Brightest Star

Brightest Star

After the heartbreaking end of his first love, a recent college graduate sets out to win back the girl of his dreams only to discover a greater journey awaits him.

After the heartbreaking end of his first love, a recent college graduate sets out to win back the girl of his dreams only to discover a greater journey awaits him. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechersSize
Download   Brightest Star 2013 UNRATED HDRip XviD-EVOHDTV7653776.96 MB
Download   Brightest Star 2013 WEBRip H264 AAC 5 1CH-BLiTZCRiEGWebRip4738750.5 MB
Download   Brightest.Star.2013.DVDRip.x264-IGUANADVDRip6235451.38 MB
Download   Brightest.Star.2013.UNRATED.HDRip.XviD-EVOHDTV5535776.96 MB
Download   Brightest.Star.2013.720p.WEB-DL.H264-WEBiOS [PublicHD]WebDl32462.45 GB
Download   Brightest.Star.2013.DVDRip.XviD-iFTDVDRip4945658.73 MB
Download   Brightest Star 2013 UNRATED 720p WEB-DL H264 AC3-EVOWebDl50492.45 GB
Download   Brightest.Star.2013.UNRATED.HDRip.XviD-EVOHDTV4544776.96 MB
Download   Brightest Star 2013 UNRATED 720p HDRip h264 AAC-RARBGHDTV40351.48 GB
Download   Brightest Star 2013 DVDRip x264-IGUANADVDRip2939451.38 MB
Download   Brightest Star 2013 UNRATED 720p HDRip XviD AC3-RARBGHDTV33312.19 GB
Download   Brightest Star 2013 UNRATED HDRip XviD AC3-RARBGHDTV49251002.47 MB
Download   Brightest Star 2013 UNRATED HDRip XviD MP3-RARBGHDTV3339732.5 MB
Download   Brightest.Star.2013.WEBrip Xvid Ac3-MiLLENiUMWebRip32391.21 GB
Download   Brightest.Star.2013.720p.WEBRip.x264-Fastbet99WebRip3931999.02 MB
Download   Brightest Star 2013 DVDRip x264-IGUANADVDRip4747466.58 MB
Download   Brightest.Star.2013.DVDRip.XviD-iFTDVDRip4846658.73 MB
Download   Brightest.Star.2013.UNRATED.720p.WEB-DL.H264.AC3-EVOWebDl48542.45 GB
Download   Brightest Star 2013 UNRATED 720p WEB-DL x264 AC3-RARBGWebDl31502.45 GB
Download   Brightest.Star.2013.DVDRip.x264-IGUANADVDRip3830466.56 MB

Brightest Star torrent reviews

Andrew M (br) wrote: For a Michael Bay movie, The Island starts out with such promise. The first act of the film does an admittedly decent job of building up mystery around this world Bay has created. But all good things must come to an end, and the film slowly devolves into nonsensicality. As interesting as the world is, it's highly derivative of Nineteen Eighty-Four, Fahrenheit 451, The Matrix, and any other similar sci-fi dystopia you can imagine (it's no wonder DreamWorks ended up paying out a seven figure payment for copyright infringement). We're introduced to our leads, played by Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson, both of whose acting talents are wasted as they attempt to work through this poor excuse of a screenplay. Bay's juvenile humor clashes heavily with the supposed ambiguity of this world, and is more obnoxious than amusing.Things only get worse as the film transitions into the second and third act. Any semblance of character or plot are completely thrown out the window in the second act as Bay takes full control in the most predictable Michael Bay way: with loud, incoherent set pieces. Car/motorcycle chases, on foot chases, and perilous hanging from the side of a skyscraper plague this section of the film, and lack any fluid cinematography or direction that could at least make them enjoyable. The third act attempts to wrap up the potentially thought-provoking questions of the first act, to no avail. Bay has so many opportunities to make a statement about the ethics of cloning, but he's too preoccupied with his special effects to do anything worthwhile with them.If you're looking for a fascinating dystopia story that actually delves into thought-provoking themes, look into any of the aforementioned works that The Island shamelessly borrows from. Perhaps the involvement of Michael Bay is a big enough indicator that you're not going to get anything intellectual out of this one.

Morpheus O (mx) wrote: I can't help but compare this to film's of similar content. The acting in this movie was quite good, although perhaps not quite as good as say Made In Britain, there is only a marginal difference between this movie & that one in the acting, at best. The story was MUCH better, not the least of which is due to the fact that there is a good deal more character development; although, I would like to have seen more of an after-story, detailing what happens to the character's, such as what kind of reception did the punk kid get, the one who got kicked out of the car, once he returned to his friend's... I was surprised that they showed no repercussions from the idiot's robbing the store. After all, the owner knew Shaun & his Mom and Combo did threaten the owner's life... The ending made sense, tho I would like to have seen what happened to the group after the beating received by Milky, at the hand's of Combo.I was surprised that there was no mention of the 'traitor to the human species' political party the BNP, formed in 1982, after splintering from the 'traitor to the human species' National Front...The music, although not perfect overall, was a thousand times better, especially the song at the beginning, during the opening credit's. The choreography, between that song & the video footage is virtually flawless.

Edith N (gb) wrote: Dynastically Problematic I saw this onstage once, years ago at the Tacoma Little Theatre. My sister used to work there when I was first living in Washington, and though I don't know remember why, I was there one day when they were performing this show. It's about the only thing I know for sure that I saw there, and the other--[i]A Little Night Music[/i]--had nothing to do with Elaine; I took myself for my birthday, because it was playing around my birthday and I had no better plans. I think I was usher for [i]Once Upon a Mattress[/i], though. I do remember that their princess was doing her very best Carol Burnett, because that's who originated the role on Broadway in 1959. I suspect that this is one of those shows that gets done by community theatres a lot; it's probably available relatively cheap, and it's relatively simple to stage. There are also plenty of minor roles so you can fill the audience with people's families. Prince Dauntless (Denis O'Hare) wants to get married. However, his mother, Aggravain (Burnett herself), will not let him marry anyone who cannot pass a test to prove that she's a princess. Lady Larken (Zooey Deschanel) is in despair, because no one else is allowed to marry until Prince Dauntless does--and Lady Larken is pregnant by Sir Harry (Matthew Morrison). So Sir Harry goes off on a quest and brings back Princess Winnifred (Tracey Ullman) of a kingdom to the north. Queen Aggravain hasn't been best pleased with any of the offerings so far, but this? She swims the moat! Dauntless falls in love, but Aggravain conspires with her wizard (Edward Hibbert) to devise a test that Winnifred will be certain to fail. She will test the thing that she is most certain Winnifred doesn't possess--her sensitivity. She will try the old "pea under twenty mattresses" test. But surely that's just a story, and surely this princess, too, is doomed to fail the test! There is no delicate way to put this. Tracey Ullman was too old for the role. Yes, she was born the year the show opened on Broadway, but let's face it--that means she was forty-six when this version was filmed. She's three years older than Denis O'Hare, who looks his age. She's still sprightly and energetic, and she doesn't look as though she's about to fall over during the various dance numbers, no matter how up-tempo they are, but she is still obviously old enough so that the succession would be far from certain. They don't do a lot of close-ups, but every time they do, you can see the lines. She still looks great, and I'm not trying to say she doesn't. I'm certainly not trying to say she should have been Aggravain instead, though from a historical perspective, it would have been more accurate. I'm saying I wouldn't have cast her in the thing at all. Carol Burnett is pulling off middle aged, but Tracey Ullman doesn't pull off young. It's almost as though they decided to balance the royals' ages without worrying about whether they should. I never feel entirely comfortable with why Aggravain doesn't want Dauntless to get married, either. Winnifred gets a line toward the end about how they'll go find their own kingdom and not live with the in-laws, but of course that's ridiculous. Dauntless is an only child, and he'll stay home and await his chance to take the throne of his father, King Sextimus (Tom Smothers). And sure, maybe Winnifred will take more of his time than Aggravain would like, but the kind of woman who is that doting on a son is often thrilled at the prospect of grandchildren. Her motivation never seems to work. Either it should be expected that Sextimus will retire and give Dauntless the throne or else she should be afraid that being a grandmother will make her seem old. Just wanting all of Dauntless's attention is kind of creepy, and anyway Burnett's version of the character only gives the impression that it's what's going on in one brief musical number. I mean, it's charming enough if you manage not to think about all of this. The music is decent, if not great. Satirical takes on fairy tales can be a lot of fun. The bit about the mute king is fun, if unnecessary, and Michael Boatman does a fine job as the jester. However, I almost think this is the kind of show that most needs a live audience. Humans react better to things in groups. You're less inclined to laugh at something if you're alone than if you're with other people. And, yes, from the back of an auditorium, who's going to notice a few lines? I'm not going to tell you not to watch it, especially if you're a Carol Burnett fan--or even a Tracey Ullman fan. Heck, Tom Smothers even fools about with a yo-yo at one point, if that's the sort of thing that interests you. Nothing spectacular, but there it is. Still, I found the whole thing a bit of a disappointment. I'd much rather the library had the version Carol Burnett herself did on TV in 1964 before a live studio audience. Sometimes, the catalog just has regrets.

Ryan P (jp) wrote: It's all very glossy and picturesque, which makes an unbelievable plot much more unbelievable. There's plenty of nicely shot underwater moments with the cast, that would look great in a Bahamas tourism ad, but don't quite work here. If you came for the eye candy, you might be satisfied. For those seeking tension, action, and adventure, there's not much to be had in this unthrilling thriller.

Stephen S (br) wrote: Not a bad sequel. Not scary or anything, but an interesting film, as it looks at vampirism from a scientific perspective. Though, like I said, it is a decent sequel, anyone who's seen the first film will feel cheated because it brought the story to an end. There's no point in there being a second film, and Dracula II's plot is basically brought about by a mere accident. Aside from that, it's still pretty cool.

ryan l (ca) wrote: Possibly one of the worst films I have seen in a long time. The plot is basically absent for the first 60 minutes all you get is the directors feeble attempt to build some sort of drama around a jockey training....yawn. The cast is wooden and wouldn't be terribly out of place in some dodgy soap. I think the pause. aww shit media puzzle is going to win pause aww yeah you might be right. Does not make for riveting entertainment. The dialogue is equally appalling and cringe worthy. Particularly Curry going to the hospital to be inspired by his footy hero that was injured in the Bali bombings. Which basically went along the lines of curry: aww shit macca you got burnt macca: aww your that jockey bloke, your great curry: yeah me and me brother saw ews play at the mcg, you were great macca: thanks mate curry: so you got burnt then egh macca: yeah, curry: shit musta been awful macca: yeah, I just went in to get more people, it's what anyone would have done, never give up curry: And thus the male bonding ended. The final 10 minutes of the film are the horse race, which actually have any element of drama, but it's quickly lost when you already know that of course he won, the whole point of the film is he won. The point of films like these are to build up to that point and show the tragic struggle that took them to this point. I think the main problem was that the underlying material that the writer had to work with was not very interesting to start with and didn't really stretch to a whole movie s worth. By the end I was just wishing that the torture would end and I could go and watch an episode of neighbours for some dramatic relief.

Stuart K (de) wrote: And so it came to this, just when you thought lightning couldn't strike twice for the character of Paul Kersey, it strikes a fifth time. Shortly after the release of Death Wish 4: The Crackdown (1987), Cannon Films went bankrupt, but producer Menahem Golan was able to get the money together to make another Death Wish, and it's just as sleazy and violent as the other films. Paul Kersey (Charles Bronson) now lives in New York City again, living under the pseudonym of Paul Stewart, and he's managed to put his violent past behind him and he's now in a relationship with fashion designer Olivia Regent (Lesley-Anne Down), who has shows in New York. At one of the shows, she's threatened backstage by her ex-husband and notorious gangster Tommy O'Shea (Michael Parks). Kersey is able to see them off, but not before learning that O'Shea is the father of Olivia's daughter Chelsea (Erica Lancaster), and O'Shea is using intimidation to get custody. But when O'Shea brings violence to the proceedings, Kersey plans payback. It's a sleazy and predictable thriller, just the same as the past 4 films in the franchise, more Death Wish films were planned, but the failure of this one put the kibosh on that. Bronson just dials it in for the money, and he doesn't show any form of emotion or fear, just mugging around, unsurprisingly this was Bronson's final film.

Guillaume H (us) wrote: apart from the story itself, this is one very rich 16th century visual travelogue, with a loving attention given to details. Story wise, they manage to make it a thriller without being shrill and a romance without bieng sappy, the actors respect their caracters no matter what and you want to believe to the very end.the choice of the scenes depicted is also very effective to bring full impact to this old ubeleivable but true story

Alex K (de) wrote: True Crime Will Be The Name Of My First Feature-Length Film.

Jonathan C (de) wrote: Kinda silly. And not the best from either Firth or Stone. And not quite the regular Woody stuff. But it was fun enough to enjoy bits.