Various stage coach passengers and outlaws travelling through Indian country are forced to join forces against the Apaches.
You may also like
Apache Uprising torrent reviews
Jorge O (jp) wrote: Comedy. College student have a bet who gets laid the most with older woman.
Jason J (es) wrote: In the early 1900s in Thailand, a group of thieves steal some precious royal antiques from the King and bury the loot so that no-one else can find them. In the present day, a Thai man Kirk finds one of the antiques close to his village but is instantly targeted by foreign criminals and unfortunately killed in a skirmish. The criminals posing as a mineral extraction team manage to locate the other antiques - they hope to make a lot of money by selling them on the black market. But they didn't count on Kirk's brother Krit and a young female journalist who are determined that the criminals who have their country's national treasures will not be able to get away and flee across the border.If you're expecting anything like Ong Bak then you're in for a big disappointment. The main actor who plays Krit may look good in his fights but he's got nothing on Tony Jaa or even Jeeja Yanin for that matter. The action whilst plentiful offer nothing new to the Thai action genre and after a while you'll get tired of this movie. The acting isn't that good especially from the foreign contingent. Luckily the story moves along at a good pace to keep the action flowing as it's only 80 mins long. Average at best.
Jeff B (jp) wrote: Dislikable characters drag this movie down for most of it's running length, but it gets better at the end.
Rich L (ru) wrote: A poorly directed pretentious joke. It's attempts to make every moment "oh, so ironic" are boring. It's? like a student film on a hollywood budget. The movie never stops trying to be ironic. ? Except the one place that matters, when making a movie about a director making a silly bad movie, make sure the actual movie isnt just as silly and badly done. Unless we are supposed to find it ironic that a director with the last name Coppala would make a poorly directed piece of crap movie.
Connie C (gb) wrote: This piece of trash makes 2001: A Space Odyssey look horrible. Rips offs like these just suck.
Logan M (us) wrote: It's a lot more disposable than "Borat," but Sacha Baron Cohen's character is memorably funny.
Paul L (au) wrote: A classic for anyone in the workforce. Everyone has or will have a boss and coworkers like this group. Great one liners. Love it!
Greg Y (au) wrote: Add a review (optional)...
Lee M (fr) wrote: Lacking the Circus Maximus spectacle of its famous predecessor, Barabbas compensates with nuanced acting from Anthony Quinn.
Nick S (de) wrote: Excellent nostalgic look at life in Britain during the early 1900s. Its Noel Coward, no need to say more.
Charlie W (kr) wrote: Very Good Superman Film Shows Him Not Holding Back And Confronting Very Powerful Enemies
Johnny D (de) wrote: Although the film gets somewhat carried away with itself, Natali brainwashes the audience in much the same way we see the lead character being brainwashed. Enveloped in Morgan Sullivan's life we get carried away until the final scene where the plot's veil is lifted.
Harry W (ag) wrote: Although I really did not have positive expectations for the film, as it featured a performance from Jack Nicholson and was directed by James L. Brooks who had previously collaborated on the Academy Award winning Terms of Endearment decades earlier.How Do You Know is not a film worth writing a review about because it was just so purely dreadful that it is unbelievable. It is a collaboration between the team who won the Academy Award for Best Picture, Best Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor in 1983 at a new low point. It isn't precisely Jack Nicholson's worst film because it still stands out as slightly better than Man Trouble, but it is a film that is essentially impossible for me to recommend to anyone.How Do You Know is said to be a romantic comedy, but it is completely lacking in both romance and comedy. From the start of the film the plot seems really stupid, and as it unfolds this just becomes more and more obvious from that point on. The entire film unfolds at a terribly slow pace over the course of its 116 minute running time which means that it quickly establishes being a slow film and drags that on for an extensively long amount of time. It is hard to sit through the first quarter of How Do You Know, so the challenge of sitting through the entire film would have to be harder than actually making such an awful film. The premise of the film starts off derivative and ridiculous and just stays that way for the entirety of the running time. It never has any surprises whatsoever, but rather it just numbs the audience to death with its boringness. There are no attributes to the film that I really would call positive, mainly the fact that it was so weak that there was not one point in the movie that I laughed and the fact that the romantic concept in it was so painfully familiar and unoriginal that it was doomed from the start.How Do You Know is a film notable for its terrible production, and it is visible in the film because rarely would a film that had good communication or a strong production crew come out this bad, especially when the budget of this feature is a whopping $120 million. It is inconceivable how the film actually cost that much because the screenplay in the film is so piss weak that it could not have cost anything to keep up with, and the cast do not put efforts in which would justify being paid that much. It is clear that James L. Brooks has lost the plot as a film director and that the production on this film must have been seriously meticulous because the quality of it comes up way too short. The characters are egotistical and so annoying that it is difficult to feel sympathy for them, and the actors do not really seem interested in putting any meaning into the effort. How Do You Know is essentially just an overly long and ridiculously expensive star vehicle for a talented list of actors, but even they fail to take the opportunity seriously because there is not a moment in the film that I found myself laughing at anything that one of them did.Reese Witherspoon really does nothing to justify being cast as the lead in How Do You Know. She has given charming and likable performances in other romantic comedies in the past, but How Do You Know is clearly not one of them because she is stuck with the leading role in a lacklustre film bereft of any good script lines or sense of humour whatsoever. She is a genial presence simply because of the fact that she is Reese Witherspoon and she is a likable actress, but her character is a cheap rendition of romantic comedy stereotypes who is more focused on cheap melodrama than on making audiences laugh. Reese Witherspoon doesn't have much energy in the role, but the script really does nothing for her and presents no opportunities for her to expand her horizon as an actress.Jack Nicholson was the main cast member that I had expected something from. Unfortunately, his effort was so routine and lacking in any basic charisma whatsoever. It does not seem like he is trying at all in How Do You Know and that he was just doing it as a favour to James L. Brook and so that he could walk away with a paycheck of $12 million. Despite being considered one of the best male actors of all time, How Do You Know is his most recent example of a low point, and to add further evidence to the idea that he doesn't care about acting anymore, he has not made a film since How Do You Know.The script does nothing for Owen Wilson or Paul Rudd either. It isn't as disappointing to see them in generic roles because they have been in so many comedies which have proven to be hit and miss in the past decades that it is better never to get your hopes up too high about them. I wasn't happy with their performances, but I didn't blame them because my expectations for them were lesser and so when they ended up stuck with weak characters it was not much of a disappointment. The both of them at least tried harder to put their comedic personas into the film and put energy into their roles, so their characters are a little more likable than the leading two. The two of them at least interact with the rest of the cast better.So despite the presence of talented actors, the performances in How Do You Know are so thin and they match up to the quality of the terrible script and its lack of comedy all to go with James L. Brooks' senseless direction on this laugh-free attempt at a generic romantic comedy which somehow ended up costing $120 million.
Brandon S (ag) wrote: This is the point in this inexplicably long franchise where if you're here, you're not a new convert. And, as far as this movie is concered, if you're here you're likely enjoying yourself. Having grown up on the first two films, I'd be lying if I said that I didn't enjoy myself, shamefully so.
Angelina F (ag) wrote: I love this movie !! I LOVE Kristen Stewart. All of you haterz can go to hell !! Leave KStew the f--- alone !!
Private U (au) wrote: Probably out of most peoples' league but probably worth checking out if you liked other kaufman written movies.