Bounty Hunters

Bounty Hunters

A group of down-on-their-luck bounty hunters hit the jackpot one night when they pick up an informant with a hundred thousand dollar bounty on his head. But their world is turned upside down when a mob boss offers them one million dollars in exchange for the informant. When they refuse, the mafia unleashes a trio of assassins on them who use all of their power to bring the bounty hunters down, and to get their man - dead or alive.

A hundred thousand dollar bounty or a million dollar execution? Choosing the former launches the heroes of BOUNTY HUNTERS into an all-out fight just to stay alive. The feature film debut of... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Bounty Hunters torrent reviews

Grant L (de) wrote: This film was even worse than its predecessor! But Larry's voice made the film a tad bit interesting! My friend's little sister forced me and him to watch this movie! We hated it! Only his little sister enjoyed it!

Johnny T (de) wrote: It felt like I was catching up with some friends to who I thought I was going to have to say goodbye a few months ago. All of the toys are back - even better, all the voice actors are back as well, and we wouldn't have it any other way. It is great to see all these characters on the big screen once again. The downside is that since there are so many of them, we don't get to spend that much time with any one of them. The visuals are what we have come to expect from Toy Story and Pixar. Stunning animation, fantastic lighting, incredible attention to detail - the list can go on and on. Just because the feature film series has transitioned to shorts, Pixar hasn't taken that as a reason to produce anything less than visually beautiful. This new Toy Story film is simply a must-see. The beloved characters from the trilogy return in a hilarious, touching, inventive new short. VERDICT: "Matine" - (Mixed reaction). These kinds of movies are usually movies that had some good things, but some bad things kept it from being amazing. This rating says to pay matine prices to see at a theatre, buy an ex-rental or a cheap price of the DVD to own.

Phil N (gb) wrote: Based on a popular manga, this Korean comedy drama focuses on a guy called Tachibana who opens a bakery, employing former schoolfriend Ono as the chef. Ono has always fancied his boss, and all the other staff fancy Ono, so hilarity ensues. Plus there??s a more serious subplot at work as they attempt to discover the cake-loving criminal who abducted Tachibana as a kid. It??s a surprising mix of comedy and drama that works well ?? and you??ll definitely want to indulge your sweet tooth after all the mouth-watering cakes on show!

Scotty R (de) wrote: The most frightening feature of Camp Hell is the fact that the creators used Jesse Eisenberg's face (more than laughable considering his small "role"/cameo) on the front cover in Redbox to promote the film. Although a bit campy (no pun intended) at times, this movie provides a detail look at how certain christian camps take the bible and its teachings quite literaly, much to the dismay of the kids attending. The horror aspect of the film is found more evident in the brutality of how these camps are run, rather than the quick film shots of some sort of elusive demon that haunts the main character along with the rest of the camp. The writers should have focused more on the realistic haunting theme of the camp setup itself rather than try to work in some irrelevant demonic creature to try to get its official stamp as a "horror" flick. I think that doing so would have produced a much more rent worthy film.

Lauren C (us) wrote: LOVE this movie, it's so cute and fun and fast paced

Stuart M (ca) wrote: So this is Atlas Shrugged, the long-delayed film version of Ayn Rand's long and overexposited philosophy course marketed as a novel. I know something of the book and went in expecting something of a trainwreck. It's much worse than that. I thought it would be an amusing crash but instead the film is interminably long and filled with ridiculous pacing. I had wondered how they'd adapt Rand's clumsy dialogue and boring speeches into film and they do it in the simplest way possible: they film it as written. So Basically the plot is this: the rich, successful white businessmen are fiendishly oppressed by a government that's trying to make them support small businessmen and the less privileged. These noble figures care so much about, well, themselves that they abandon the society that rejects their desire to form monopolies (quite literally the stated and heroic goal) and drive small businesses and dissatisfied workers out of business (again, quite literally exactly what we're shown in scenes designed to make clear that we should support this) that they abandon it to its fate and leave to form their own government where they're free to oppress people in peace. This "oppression" consists entirely of strawman arguments which present the government not so much as the extreme form of a nanny state but as an entirely imaginary system where the government crushes big businesses but does nothing for anyone. All "villains" are simultaneously altruists out to provide opportunities for the less wealthy and greedy fatcats out to line their own pockets. It's not that those two traits are incompatible, but they make no effort to merge them or even point out their hypocrisy. The villainous businessmen are willingly giving up their profits to help the less fortunate and yet somehow also seen as lining their pockets from this in a typical fatcat way. How can those two ideas coexist? And the film doesn't even try to make sense of it because that'd mean assuming that there are rational beliefs possible outside their own.Yes, this film is about objectivism; the idea that greed is good doesn't go far enough. Greed isn't just good it's the only good. Altruism isn't just naive it's evil. Any attempt to help your fellow man is wasted because if they aren't already successful it's because they're not working hard enough. The poor deserve to be poor. No free meals. No helping hands. No supporting small businesses. Nothing that would damage the almighty profit. If it doesn't benefit you personally you shouldn't do it. All history is made by supermen, people who are smart enough to recognize that only profit matters and good enough to maximize that. They drive the economy and they create jobs, although as the film makes clear they also don't follow safety regulations or pay a living wage. If they deserve to survive then they should have been better businessmen. It's about the single most appalling philosophy of the century. Even fascism and communism at least paid lip service to the idea that their society (however narrowly defined) needed to be kept from starvation and abuses of the wealthy.And the film itself is designed to do nothing but promote this agenda. It's not really well-equipped to do anything else. The entire plot is just people talking about how great their business is, or how awesome it is to not care about other people. So yes, we get to watch people talk about business regulations and economic policies all day. Yay! The basic concept is that in the dark future year of 2016 (my God, that's like tomorrow!) the entire world is brought low by an oil shortage. This creates a new reliance on the railroads, which the country now relies on to transport goods cross country. You might be expecting this to mean that people have stopped or severely limited driving cars, boats, or airplanes. Nope. They still use them just as before. But now rail is big! So the lead character has found this businessman who is marketing a brand new type of metal that could revolutionize the rail industry (10x stronger than steel!). Her brother decides he doesn't want to use this new steel because he wants to support the small businesses he usually buys from. What a jerk! She overrules him somehow and orders the new steel put in. At this point her brother conspires to sabotage his own line and prevent it from being completed. Because the plot assumes that all non-greedy people are stupid. That's the only explanation this film can find for why people wouldn't sell their own family for profit. After all, they're already acting against their own interests by supporting smaller companies, so they must be irrational. There can be no other explanation. So our hero now has to succeed in her ultra high-tech railroad against all odds.And that's basically the whole plot. Nothing really happens in this entire film. A series of wealthy businessmen keep being accosted by a mysterious man in a hat, as their names appear with the word missing written under them. it was at this point that I came to the horrible realization that this film thought it was a thriller. Honestly, it's hard to find words for how dull this is. It doesn't really have any plot, and what little there is gets delivered in highly stilted and unbelievable pronouncements. Despite this oversimplicity the film just fails to make sense. It's confusing, needlessly so. Who are all these people vanishing? Why does it matter? Is this supposed to be sinister? It's all exposition and nothing is exposited. Just again and again they state the same thing: looking out for your interests is the only true good. I'd call it propaganda, but that's supposed to make an idea seem attractive. This just made me fall asleep, and I don't sleep through films easy.There are a few funny scenes. Like the testing of their new bridge. They treat this as if it's some dramatic moment as they ride in their train across it half-expecting it to fall. It's so obviously a falsely dramatic moment I couldn't stop laughing. Only morons would test a bridge like that without having done stress tests first. By the time they ride over it would be obvious if it would hold up or not. What's more, making it over once is irrelevant. The question is whether it stands up over time. And of course, the train rides along the course of a valley until it reaches a tall cliff. Naturally that's where one puts their railroad bridge! That said, moments like this are few and between. The film wasn't as campy as I had hoped. It isn't really anything. Just a bland mess with a repulsive message.It's rather hilarious to read the positive user reviews of this film because they're all passionate ideologues. That's not funny because they have an ideology, but because they stutter around for a bit looking for something, anything, positive to say about this trainwreck and end up criticizing the film left and right before moaning about how much better the book was (like poetry!) and finally settling on a positive review just to make a point. Reading the positive reviews should actually show just how bad this film is because you can see that even its fans have little to offer apart from criticism. They only support it because of what it stands for. I feel no sympathy.

Thomas F (es) wrote: Le casting est d (C)tonnant avec de nombreuses actrices qui ont fait leur preuves dans les films d'Almodovar. Les acteurs ne sont pas mal non plus. Les personnages sont sur le point de se marier mais tout ne va pas se passer comme pr (C)vu. On vit les quelques jours, voire mme les quelques heures qui pr (C)cdent en ayant chaque fois un point de vue diff (C)rent. Le film est trs r (C)ussi.

Peter N (jp) wrote: Hugely disappointing. Lots of nice costumes and country houses, but we're left with very little idea of who either Strachey or Carrington were... you probably wouldn't even know one was a writer and the other was a painter. Completely pointless and turgid.

Ted W (es) wrote: Great fantastic epic movie in the Harry potter series starring daneil radcliffe. This movie is epic in every way possible. Voldemort appears in full for the first time and fighting against Dumbledore in an awesome battle, good vs evil. The first half of the movie when the old lady new teacher comes in and pretty much destroys hogworts, it was lame and didn't have to be put in the movie but either way I forgot about it when sirus black died and I was too busy and in awe/ shock. I love every single Harry potter movie and it's coming to an end but we have fantastic beasts or other spinoffs.

Gordon T (gb) wrote: Americans drop CLUSTER BOMBS on countless civilians; HEARTS AND MINDS totally changes the way I perceive US FOREIGN POLICY. After WORLD WAR II it seems that every WAR we've fought has been GENOCIDAL in nature. Civilians seem to be the target in our WAR strategy. Let's see: at the end of WWII we (we being The United States of America) dropped two Atomic Weapons on Japan: upon impact, the Nagasaki Bomb killed 40,000 civilians (8/9/1945) upon impact, the Hiroshima Bomb killed 80,000 civilians (8/6/1945) so, within three days my country killed One Hundred Twenty Thousand Civilians with two bombs Since the two weapons were ATOMIC, Fat Man and Little Boy, radiation was released from both devices poisoning and genetically altering approximately an additional 100,000 civilians. In Total, the two atomic weapons caused the deaths of around two hundred and fifty-thousand unarmed civilians. In Vietnam, my country financed the French Occupation of Vietnam and then began invading Vietnam as early as 1955, we dropped CLUSTER BOMBS, NAPALM, (sprayed) AGENT ORANGE upon civilian villages constantly especially after OPERATION MENU began that included incessantly bombing CAMBODIA. we killed approximately 242,000 civilians in Vietnam. Apparently since commencing our involvement in IRAQ, an estimated 151,000 to 600,000 civilian deaths have occurred. The United States of America seems to target civilians from what I'm hearing. Then my fellow Americans say "Its "All" propaganda and manipulation. . . How can "it" be propaganda and manipulation when we have the actual films of the Atomic Weapons actually exploding over Civilian-populated Japanese cities and Footage of the bombings in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan . . . There's overwhelming evidence that The United States of America targets Civilians in its war schema. -- Don't get me wrong I AM TOTALLY NOT ANTI-WAR; if were weren't in Afghanistan, people with axes to grind with The United States of America would be exploding Nuclear Weapons in our major cities left and right for REVENGE over what some of my fellow Americans DID to their people. Its just very difficult to maintain my country as being The Good Guy in every War Theater since WORLD WAR II. and HEARTS AND MINDS crystallized my suspicions about The United States of America harboring genocidal tendencies inherent in its Foreign Policy Agenda. Genocide: when one race kills an exorbitant amount of people of another race. ---Unfortunately war is necessary, especially now because I suspect a lot of cultures probably resent my country's antics during wartime. how about: war is not unnecessary these days . . . (note the double-negative)

Rob L (mx) wrote: If I would have rated this movie back in the nineties, it would be much higher. This was one of my favorite Jim Carey performances, it still maybe, but it has aged very poorly. This reeks of nineties sap and humor. That being said, this is still a funny movie with a great Jim Carey and a funny concept. Back when I first saw it I remember pausing (my VRS) to stop laughing. So over look the 20 year gap and the corny happy ending, and rewatch this and remember what we used to love about slap stick

Tom R (fr) wrote: Amazing only the end a little disappointing. It opens your eye about world situation.

Alexia F (it) wrote: Not the best of the muppets movie, but still enjoyable.