In the distant future high-tech man colonized the world and leaves all the dirty work of an army of androids and robots. Now, somewhere rebelling robots, and a heavily armed special forces, led by Major Fox well to look after things. Locally it is found that the problem is bigger than expected: namely, the machine themselves have tinkered machines, and with these new Combat robots is no joke. Luckily, keeping an even few androids to people ...
- Stars:Juanita Arias, Nat Cassidy, Joe Chapman, Rebecca Kush, Beckett Lee, David Ian Lee, Virginia Logan, Sarah-Doe Osborne, Thomas Rowen, Jeff Wills,
- Director:Andrew Bellware,
- Writer:Ralph Boswell, Nat Cassidy (story), Guacamo Chuffasmith, Austin Lacher, David Ian Lee (characters)
Earth, age XXIII. Elite group of soldiers is sent to a secret government research station in order to destroy the supercomputer, which rebelled against their creators. On site, it is apparent that the machine is much stronger than expected. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Android Insurrection torrent reviews
(it) wrote: there really has never been anything like this movie before, it is a work of art, filled with metaphors its truly amazing
(jp) wrote: an okayish heist/action story with some typical twists but given the hype I expected some stealthy heist or something...
(gb) wrote: Lisa Cholodenko likes to tamper with the constraints of routine. In 1998's "High Art," her heroine, played by Radha Mitchell, thought her life and career were set until a chance meeting led her to the realization that she might not know what she wanted and who she was quite as well as she thought. In 2010's "The Kids Are All Right," a stable, long-running marriage is thrown into a tizzy after an intentionally ignored family secret comes to light. 2003's "Laurel Canyon," a mixed bag of an existential drama, concerns the individual plights of Sam (Christian Bale) and Alex (Kate Beckinsale), an engaged couple attempting to navigate adult life with graduate school recently behind them. Both stuffy and borderline neurotic, we meet the twosome just as they're moving from the respectable Harvard scene to the crowded territory of Los Angeles. Sam is a psychiatrist who has found work at a prestigious hospital in the area; Alex, a genomics major, is working on her dissertation. The couple is in the titular region, much to Sam's disdain, because of his mother's (Frances McDormand) living there. Previous planning suggested that they'd be able to live in one her vacant homes while looking for potential houses. But as the result of a last minute change, Sam's mother, Jane, a legendary record producer, will remain at the quarters as they set up camp there. Since Sam and Jane's relationship is practically estranged, since Alex is hopelessly stuffy, and since Jane is mixing an LP and is having a fling with her focused upon band's frontman (Alessandro Nivola), things are bound to get messy. Nocuous, too, is Alex's increasing interest in Jane and company's fuck it lifestyle, and Sam's attraction to a co-worker (Natascha McElhone). "Laurel Canyon" is wise when it comes to its characters -- Jane is so multi-layered that we feel as though we've known her for years, and Sam and Alex's inner tug-of-wars are more than just a little palatable -- but it's underdeveloped in story, which is mostly slice-of-life in scope but otherwise intrinsically stagy instead of free flowing like it should be. It wants to be a character study just as much as it wants to be a drama of acclaimed Off-Broadway distinction, and the indecisiveness makes it provocative but never quite involving. But Cholodenko's understanding of her characters is admirable in its subtle brushstrokes, and her actors are finely cast -- McDormand, in particular, preternaturally redefines herself. And yet "Laurel Canyon," like its lost protagonists, always seems to be searching for something, even if that something is persistently unknowable. Interesting, but sometimes drivel.
(gb) wrote: thought this movie was great.
(mx) wrote: This was not as bad as everyone said. Underrated, in my opinion. The acting is good. The villain is also pretty well done.
(kr) wrote: Fun to watch & nothing more
(au) wrote: An amusing and absorbing look at Woody Allen, musician.
(gb) wrote: 1 of d best movie.........salman n madhuri roced d movie
(us) wrote: Another 48 Hours film lto make a bunch of money while dismissing cares of making a film that's half decent. It achieved that, but it robbed fans in the process. I guess it was worth it for the producers
(es) wrote: Kris Kristofferson? Time-hoppers from the future?? Abducting a plane??? Awesome.
(nl) wrote: People take LSD and then ten years later lose their hair and freak out. Really lame scifi thriller with some of the worst acting you will see this side of a porno.
(us) wrote: It isn't perfect but there is a lot to love about this movie. Lucille Ball is a delight during her acting scenes but you can tell she is struggling with the singing but everyone around her elevates her weaker moments. Bea Arthur is absolutely fantastic in this. She's not in many scenes but she steals every scene and even the ones she isn't. It's well staged and choreographed with wonderful costumes, art direction, and music.
(br) wrote: WOW......WOW......WOW.....WOW.......STUNNING.......BRILLIANT......AMAZING......GENIUS......SUPERB.......I HAVE JUST SEEN THIS MOVIE 4 THE 1ST TIME N THINK THAT THIS IS SUCH A FANTASTIC MOVIE 2 WATCH,......its got a good cast of actors/actresses throughout this movie......I think that joseph cotten (.R.I.P.), alida valli (.R.I.P.), orson welles (.R.I.P.), trevor howard (.R.I.P.), Bernard lee (.R.I.P.), play good roles/part throughout this movie........I think that the director of this mystery/suspense/classics movie had done a fantastic job of directing this movie because you never know what 2 expect throughout this movie.......I think that this is such a gripping/thrilling/highly suspenseful movie 2 watch as the director keeps you on the edges of your seats throughout this movie......The atmospheric use of black-and-white expressionist cinematography by Robert Krasker, with harsh lighting and distorted "Dutch angle" camera angles, is a key feature of The Third Man. Combined with the unique theme music, seedy locations and acclaimed performances from the cast, the style evokes the atmosphere of an exhausted, cynical, post-war Vienna at the start of the Cold War. Some critics at the time criticised the film's unusual camera angles. C. A. Lejeune in The Observer described Reed's "habit of printing his scenes askew, with floors sloping at a diagonal and close-ups deliriously tilted" as "most distracting". American director William Wyler, Reed's close friend, sent him a spirit level, with a note saying, "Carol, next time you make a picture, just put it on top of the camera, will you?"Box officeIn the United Kingdom, The Third Man was the most popular film at the British box office for 1949. In Austria, "local critics were underwhelmed", and the film ran for only a few weeks. Still, the Viennese Arbeiter-Zeitung, although critical of a "not-too-logical plot", praised the film's "masterful" depiction of a "time out of joint" and the city's atmosphere of "insecurity, poverty and post-war immorality". William Cook, after his 2006 visit to an eight-room museum in Vienna dedicated to the film, wrote "In Britain it's a thriller about friendship and betrayal. In Vienna it's a tragedy about Austria's troubled relationship with its past."Critical receptionUpon its release in Britain and America, the film received overwhelmingly positive reviews. Time magazine said that the film was "crammed with cinematic plums that would do the early Hitchcock proud-ingenious twists and turns of plot, subtle detail, full-bodied bit characters, atmospheric backgrounds that become an intrinsic part of the story, a deft commingling of the sinister with the ludicrous, the casual with the bizarre." Bosley Crowther, after a prefatory qualification that the film was "designed [only] to excite and entertain", wrote that Reed "brilliantly packaged the whole bag of his cinematic tricks, his whole range of inventive genius for making the camera expound. His eminent gifts for compressing a wealth of suggestion in single shots, for building up agonized tension and popping surprises are fully exercised. His devilishly mischievous humor also runs lightly through the film, touching the darker depressions with little glints of the gay or macabre." One very rare exception was the British communist paper Daily Worker (later the Morning Star), which complained that "no effort is spared to make the Soviet authorities as sinister and unsympathetic as possible."Critics today have hailed the film as a masterpiece. Roger Ebert added the film to his "Great Movies" list and wrote, "Of all the movies that I have seen, this one most completely embodies the romance of going to the movies." In a special episode of Siskel & Ebert in 1994 discussing film villains, Ebert named Lime as his favourite film villain. Gene Siskel remarked that it was an "exemplary piece of moviemaking, highlighting the ruins of World War II and juxtaposing it with the characters' own damaged histories". James Berardinelli has also praised the film, calling the film a "must-see" for lovers of film noir.WARNING THIS MOVIE CONTAIN STROBE LIGHTNING EFFECTS THROUGHOUT SOME SCENES THORUGHOUT THIS MOVIE........man this is such a gripping enjoyable movie 2 watch, its got such a fantastic cast throughout this movie, it is such a classics thriller movie 2 watch with a brilliant cast throughout this movie.......
(nl) wrote: After the surprise smash hit of the original Clint & Clyde are back for what is a straight continuation of the original. Every element is back and is all the better for it. One of the only actual improvements is that this time they saw fit to have Clyde do a lot more and become a real character rather than a curio. Overall if you liked the original there is nothing to distract you here but equally unimpressive if you didn't.
(us) wrote: is this a promo film for these cheeze whizzing bands, with the exception of primal scream. the thing with movies it's called acting, make believe, suspension of disbelief... on the other hand I prefer this realism to body doubles and actors and actresses who just slept together, getting out of bed in a sheet, concealing the body from the camera contributing to the mystification of sex. then again so what, that they are actually having sex, people use the term porn as a put down, but this film is porn, but it's not like pro porn-but then again in the scenes, I can only think the girl is acting.
(au) wrote: Just like the first, the acting and storyline pretty much sucked, but the action was much better and that's saying something as the action of the first film was great. It's fast pace, precise, and not at all choppy.
(gb) wrote: It's a sob fest, yet contains all of what makes the Peanuts charming and fun.**also Thurl ravenscroft FTW
(fr) wrote: Good portrayal of the era