Just out of prison, ex-con Ugo Piazza meets his former employer, a psychopathic gangster Rocco who enjoys sick violence and torture. Both the gangsters and the police believe Ugo has hidden $300,000 that should have gone to an American drug syndicate boss.
- Stars:Gastone Moschin, Barbara Bouchet, Mario Adorf, Frank Wolff, Luigi Pistilli, Ivo Garrani, Philippe Leroy, Lionel Stander, Mario Novelli, Giuseppe Castellano, Salvatore Arico, Fernando Cerulli, Giulio Baraghini, Franco Beltramme, Rossella Bergamonti,
- Director:Fernando Di Leo,
- Writer:Giorgio Scerbanenco (book), Fernando Di Leo (story), Fernando Di Leo (screenplay), Fernando Di Leo (dialogue)
Just out of prison, ex-con Ugo Piazza meets his former employer, a psychopathic gangster Rocco who enjoys sick violence and torture. Both the gangsters and the police believe Ugo has hidden... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Caliber 9 torrent reviews
(ru) wrote: Excellent movie and adaptation of a brilliant book. I simply don't understand all the bashing at this great movie.
(br) wrote: This movie is stunning! The depth of humanity exposed in a conversation about something as simple as a meal on your plate is unexpected and powerful!
(kr) wrote: saw it last night, on and half hours of my life i will neverget back. worst film i have seen. repetitive, boring, plot sounds interesting, but never goes going. frustrating, what could have been a good movie is like a really bad soap opera with naff acting, and nothing to engage the imagination. sooooooo bad, don't waste your time.
(ca) wrote: Naked bodies, and not really more, the story has nothing special. The surfing scenes are good maked. The end .... well, I expected a little more info about the end. Really, the best of the movie are the boys ;)
(mx) wrote: started it didnt like it pretty grosss
(kr) wrote: This was a movie that was filed under, "I've never seen that...I'll get to it eventually." Apparently what it took was someone to hand me the disc and tell me that I could watch it this weekend. I didn't even ask. But, never the less, I'm not one to not watch movies. The first thing that I enjoyed about the movie was the cast. It seemed like ... See Moreevery fine minutes I was saying to myself, "Hey that's the guy from ," and that's a good thing. It was refreshing to see a handsome, younger version of Stephen Tobolowsky(Bing!) before he started being typecast as "nerdy scientist" or "annoying casual acquaintance." The movie was well written, well acted, and well directed. I will say that the graphic scenes, whether violence or sexual in nature, felt more as if they there for the sake of being there and didn't contribute to the movie as a whole. If some of the scenes were shortened or even removed it wouldn't take away from the viewing experience. The plot kept me guessing to the end but some things did seem a little predictable and there were other things that I thought would come back into play but never did. If you haven't seen this movie then chances are you never will. It's been out for almost twenty years now and is still excellent filmmaking, but is it a must see? If you had wanted to see it, you probably already would have by now.
(au) wrote: I was surprised by how much I liked this teen horror flick. In terms of the history of cinema, no, it isn't any kind of groundbreaking achievement, but I just really enjoyed it.
(it) wrote: Started thinking of what were good 'erotic' movies after the pretty lousy picks in RTs best erotic films. This is a watchable film for the story based on the letters of Heloise and Abelard. Kim Tompsons glorious red mane and delicate features are lovely and the erotic scenes are sexy and reasonably regular. But the looks of the attractive characters make the intellectual foreplay fairly exciting as their romance builds to the point where they can't keep their clothes on anymore.
(ca) wrote: Hackman reprises his award winning role in a more fictionalized sequel to the original. This one takes place in France and deals a lot more with heroin addiction and recovery. Certainly raw, it doesn't have quite the same tone as the first, but is a pretty good crime drama for those who need the kind of closure the original did not provide.
(de) wrote: A bombastic, beautiful mess of a film.
(mx) wrote: Plenty of great songs. My favorite is probably "Love Look Away," and it's tough to beat the appeal of a young Nancy Kwan in her absolute prime. Amazing to see Miyoshi Umeki in a romantic lead as well. I will miss her.
(au) wrote: Wow! ...his movie just hasn't aged well since I first saw it on cable when I was about 13 - 15. When I first saw this movie it was at the time one of the more interesting scary movies that I ever saw. I must've been a retard back then...The fact that there was so little back-story on the Malfeitor character might be the most disappointing thing about this movie. There is a certain possibility that this movie would have been pretty cool if they had set that up & done it right. Then there are the little things that bug me... 1. Besides the fact that they couldn't have known where the kid was buried & they could be looking for his grave all night long & then some, a little over an hour into the movie when Brandon is jumping the wall into the cemetery he puts the flashlight down on the top of the wall, picks it up when he's up there & then after jumping down from the wall picks it up again... 2. When Jim & Brandon are in the cemetery & Jim scares the shit out of Brandon the look on Brandon's face, just before Jim comes up behind him, is classic moron! The acting for the whole movie is pretty bad but, probably nowhere else in the entire movie is it this bad!3. During the Ouija board scene near the end when Brandon asks David "And you didn't kill Sarabeth?" the correct answer is yes, meaning "Yes, I didn't kill Sarabeth!" But, instead the answer is "No." meaning "No, I did kill Sarabeth!" Was the budget for this movie so puny that they couldn't afford to reshoot that scene or at least edit this minor scene to not make it look stupid?? Was the budget so puny that they couldn't afford to perform a few script readings for the cast?! Ultimately, this movie falls short bc they didn't really try at all to follow the storyline in a manner that makes sense and just went haphazardly blundering through it. If anyone with a minimum number of properly working braincells actually works/ed on such movies then they should know that since they don't have big budgets then they should stay away from the things that you basically need big budgets to have, to take proper advantage of, etc. Independently made, small budget films, by their very nature and description, don't have big budgets so while they can use, for example, some special effects they are better off barely using them at all bc all to often they look like fake shit. This means that smaller budget films, instead of relying on things that they can't, or can hardly, afford, since to rely on things like special effects/computer graphics, the best/nearly the best actors, expensive soundstages, etc., is just going to blow up in their face, ...they need to rely on intelligently written scripts, well written dialogue, better acting, real places for settings, ...things that they can actually afford!Granted, they didn't try very hard to control the things that they didn't have much control over, except for perhaps the dream sequence where Linda gets her head chopped off by Malfeitor...(It would have looked better if they hadn't of shown her head being chopped off with the axe; if she had woken up just before this happened in the dream that would have made more sense!) but, they really didn't try very hard at all to control the things that they did have control over, such as the script, the dialogue, a decent director! In a way, I sort of liked this movie but, it was just made by stupid ppl.Stephen Nichols, who played Brandon, did go on to a lucrative soap opera career.... so, that explains a certain amount of the stupidity right there.