Boffo! Tinseltown's Bombs and Blockbusters

Boffo! Tinseltown's Bombs and Blockbusters

Hollywoods biggest talents explore what is the recipe for blockbuster, flops, and how absolute happenstance and controlled luck can make movie magic.

Hollywoods biggest talents explore what is the recipe for blockbuster, flops, and how absolute happenstance and controlled luck can make movie magic. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Boffo! Tinseltown's Bombs and Blockbusters torrent reviews

Per M (es) wrote: Roligt skit, sm rolig.

Greg W (us) wrote: a gr8 bloody deadly sequel well done

Malachi R (es) wrote: l like to see this. it sounds interesting.

Paul C (us) wrote: prety good did not care for billy but I agree with the point

Joe J (br) wrote: An interesting debut by a new talent to watch. It's set at the end of the world in the Danube Delta and the cinematography is lovely. The performances and direction are first rate, too. It's a raw, personal film about finding yourself and your place in the world. A beautiful first film.

Sandy K (ca) wrote: The tension builds as a husband maneuvers to trap his wife in a loveless marriage, stubbornly refusing to accept that she loves another. Kristin Scott Thomas is riveting in her passion for her lover, her guilt over her betrayal of her husband, and her determination to follow her heart despite the obstacles.

Erik H (it) wrote: i'm not gonna pretend i got this. i'm gonna have to watch it again. even though i was confused, i was always having a great time. arquette's character is just so terrific. so distant and weird. lynch is truly a master of his craft.

Lasse C (fr) wrote: Messy. The writer seemed to want to cover the revolution, a crime family's fall, the incompetence of the Cuban troops and a love story. It was all just thrown together and the rattled up and down and then you get Cuba. Sean Connery was, as always, good though.

Ilsa L (ru) wrote: Disappointing low budget sequel to Westworld that doesn't do justice to the original story. The scene with Yul Brynner in it is downright silly.

Graham S (it) wrote: In short, this is a laidback version of the early Bond films, with no special effects and little action. Michael Caine delivers some excellent dry humour, which may well not be appreciated by many non-Britons. Overall, it could be better, could be worse; I'll be sticking with Bond though.

Pavandeep S (br) wrote: I have a lot of mixed feelings about this film but as it is, it does display a sense of rawness that really makes cinema into a tool for everyone, it puts our ideas and perspectives into disarray in what it displays, a re-enactment, a narrative and a documentary at the same time. The plot is very all over, with certain subplots that seems to get more attention but the focus is very clear. Overall, I can see Visconti influence when watching Ossessione. Another element is the style, which is nothing, it feels like one nice ditty that takes a non noteworthy standing in the orbit of art when compared to the magnifique of Tchaikovsky or so on. It is that drab bearing that really allows us to interpret this film in its fundamental component and that is a non-judgmental study of the emotions of these people.

Bronson W (jp) wrote: Only thing it really had going for it was little sparks of Ryan Reynolds showing off his acting chops.Not a terrible movie, by any means. Just not GOOD. Sometimes wooden/sloppy acting make it feel rushed and kind of transparent. The story is the standard story you'd expect from a rom-com mixed with a dash, and I just this word generously, dash of drama.Oh yeah, the ending kind of blew.

Dana N (mx) wrote: Could not finish it. Acting bad, story bad, scenery good.

Cain L (br) wrote: One of the most poignant, anti-war films in the 1950s.

Matthew L (mx) wrote: This movie is a plethora of 80's actors including a nude Jobeth Williams and just off the Karate Kid movies Macchio minus Morgan Freeman and has the storyline to match. It is full of some pretty good acting and not a bad script. It actually shows some good acting by Nick Nolte and surprisingly the late Richard Mulligan. It probably never went anywhere because the script matches a lot of other 80's movies of the time. Not a bad soundtrack either. Pre Back to the Future Crispin Glover is a nice touch in this.

Wesley W (mx) wrote: I can clearly see why this movie bombed on opening weekend because this film was just utter garbage and I hated it. I couldn't find anything good about this movie and the good visuals were not enough for me to give it at least one star. Everything from the mediocre acting, uninteresting story, terrible script and characters, and bland directing made this a painful experience to get through. I took breaks in between because of the bad moments the film had. This is the first time Frank Miller has directed a movie by himself and in my opinion, he did a crap job and could have done a lot better. As the film went on, the plot became more stupid, ludacris, and cliched. Gabriel Macht was a horrendous and terrible casting choice to play the lead because he was uncharismatic and his acting was awful. Scarlett Johansson who I love as an actress was terrible here and played a meaningless character. Samuel L. Jackson is usually great in about everything he is in, but here he is under a really mediocre script and had nothing good to do except speak dumb dialogue and do stupid things. Eva Mendes who isn't a great actress to begin with also played a mediocre character and was only cast here because of her looks. In the end, this movie only comes off as a worthless waste of time and it did nothing but piss me off. If you want to watch a graphic novel film that is actually good, watch Sin City, V for Vendetta, 300, or Watchman.