In 1974, a misguided 19 year old named Michael Peterson attempted to rob a post office in order to make a name for himself. Peterson then becomes one of the United Kingdom's most dangerous criminals, and is known for having spent almost his entire adult life in solitary confinement. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
You may also like
Bronson torrent reviews
Jason C (jp) wrote: Brendan Gleeson is on my list of favorite actors and even though he is very good as usual the premise and how far fetched it goes is the real problem I kept getting irritated by and distracts from good acting and some funny scenes.
Rotimer J (us) wrote: Intriguing enough, but a poor script with unlikeable characters and a few unforgivable clichs makes for a less than enjoyable experience.
Scott G (es) wrote: There is a lot to admire here. Ultimately though, it is a case of visual miscommunication. The art style would have you believe that you are about to see something unique and interesting... When actually you are watching an expected story, with expected characters, told in an expected way.
Brian C (jp) wrote: So bad and inept. The acting, storytelling and visuals, just so bad. Everything was distracting. Which is too bad because the story of the ghosts was quite neat.
Jian G (es) wrote: Apparently Bad Teacher believes watching Diaz as a shrewish slattern for 90 minutes is amusing and suffices for a feature length film. Ultimately, it becomes a wasteful endeavor as the anti-hero's motive (the plot device) is abruptly nixed due to a weird dry hump scene.
Christopher B (it) wrote: Great storytelling. This is not just a great Marvel movie, it's a great film.
Saidur S (br) wrote: Entertaining but could have been much better. Music is good.
Jessica L (gb) wrote: Enjoyable movie, satircal with some wise words. But overall the plot is a bit flat. There are no memorable moments, hence not a memorable movie.
Laurel S (mx) wrote: A great movie that makes you think of all the people that come into are lives for a reasons we really dont know why.
Freddy F (us) wrote: B+ = Close to perfect
Jon W (es) wrote: Has the sort of semi-incompetent action that we know and love from Sam Firstenberg, yet manages to entertain for most of the movie. Funny and entertaining, just not a great action movie.
Isaac M (fr) wrote: A rare awesome sequel that definitely lives up to the first film! C'mon the police station massacre! Easily the best and memorable scene in the film.you have the right to remain silent...forever:)
Adam W (kr) wrote: A film that never should have been made. Why make an even more awful sequel to an awful first.
Mark T (it) wrote: Nicholson gets both behind and in front of the camera, yet fails to bring much life to this dour western.
Issac L (fr) wrote: Simone Signoret's Oscar-crowning film is a Black & White adaption of John Braine's renowned melodrama ROOM AT THE TOP, directed by British Jack Clayton (which is his maiden work in the director chair and the film was a huge success in that year, nabbed 6 Oscar nominations including BEST PICTURE, DIRECTOR, ACTOR, SUPPORTING ACTRESS and two wins, BEST ACTRESS and BEST ADAPTIVE SCREENPLAY). However, compared with his later accomplishments THE PUMPKIN EATER (1964, 8/10) and THE INNOCENTS (1961, 9/10), the film's sentimental gloss couldn't outlive the modest platitude of the over-familiar story. A working-class man's oscillation between an affluent young girl and a 10-years-older married woman ends with a tragedy which devastatingly foreshadows his ominous "bright future" of his marriage and even the entire life. If one can pay no heed to the agism and sexism undertones of the narrative (which is a bona-fide reflection of that time though), the film sails adeptly alongside a nimbly yet convincingly deployed ill-doomed love story between two so-called "loving friends", their intimacy has been nurtured through an irresistible mutual attraction, peeped by the close-ups examining the highly theatric conversations such as, the dated "you cannot imagine a man looking at a naked woman without wanting to make love to her" argument, which may sound abrupt in this day, nevertheless, it has an earnest confessional self-conscious at that time I dare to assume. While it is unambiguous to say that Laurence Harvey and Simone Signoret both hold the passion burning amid them, which contributes to the major relish extracted by the contemporary mass, Ms. Signoret stuns in her not-that-ample screen time by rendering her pathetic anguish and determined desire to even every minimal gesture or movement (albeit her heavily accented English), same could be referred in her another English-speaking, Oscar-nominated film SHIP OF FOOLS 1965, 6/10. Taking the most poignant scene, the farewell at the train station, it is a tour-de-force achievement which certainly intrigues me to dig into her more naturally-spoken French filmography (besides ARMY OF SHADOWS 1969, 9/10). Laurence Harvey obtained his sole Oscar nomination for the role, he takes up nearly every scene and did a commendable job in all the transitions and outburst, he and Simone's after-coitus wrangle is so pungent yet thrilling to witness. But Heather Sears' ingenue performance seems to be a false move, it serves merely as a female exploitation and typecast if compared with Winona Ryder in THE AGE OF INNOCENCE (1993). Hermione Baddeley has established a record of getting an Oscar nomination by being on screen for only 2 minutes and 32 seconds, fairly enough, it is a marginalized role, which could be one of the most pertinent case in challenging the Academy members' bizarre percipient prowess. The film's final curtain drops onto a numb face of Harvey's groom contrasting with his cheerful wealthy bride, a solemn force can later be juxtaposed with the similar composition in Mike Nichols' THE GRADUATE (1967, 8/10).
Veeruska K (ag) wrote: The highlight of the movie was the song Jailhouserock.
Russelx F (it) wrote: Magnolia a movie produced, written and directed by Paul Thomas AndersonMagnolia ties together multiple narrative stories in this 3-hour production. Theme in the movie is seen as parental neglect and abuse. A good aspect of the film is the editing and the shots taken. It creates a good flow of the movie and the consistency of how fast the movie went. The Overall performance was good I find, however, the some scenes were random and maybe irrelevant which did slow down the film and affect my experience toward it. The acting was amazing and would say that Tom Cruise was the MVP both his acting and the character he played were both amazing in the film. Then we see the cop, John C. Reily, who played a good cop performance. Now the two weakest characters I found were Macy's and Moore. Macy's character, the whiz kid Donnie Smith, didn't impact as much. His scenes and his character were random all through the movie. Although he fits the theme of the movie as we see his back story explained. William H. Macy although a good actor his performance as this character didn't draw much attention and I find didn't seem all that relevant in the movie. Moore's character was a lot of the time mad and flipping people off and being all crazy though out the film. Maybe without her in the film, the film would've been tighter and maybe would've been a better overall performance. John C Reily's voice over in the film, I find, to be the second best part of the movie. Although he comes off as pretentious and religious, Paul Thomas Anderson, uses his monologue to create a feeling like we were actually his partner in crime is the film. The near ending of the film, the other whiz kid, Stanley and his interaction with his father was really weak. We see at the end of the film many resolutions found in each of the individual characters problems. His interaction mixed in it was flat and could've been a more powerful and meaningful dialogue between the two. The best performance, of course, in the film was Tom Cruise and his character. His monologue and scenes all taking in one shot was near impossible not to get drawn in and really intrigued with this character. Overall I rate this film 4/5 and would watch again.
Gio B (fr) wrote: i wanna get a copy of it
Jeff Z (br) wrote: Holmes and Watson are in Canada this time (one of the few places Charlie Chan never visited!) when Holmes recieves a message from a woman asking for help. But by the time they get the message, the woman is already dead, her throat ripped out savagly. For the first time, Holmes has a corpse for a client! The local villagers think a monster is responsible--perhaps a lupe-garou (though they never say the word)! However Holmes suspects a more human monster. This one is shot well but the story depends a little too much on disguises for my taste. Holmes and Watson have a lot of scenes together early on, but then Watson disappears for a good part of the middle of the film, but then reappears to save Holmes and track the killer through the foggy marshes.