie since watching it in my childhood.So the premise is basically this: take Toy Story, mix it into a live action film, separate the toys into 2 rival gangs who fight each other, and finally, make the toys dumber and more aggressive than they were in Toy Story. Oh, and make it PG-13, because if there's any way to improve a movie with a premise which should be kid-marketed, it's by making that movie PG-13.While the CGI is poor and the "action" of the film doesn't necessarily entertain me, Small Soldiers has some good thematic material, although it is somewhat typical of an action film of this nature. A good amount of the thematic material has to deal with not surrendering, fighting/violence is not the answer, and so forth. A good one that goes beyond the typical themes in action films is that a line is revisited: "Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it isn't there" or something along the lines of that.The way they set up the premise for this film was pretty strange; two toy engineers came up with two different sets of toys - one alien, one a group of soldiers - and their boss had the great idea of making the two sets rivals. Then, the guy who created the soldiers ordered microprocessors for both sets of toys, which happened to be used by the military, which meant the toys became very dangerous once activated. They became a type of artificial intelligence, though one side character described it as being more like "actual intelligence." To avoid the entire nation being terrorized by the aggressive "commandos," the film conveniently made it so that one kid who worked at his dad's toy shop would be able to "test" these toys before their actual release. This kid is, of course, the main character of the film, and of course he got his own romantic subplot with a young Kirsten Dunst.This film was a little bit of an upset in my opinion - they could have waited a few years until CGI was a bit better, they could have made this more kid-friendly which probably would have made it much more profitable, and the plot was somewhat sloppily put together. This film has a good aesthetic and passes for a good B movie, but it is not a film I would revisit often.