Bare på jobb

Bare på jobb

Robert Reiakvam is a documentary filmmaker. He is far from successful and tends to make films no one wants to screen. His next big project is a documentary about debt collectors. After ...

Robert Reiakvam is a documentary filmmaker. He is far from successful and tends to make films no one wants to screen. His next big project is a documentary about debt collectors. After ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Bare på jobb torrent reviews

Dave F (mx) wrote: im a big fan of the disaster that happened more than 25 years ago, even the one challenge on Top Gear uk where the boys have to run out of fuel before the exclusion zone or they would have to continue is one of my faves.This movie however was rather mediocre, the fact the whole town (which i rekon could have been a movie set) was wonderfully set up and stunningly desserted but the seat of pants gave me a few jumps but then the movie just progressed and characters starting "dying" was rather typical and slightly confusing. wouldnt really tell people it was great tho as a movie to watch once yea why not! the only good thing was singer Jesse McCartney providing some eye candy in an otherwise mediocre film.

Edmund C (it) wrote: Well made! didn't know this BBC movie existed til last week :) Douglas Booth is so natural as George, that I didn't see anything but his story being told. Can't wait to attend my first Culture Club concert soon...

Rob B (jp) wrote: Impressively grim and enjoyably joyless, the story just falls very short of it's bleak tone, acting and design work.

Klei R (br) wrote: I've seen a similar movie about the relationship between homosexuality and Christianity, but the name of it escapes me now. That one was a little more in depth in that it got people from both sides of the table to argue the points and then let the audience decide.This movie doesn't really do that. It profiles half a dozen groups of gay Muslims (both male and female), but doesn't go much into the debate surrounding homosexuality. The only debate you got from the clerics on film was that there was no debate to be had about homosexuality, and any opinion that differed from theirs was not legitimate because the person was "interpreting" the Koran (which seemed like a strange argument in that the cleric was also "interpreting" the Koran, just in a different way).Most of the people in the movie were more or less forced to move from their home countries because of (in some cases severe) persecution. From the looks of it, Turkey was the only mainly Muslim country where homosexuals were allowed to live in something less than absolute fear, which I guess says some good things about Turkey.Anyway, if you thought homosexual Christians have it bad, homosexual Muslims seem to be in the same boat, if not worse. It reminds me of a saying I heard once by the great philosopher/poet Rodney King, "Can't We All Just Get Along?" Preach on, Brother King. Preach on....

Giovanni M (jp) wrote: A cliched, feel-good movie that drowns the talented cast in gooey sentiment and overdone melodrama.

Jayden C (nl) wrote: really goodmust see

Steve D (kr) wrote: I really did not want to see it but it kept my interest the entire time. Very different and engaging

Adam M (kr) wrote: I gave it 2.5 just because i'm a Devilman fan and seeing it in live action was pretty cool. Take away the 'fan factor' and it's probably 1 star. Weak story, weak acting and (at times) bizarre direction. Unless you know Devilman you won't have a clue what's going on.

bert p (ag) wrote: Funny and weird, mostly weird.

Ben C (de) wrote: It is an unintentional film with awful effects/ make up that lacks in scares, comedy, or, initially, good acting.

Rosie C (de) wrote: good movie, glen close was excellent

John C (ca) wrote: Hermosa, divertida, honesta; una joya del cine alemn. La encuentran completica en Youtube.

Syed R (au) wrote: Great concept, I love the idea of Frankenstein's monster being created in a insane asylum but the execution could've been much better. That being said it is a Hammer film so the parts that didn't quite work was expected, but I once again did enjoy Peter Cushing's performance. I appreciate that they didn't try to recreate the classic Frankenstein's monster look, and went with the concept of Mary Shelley's book by making their own version.

Aj V (es) wrote: How many times has Chaney been brought back to life with electricity? This movie's pretty boring for the most part, but it's also kind of cool in some parts too like the ending.

Louise B (ag) wrote: Classic Holmes in a modern setting. I like that they were in America, that was pretty cool! The story was good and suspenseful. I like the whole microfilm aspect that was neat. As always I love Dr. Watson!! Much better than Voice of Terror.

Chris m (de) wrote: One of the best movies ever

Russell G (br) wrote: Our favorite museum night watch, Larry and his dependable goofy historical friends notice something wrong when they come to life. The magic of Ahkmenrah tablet is fading, and it begins to grow a green corrosive film. Larry rounds up his display wax friends and takes them to Britain on a traveling exhibition. Once again, we get a new museum of untamed creatures and historical and literary figures coming to life, and chaos ensues. The British museum does not add up to much in terms of colorful companions short of its Lancelot character played by Dan Stevens. Luckily, it leans on familiar faces of Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Steven Coogan, and the monkey to carry it. As an adventure, it is merely average even for a kid's movie, but the tangential gags and goofy side jokes save it. Despite a potent cast of big-name talents, only Ben Stiller has the chance to shine. The British night attendant played by Rebel Wilson, in particular, could have been so much better. The first two movies underutilize a gifted cast as well. Like the characters in the movie, this series is losing its magic in some ways, but a jovial cast and short runtime keep in check. If you enjoyed the first two, then this will prove adequate. In a way, it is sad to see Stiller closes the door on the series, or at least his participation in it. It is, however, the right thing to do, and he does so with dignity.

Yuriy T (ca) wrote: Mediocre real time thriller, solid acting but a way too predictable and has enough cliches to make it unpleasant to watch.

Karen H (es) wrote: Watched 10 min, looked promising to me but "too British" for hubby.

Danny R (us) wrote: Russell Mulcahy's surprisingly engaging action fantasy which was largely panned by most critics, but has since become a cult-classic. It concerns a Scottish swordsman named Connor MacLeon, well-played by Christopher Lambert, who in 1536 is pierced through the heart during mortal combat in the Scottish Highlands and becomes an immortal. In the year 1986 Connor lives in New York City as a sophisticated high-end antique dealer. It is here in this city and time that he will confront his ancient immortal nemeses, the Kurgan, chilling played by Clancy Brown with joyful malice. It is the time when the remaining immortals duel to the death until only one survives to claim "The Prize." Sir Sean Connery delivers a wonderfully flamboyant supporting performance as an immortal named Juan Sanchez Villa-Lobos Ramirez, who becomes Connor's mentor and teaches him the art of swordplay as well as the rules to the game. Good direction by Mulcahy, who gives his film superb action sequences and flashy cinematography by Gerry Fisher. Entertaining and well worth a look. Followed by three sequels and a television series. Recommended.