Cartel, 1882

Cartel, 1882

Horace Longstreet operates the most brutal drug empires in the south, dealing in peyote, cocoa leaves, laudanum and opium. When he learns a young transporter known as the 'Cat' has been ...

Horace Longstreet operates the most brutal drug empires in the south, dealing in peyote, cocoa leaves, laudanum and opium. When he learns a young transporter known as the 'Cat' has been ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Cartel, 1882 torrent reviews

Jason G (it) wrote: Looks good, with good performances. Not a lot of story or thought to go with it, though.

Lora R (nl) wrote: At first I thought this would be a ordinary movie, but Mayakkam Enna really surprised me. The story is meaningful and very touching and Dhanush and Richa's performances were brilliant. I know that Dhanush is a great actor, but to see Richa, a newcomer, perform this well is amazing.The songs were good and also matching. G. V. Prakash Kumar composed well.The only thing that I found odd was that they didn't show how it leads to Karthik marrying Yamini and also about Karthik's suicide attempt. The jump seemed pretty bad so it was surpring that he got out of it alive.Selvaraghavan did well with writing and directing Mayakkam Enna.

Wayne M (mx) wrote: Lore is a powerful and important story that is let down by heavy handed acting and over precious cinematography. Basically I think this film tries far too hard for its own good. Set as World War II is ending we follow 5 siblings as they trek across Germany after their parents abandon them. It has its moments but the camera work is intrusive, distracting and over reaches trying for art but never truly achieves this

Harry W (gb) wrote: With Ghost Rider being such an abhorrently poor excuse for a superhero movie, I had to see Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance for two simple reasons: to determine how it could turn out poorer than the first one and to see Christophe Lambert in a return to mainstream film circles.The problems in the first Ghost Rider were primarily the lack of action, the ridiculously cheesy storytelling and the unnecessary obsession with a love story regarding a dull character played by Eva Mendes in one of her least-appealing performances to date. Since Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance opens immediately with the sight of Idris Elba riding his motorcycle through some nice scenery, it becomes immediately clear that the film has learned from its predecessor that the correct idea is to pick up the pace. But soon after, all the potential for coherence immediately disappears as we see armed men infiltrating a monastery with secret computer technology. And when Nicolas Cage's narration comes in, the aforementioned ridiculously cheesy storytelling becomes present in Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance which effectively ensures that the film does not escape the roots established by its predecessor.As a sequel, Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance does not have to waste time exploring the background of its titular character anymore and can build on what little was accomplished by its predecessor. As a result, it improves in terms of pacing because the film is constantly moving forward. Though the story is ridiculous and the script is terrible, the Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor seem well aware of this and have decided to charge through it all at a fast pace in hopes that viewers will not miss it. For me I could clearly decipher how poor the film was, but I found it to be an improvement over Ghost Rider. Both films are incoherent, but Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance doesn't pretentiously think that it can get away with thinking that its story actually has any value to it. As well as that, the film runs for a shorter period of time which means the audience is forced to sit through less this time around, further improving the pacing.Of course, there has been minimal improvement in the writing. Though the romance is dropped from the story, the hammy dialogue remains and the premise is even more ridiculous this time around. There is also a large increase in attempts at humour throughout the film, but the unfunny jokes remain pretentious and conflict with a story that seems to believe it can be taken seriously. Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance is severly burdened by a misguided tone that thinks it can freely oscillate between jokes and story without audiences realizing that nothing makes sense about what is going on.But the narrative never had a chance to succeed. With the creators of Crank helming this film, there is potential for fun to be had. The first action scene appears very soon into the film which offers an idea that there is an increase in action, but it also reveals to audiences that Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor's idea of good action is the same as most contemporary Hollywood filmmakers: a ridiculous abundance of terrible shakycam. Though the two made an impression with the quality of their action scenes in Crank, apparently an increased budget drives their focus into the wrong place which results in cinematography that moves around faster than the film's overall pace. And though I could keep up with the premise, the cinematography proved too much for me and so the abundance of poorly-angled close-up shots and shakes really took their toll on what could have been some kind of guilty pleasure.A frequent criticism of Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance is the lacklustre quality of the CGI used. I personally didn't find problems with the quality of the visual effects even if they weren't up to the same standard as most contemporary films, I just found that they weren't benefitted by the unnecessary use of 3D. Few films actually use the 3D gimmick properly, and Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance's pretentious repetition in throwing burnt rubber, CGI flames and smoke effects at the screen sporadically is no exception. Since Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance fails in terms of style and narrative, it is obvious where that leaves the cast.Nicolas Cage's first moment on screen shows him grasping Idris Elba in one hand as if intending to punch him with the other while sweating profusely, delivering his lines with pretentious melancholy and immediately establishing that viewers are in for another hammy effort on behalf of the once-great actor who has now become a joke in social circles. Yet the endeavour of his performance comes into play when he transitions from Johnny Blaze to Ghost Rider. As the Ghost Rider breaks through to Johnny Blaze's consciousness, it is depicted through images of Nicolas Cage violently shaking, screaming and some close-up shots of his face in which his jaw is locked open while his facial features are altered by makeup and effects. The man oscillates between emotionless delivery and aggressive screams meaning he overwhelms and underwhelms while never finding a silver lining for even a single moment in the film. Nicolas Cage delivers another shoddy performance which means that he delivers on the generic contract that his standard for acting has come to promise for viewers, and so those looking for him to turn in another effort so bad that its entertaining can rejoice at his lack of coherence.Johnny Witworth can walk away from Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance boasting that he is one of the few actors to take on a prominent role in a Nicolas Cage film and deliver a performance so poor that he actually stands out as the worst of the cast. Johnny Witworth is worse than Nicolas Cage, and not many actors from his modern films have the ability to say that. Even though the film cannot be taken seriously by viewers, the fact that Johnny Witworth doesn't even want to pretend that he cares about his role at all which is just pathetic beyond belief. He doesn't even pretend to have a single flair in any line he says, so it is truly a mystery to me just how anyone saw fit to cast him in anything at all. If someone thought it would be funny to cast a terrible antagonist against a protagonist played by Nicolas Cage then that would explain it, but wouldn't justify it. It's as if Johnny Withworth wants to pretend he is Xander Harris from Buffy the Vampire Slayer without any of the goofy charm that Nicholas Brendon put into the role to make him iconic. Johnny Witworth is an emotionless, witless actor whose notion of intimidation is the furthest thing from antagonistic or entertaining.You would wonder how an actor as accomplished as Idris Elba would find himself signed on to a film like Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, but I suppose everyone has gotta claim an easy paycheck at one point in their career. It's just that the man actually has a career so he could be claiming it better ways than a supporting role so arbitrary to the feature that it is almost forgettable. The standard of acting boasts little from him and he delivers as such, but his presence at least maintains some level of appeal in the modern day.As I said earlier, Christophe Lambert's appearance in Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance is one of the main reasons I saw the film. Seeing him shaved bald and covered in tattoos is a significant change of pace for the Immortal from the highlands of Scotland. Since the man has a legacy for B-movies, the way he delivers his lines works along with the script well enough to seem more genuine than anyone else. His 3 months of sword training do not precisely pay off since he receives absolutely minimal screen time, but the spirited stare in his eyes and his mysterious tone of voice remain an asset which should cater to fans of his. He still makes a more notorious effort than half the other more dominant cast members.And the brief appearance from Anthony Stewart Head is appealing to me as a fan of both Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Little Britain.So Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance's increased pace, shorter running time and higher quantity of action scenes serves as an improvement over its predecessor, yet maintaining the same story incoherence and shoddy script while losing sight of how to actually craft a strong action scene ensures that it is still far from being even a half-decent guilty pleasure.

Garrett A (de) wrote: I had several problems with the film L'Esquive. There were some good things about it, but there were some things I could not get past. All of the problems I had with this movie were because the point of the movie was to be real, but there were parts that were not realistic. The thing that bothered me the most was the incessant arguing. I have no problem with the fact that they were arguing, but the way it was done was wrong. I felt like either side in an argument were just throwing out words rather than actually responding to what the other person was saying. It became apparent during the argument between Lydia and Frida. I noticed it in the dispute between the shop owner and Lydia at the beginning of the movie as well. There were several other parts that this happened including the confrontation of Magali and Lydia's friends. There was no attempt at debate. It was just shouting, and it did not seem very real to me. The arguing was such a large part of the movie, yet to me, it was not done very well. I also think it lacked any emotional connection to the characters and the audience. It really never developed the relationships between any of the characters in the movie except Lydia, Nanou, and Frida. However, those three were constantly fighting so it was still difficult to interpret their relationship. The relationship between those three was one that they all looked out for each other. None of the other characters seemed like they were that close. It did not describe how they met or why they are friends, other than the fact that they look after one another, but it never explained why they chose each other to be friends, and not any of the other people. Therefore, the audience lacked a connection to the characters. As a viewer, I felt distanced from the people in the movie. I think many people would say it was boring because you, as a viewer, were not involved. I could have cared less about the outcome of the relationship between Krimo and Lydia. It accomplishes some good things in its cinema verit style, but it is poorly executed in the end.

Edith N (br) wrote: Every once in a while, history churns up a genuine, bonafide conspiracy. We know this, because someone always finds out about it. Conspiracy Theorists seize on these moments to try to prove their case, but they forget about things like Senate Subcommittee Hearings, which most of the conspiracies have received these days. Yes, the fact of the Tuskegee Study was kept secret from its participants for decades, and no, the general public didn't know about it. But I can't help thinking that it would have been pretty easy to find out about, if you'd been looking. Certainly they got government appropriations every year, and anyone in the hospitals that received the list of those who couldn't get penicillin shots might have figured out that something was seriously wrong there. For those still unaware, in 1932, a group of govermental physicians selected about 400 black men with syphilis and left them untreated. At the time, they were probably safer--treatments for syphilis at the time were pretty horrific, and they generally didn't work very well anyway. However, by 1947, there was penicillin, which actually works to treat the disease without the nasty side effects of, say, mercury rubs. (Really.) The study continued, however, with lists of its participants being circulated to area hospitals to prevent any of the participants from actually receiving care. The study had been intended to last forty years, and by Gods, it was going to last forty years, and nothing like a cure was going to get in the way. Of course, these were men with wives and children, and syphilis is a contagious disease--to the wives, obviously, and the children born with it--but hey, it's all for science, right? The movie, which is based on a stage play, focuses on Eunice Evers, R.N. (Alfre Woodward), one of the supervisors of the study. She has spent her career helping members of the community, and she really does believe that the study will do her people some good. However, she becomes less and less sure of that, especially when the man she loves, Caleb Humphries (Laurence Fishburne), gets treatment and is even able to join the Army. She wonders why the others cannot receive the same shot and have the same result, but the doctors tell her they can't, and she believes them. After all, they're doctors. They wouldn't do anything to harm their patients, right? There really was a Eunice Evers; more than that, I cannot say. It seems likely to me that she experienced doubts over the validity of the study, but I cannot fathom that anyone would not, especially watching the Tertiary Stage patients go mad and die. If, as the movie shows us, she really had come to know and befriend various of the patients, it seems certain that she really wanted the best for them. Everyone connected to the study had a reason to participate, and I think many of them thought it would actually do some good. Never mind that it's a disease that might theoretically get wiped out. There were still people who thought we needed to know how people die of it. There are people who will be able to be clinical about anything. On the one hand, we need them in order to get anything done. On the other, we need oversight in order to make sure that the thing needs to get done in the first place. The participation of these men was initially bought for $50. It's depressing, really, that it was probably more money than most of them had seen at any one time in their lives. Oh, it's true that $50 was a lot more then than it is now, but still. To gamble for one's life for $50 in almost any time is a thing to be avoided, and it's horrifying that these men didn't even know that it was what they were doing.

jude c (de) wrote: no just no. -10000000000000/10

Adam S (br) wrote: at this point, i'm waiting for 70 up.

Jo D (mx) wrote: I haven't watched this since the 80's and just re-watched it 20+ years later. I saw it differently now. The mother is strange, the parents in general are strange why do they have pot smoking parties with their kids? David's parents are strange too. Very sad movie at times. True love prevails. Brooke Shields looks exactly the same all these years later. I got a kick out of a young Tom Cruise in this and James Bader & Ian Zearing all who I didn't notice when I saw it years ago.

Adryan G (de) wrote: Despite the problematic relationship between the Black Power movement and women, I'd have to say that this is a must-see film.

M Lee T (ag) wrote: Inspired me to sneak a smoke...and condemned me to watch Project Runway.

Joe L (kr) wrote: a ravishing and boldly conceptual film that takes the idea of 'media circus' and makes it literal - the titular montes has had more lovers than can be imagined, ranging from musical geniuses to royalty. outcast from her lavish life, her last resort is to have her story reenacted nightly as a garish circus act, which flashes back from the circus (brilliantly emcee'd by peter ustinov) to the real events in her scandalous life. from max ophuls, who also directed the lavish and complicated 'earring of madame de..' i saw the recently restored french version, which restored the film to the director's vision using recently discovered footage. the film was shot in three languages simultaneously, and each version of the film reportedly affects the performances in interesting ways. also features brilliant use of cinemascope and technicolor - carefully plotted palettes for each period of her life, and innovative use of the large screen real estate - ophuls would simply block off part of the image for more intimate scenes not requiring widescreen. one to watch again, and study.

Benny B (ca) wrote: This has gotta be my favourite of Ozu's films I've seen so far.

Rodney M (ca) wrote: Another great movie to stream on Netflix.

JolieFille O (jp) wrote: Very funny I must say it's entirely hillarious.!

Liam O (ca) wrote: I think I saw this in elementary school.