Cannon for Cordoba

Cannon for Cordoba

In 1916, a Mexican rebel named Cordoba steals six cannons from the forces of General Pershing who's been sent to bring order to the Texas-Mexico border. Pershing assigns a soldier named Rod Douglas to retrieve the cannons.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:104 minutes
  • Release:1970
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:cannon,   escape,   explosion,  

In 1916, a Mexican rebel named Cordoba steals six cannons from the forces of General Pershing who's been sent to bring order to the Texas-Mexico border. Pershing assigns a soldier named Rod... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Cannon for Cordoba torrent reviews

Tyler R (es) wrote: Had a new interesting idea, but could not seem to finish the way it should have been. Could have been amazing. I really do enjoy this plot idea, puts you in the middle of the movie.

Jason B (de) wrote: 4 years later and this is still my favorite movie of all time. Dealing with deep issues most churches are afraid to touch on (yet eagerly slam people on sin and demand salvation), this movie has the hard edge needed for Christian movies today to use as a standard on how to make a quality film without going overboard.

Benedetta V (br) wrote: Great cinema. I want to see more Ounpuu's movies in Italy.

Juan A (nl) wrote: Coo creo que ultimamamente me afectan las vainas en extremo cursi; esta pelicula lo es. Lo mejor sin embargo es la propia Juani. Demasiado buena la Veronica Echegui

Sander v (it) wrote: This is a great movie which perfectly depicts Munchen in the twenties of the 20th century. A movie which puts another light on the youth years of Hitler. Great cinematography.

c w (de) wrote: Claire Danes is amazing in this movie, it has an teh Indy feel that I love in movies...all in all a great movie for a rainy day

Bruno V (au) wrote: One of the many great movies with Clint Eastwood , Suspence for sure ! SOMVIDEO

AW C (jp) wrote: Is it chock full of 80's cheese? You betchya. Is it really well written and damn entertaining? You betchya.

Lachlan A (fr) wrote: A hilarious British comedy noone should miss.

Timothy J (es) wrote: Great Cold War movie about an uncovered military plot to over throw the US President for not being tough enough on the Russians.

Bradley K (es) wrote: It's not perfect and it may not even be relevant anymore but it is a compelling glimpse back into New York in the late 80s. It has all of Ferrera's typical musical and visual flair and his usual bravado in spades. If the 2 leads had been stronger, this would have been a masterpiece.

Terri C (gb) wrote: I give all Thin Mans 5 stars. There's nothing like them.

Cris B (br) wrote: The promise of Gable, Powell, and Loy sharing the screen is better in theory than actuality, albeit I have a feeling it's only because this film seemed "rushed." For a better pairing of Loy and Gable, I'd suggest Wife vs. Secretary; and, of course, for the best of the Powell/Loy films, turn to The Thin Man series.

Steve W (jp) wrote: One must be careful when viewing The Gold Rush. I recently re-watched it and didn't like it, because it was the remastered shorter version with Chaplin's voice over. The original 96 minute version is the one I enjoyed when I was younger, without the voice over and the piano musical score. The Gold Rush is fun, early Chaplin, but be wary of what version you watch.

Kent H (fr) wrote: If you enjoyed the first 300 film like I have. Then you will probably not enjoy this film....I just don't understand why this film was needed......Greene was probably the only one who save the film with Xerxes...everything else was just not needed. The animation and action was just so low budget compared to its predecessor.

Mark E (nl) wrote: A low budget sci-fi film with a plot that literally jumps along and has been seen in many films before.

Harry W (mx) wrote: I am a person rarely pleased with basic romantic comedies, so Wimbledon wasn't a film I had high expectations for. But considering that Kirsten Dunst took on the lead role, it sounded like it was worth checking out.Wimbledon isn't exactly the best film, nor is it my usual kind of film. But it certainly wasn't the generic romantic comedy that I was expecting it to be.Admittedly, it isn't my kind of film. Since watching Tennis isn't my favourite sport as I prefer to watch more hands on games, Wimbledon doesn't exactly capture my entertainment from a sporting perspective. And since the romantic comedy genre is arguably one of my least favourite kinds since movies of the kinds tend to follow the same predictable path, Wimbledon certainly needed to do a lot to appeal to me although the chance wasn't too likely. And although I found that Wimbledon did have its moments which were somewhat funny and charming, overall it was a rudimentary and formulaic film which balanced both genres well but took generic routes through them. I really didn't enjoy Wimbledon for the exact reason I expected, and so it certainly isn't a film that can supply any surprises or much originality.The plot in Wimbledon is easily predictable, and so the entire experience is merely a dull one because during the 94 minute running time there was really insufficient entertainment material which rendered the film feeling like it ran for a lot longer than it actually did. And since the film has a mere 94 minute running time, this is problematic.There aren't really any strong comedic moments in the film. While there is occasionally a laugh or two to be had at some of the humourous things that the characters are saying, there was no consistency with the success of the film and so it was at best a sporadically funny film which was built on formulaic roots and never managed to transcend them. It wasn't a cringe-worthy film and its lighthearted and laid back atmosphere made it easy to watch, but it was the same basic thing from every sports film with a basic romantic story, and it simply didn't make me laugh enough or give me any surprises. I wasn't too surprised with the quality of Wimbledon because it didn't defy my expectations, but I was just disappointed that the effect of the film was so weak. It had the appropriate musical score to enhance it, but it didn't have the right material to be successful or all that funny so the effect of the film was an emotionally distant and ineffective romantic comedy which had some slight comedic moments but nothing that continuous entertainment was able to consist of.Although, Wimbledon does have a certain visual appeal to it.They cinematography in Wimbledon is skilfully shot, particularly during the tennis match sequences. The camera eye follows the movement of the ball very well and makes the sporting aspect of the film depicted well from a visual perspective, and it is edited very well too. And at other times it moves gently to keep the dramatic mood of the film active. The cinematography captures everything well, all of the scenery and attractive cast members.And although the material is fairly generic, the cast to manage to bring out the best in and at least allow some life to come into Wimbledon.The lead performance of Paul Bettany is a fairly decent one. While his character is a somewhat generic one, he transcends the usual male protagonist from a lot of lesser quality romantic comedies by actually putting ambition into his character. It is easy to see that Peter Colt truly wants to win the Wimbledon cup, and you can tell that Paul Bettany is really thinking like a man in the situation would be. He works the lead role with ease from a dramatic standpoint and even has his own comedic moments from time to time. Paul Bettany manages to take on the lead role in Wimbledone with ambition and dedication which is more than I have come to expect from generic films like this, so his talent manages to transcend the actual quality of the film as a whole.But the standout cast member is surely Kirsten Dunst. Kirsten Dunst's natural charm makes her an appealing lead in Wimbledon. She is a very attractive woman, but she transcends that with her ability to work her way into the comedic roots of the material well. Like in Bring it On, Kirsten Dunst reveals her natural talent for comedic charisma which she brings out again in Wimbledon, and so of all the cast members in the film she is the main source of the successful humour. She manages to make Wimbledon a more compelling film than it needed to be or even deserved to be simply because it is difficult for audiences not to get sucked into her graceful friendly charm just as Paul Bettany's character Peter Colt does. Kirsten Dunst manages to transition into an adult role very well in Wimbledon because she tackles the material very maturely and lets her comedic charm take over so that her performance is both a real and appealing one where she shows off how good she is in comedy and drama material, and her chemistry with Paul Bettany is very appealing.Jon Favreu really doesn't get enough screen time in Wimbledon which is a shame because he is a naturally funny man and his brief appearance benefits from his natural charisma. So although Wimbledon doesn't know how to capitalise on him, somebody was at least smart enough to cast him in the film to make it less laugh-free.Sam Neill's small amount of screen time is good as well, although from a dramatic standpoint.But despite the efforts of Kirsten Dunst and the stylish direction of Richard Loncraine, Wimbledon fails to transcend its generic roots and falls into being a formulaic and predictable film of both the sports and romantic comedy genre which is easy to forget.

Luc L (it) wrote: Uninteresting film from a weak storyline.