At the Earth's Core

At the Earth's Core

A huge burrowing machine tunnels out of control at ferocious speed, cutting clean through to the center of the earth, to the twilight world of pellucidar. Once there, Dr. Perry (Peter Cushing) and David Innes (Doug McClure), are threatened by half human creatures, lizard-like birds, and man-eating plants.

The film is based on a novel by Edgar Rice Burrough. A group of British scientists use a huge burrowing machine to cut clean through to the center of the earth. Suddenly, they uncover the extraordinary new world with half-human creatures, lizard-like birds, and man-eating plants who threaten them. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


At the Earth's Core torrent reviews

Lisa B (mx) wrote: Really good, loved it.

Camille L (br) wrote: Ce qu'il y a de bien, avec GONDRY, c'est qu'on est jamais decu. Son talent visuel inegale en France le transporte dans un bus du Bronx ou il signe un film passionnant, etonnant, emouvant, drole et d'un realisme impressionnant. THE WE AND THE I (titre fabuleux) beneficie en plus d'une energie communicative, d'acteurs convaincants et d'une bande-son a tomber par terre. Un des meilleurs films de l'annee.

Hugh R (gb) wrote: What do you get when you take a complete misunderstanding of the noir genre and combine it with action movie clichs and bad acting? You get "Bullet to the Head".James Bonomo is a hit man for hire who has all the personality and charm of your average brick. He is played by Sylvester Stallone who yawns out his lines like he's being paid to be as dull as possible. James and his partner Hank (Holt McCallany) are sent to kill a crooked cop who is blackmailing a crooked lawyer and his crooked business partner (Christian Slater and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje respectively). That's a lot of crooked folks and there are more to come. They complete the hit, minus the cop's hooker date, and turn up to receive their fee. Unfortunately for them their bosses don't want anyone who has come in contact with the evidence to remain alive so they send psychotic mercenary Keegan (Jason Mamoa of "Conan the Barbarian" reboot fame) to take care of them.So you have hitmen being hit by another hitman because the bosses don't trust the first hitmen. Why do the bosses trust the second hitman? How do they know he won't turn on them? Well, they don't. Spoiler: They should have thought this through better. But, then again clear thinking isn't really this movie's strong point.Enter Sung Kang as Taylor Kwon, a cop from D.C. investigating the death of his ex-partner, the crooked cop. Kwon has a smartphone with which he can gather seemingly omniscient information at the drop of a hat. Is there an app for that? Where do I sign up? Kwon uses his phone rather than his brain so often that he can't see the glaringly obvious plot devices until they are holding a gun to his head. Literally. It doesn't help that Sung Kang plays the part as though he just took an Ambien. To call his performance lack luster is an insult to lack luster.What follows from here is a dull slog through half understood noir film clichs, action movie clichs, and digital blood splatters. Someone needed to tell Stallone and company that "noir" doesn't mean "slow and boring" and that "action" needs a "reason" if we are to "care". Stallone's hitman seems about as torn up about his partner's death as he would over his T.V. breaking. He seems bored and unsure of what to do. This is not exactly a driving passion, but rather seems like he is thinking, "Hey, I got nothin' better to do. Might as well avenge somethin'". He is so disinterested in his quest that the audience has no reason to care either. The same goes for Sung Kang and his search for the killers of his partner. He says repeatedly that he just wants to arrest the "Big Guys At The Top" and that he didn't even like his partner, so there is no personal stake at all. Then why does he need James? Kwon provides nearly every piece of useful information with his godlike phone and he constantly whines about how James does things, so why doesn't he go it alone? Oh, right. This is a buddy cop comedy. Or is it a noir? Or an action movie? The constant narration leads us to think "noir", but the action is so pointlessly violent that we think "action movie". And the banter leads directly to "buddy cop comedy". So which is it? I have given up trying to figure out what their intent was and I think the director did, too.The plot holes are too numerous to mention, such as James saying his life is perfect for a hitman because he has "no kids, no family" and then within 15 minutes we are introduced to his daughter. And one idiot plot point after another rolls of the screen like so much liquid waste. Does the daughter have a tragic past? Is the hero cop a genius one minute and a drooling moron the next? Will the psychotic mercenary Keegan go insane for no apparent reason and challenge James to a fight using conveniently place fire axes? If you have seen more than one badly written action film in your time you know the answer to these questions and more posed by the film. Don't forget to keep an eye out for the amazingly obvious and totally unneeded romance subplot to complete your "crappy movie bingo" card.This is a movie without a brain, a cast, or a point. It is boring, nonsensical, and just plain lazily written. Even recommending it as a guilty pleasure would be to do the viewer a disservice. If you like guilty pleasure/cheesy action movies, find yourself a copy of "Commando" with Arnold Schwarzenegger and you will be far more entertained.

Alicia D (fr) wrote: Very odd and was ok. Wouldn't watch it again!

Godsif S (mx) wrote: This movie has a good view of what people actually do to smuggle drugs through Canada to the US. The thing that makes this movie good is it shows the process of smuggling very thorough. Basically it is a realistic movie and there is many flaws but not too much to hate on this movie.

WS W (jp) wrote: Errrrr. Awfully terrible! Even Minnie Driver couldn't save this boring, tedious one so-called film. The director was just like letting an out-of-control vehicle rushing downhill without giving a damn.

William D (mx) wrote: Karen Moncrieff is the best American filmmaker you've never heard of. It's ridiculous that her work is so little talked about. "Blue Car," her first film, at times borders on greatness. It drifts into pretentiousness and preciousness one too many times, but for a filmmaker to get close to greatness her first time out is nothing short of amazing. (Moncrieff, I should point out, got even closer to greatness with her second film, the bizarrely under-rated "The Dead Girl," which I consider the second-best film of 2006, after Darren Aronofsky's "The Fountain.") "Blue Car" tells a delicate story of an exceptionally bright teenage girl cast adrift by a self-absorbed mother who barely notices when she's in the room. The girl retreats into herself, explores sad memories of being abandoned by her father, and ends up penning poetry that dazzles and frightens her intelligent but lonely English teacher (played beautifully by David Strathairn.) He volunteers to coach her after school to develop her poetry even further, and so begins a journey that sometimes is too beautiful and too painful for both of them. The film gets sidetracked into a separate drama concerning the girl's younger sister, which weakens the film and makes its sadness a bit over-thick. But the journey of discovery that the girl and man go on is at times the stuff of great literature. Actress Agnes Bruckner gives a breakthrough performance as the girl, and it is beyond belief that she wasn't nominated for an Oscar. Her work is so good that I venture to say that hers is the best teenage acting performance of the decade. "Blue Car" helps to remind us how life-changing and essential friendships between teenagers and adults can be -- but also how overwhelming and destabilizing they can be. As tough as these relationships are -- for both parties -- they are often the crucible in which new life, and new art, is born.

Simon D (br) wrote: I have definately seen worse but this is not a good film. The over acting is cringeworthy and the story is a bit ridiculous. For a horror director like Romero it must be a low point.

Chris H (kr) wrote: The acting is pretty bland (this does star Christian Slater...) and the third act is an insane mess. That being said this is a tightly paced thriller that does feature some pretty outstanding practical effects. Worth a watch for disaster film fans.

Crae B (ca) wrote: Dad: 89"I have a wallet!"

Ted M (fr) wrote: A fun movie. This all star cast had done an outstanding job. I think what drew me to watching this movie was seeing Elijah Wood (North) act as Tevye. There is some witty humour in this movie, coupled with the cast should make this movie a classic. From a philosophical point of view I think this movie speaks to all of us and the freedom we all obtain when we learn to appreciate our parents and realize that there is more to them then meets the eye...

Amber C (ca) wrote: Granted I haven't seen it in years but I saw it like 50 times when I was a kid

Stuart K (kr) wrote: Donald Cammell only ever directed 4 films. Performance, Demon Seed, White of the Eye and Wild Side. This was his second film and first set in America. Based on the 1973 novel by Dean Koontz. It's a quite scary film, although bits of it are quite silly. But, it's quite effective while it lasts. It has scientist Dr. Alex Harris (Fritz Weaver) overseeing the completion of Proteus IV (voiced by Robert Vaughn), a supercomputer who has just developed, on it's own, the power of thought. After Harris refuses to let Proteus IV study humans, the compiter takes the matter into it's own hands, and eventually sets up home in the house of Harris' estranged wife Susan (Julie Christie). Proteus takes over the house's automated computer, and traps Susan within the house. Proteus IV has even created from Susan's cells a form of synthetic spermatozoa to impregnate her. And she will give birth in 28 days to a baby. But, a battle of wits goes on between Susan and Proteus IV, This is the film where Julie Christie, essentially gets raped by a house. As silly as that sounds, (hilarious in fact), it makes for a very effective sci-fi thriller. The scary thing is that one day, with the way technology is going, it could happen to someone. Christie gives a good performance, and Cammell's direction is quite trippy, with all the psychedelic pieces that portray the mind of Proteus IV. He should have made more films.

Joel A (nl) wrote: A ridiculously bad one dimensional film that's really fun to watch for all the bad reasons.However excluding bad acting & non relatable characters this film has some terrific special effects that are incredibly convincing & much been than the over saturated CGI films of today.My favourite bad moment hands down was the scene when staff flock into an elevator (as one does in an earthquake) and it plummets 30 floor you hear these screams then animated blood splatters on the camera classic!This is a tragedy of film re: acting & story telling but it's fun & easy to laugh at...

Brandon S (ru) wrote: Insane 70's film starts out like a documentary and then transcends into a political highly sexual drama. Quite possibly one of the most unique films ever made with footage that is somewhat dated, but serves more today as a time capsule of how bizarre the 70's really were.

Steve H (es) wrote: This black and white 1961 Carry On film is one of the best of the series. Very watchable with 'new ideas' and is pretty fast paced. It has all the things that are missing from the later films. Funny rather than smutty. All the main characters are used well....especially Kenneth Williams and Kenneth Conner. Worth watching on TV but not needed for the DVD collection.

Jason K (de) wrote: Absolutely Brilliant Way To End The Dark Knight Trilogy

justin (ag) wrote: great movie~?~?~?

Chayc (es) wrote: Perfectly fine, not much more.