It's the post-WWI era. Britons Harold Abrahams and Eric Liddell are both naturally gifted fast sprinters, but approach running and how it fits into their respective lives differently. The son of a Lithuanian-Jew, Harold, who lives a somewhat privileged life as a student at Cambridge, uses being the fastest to overcome what he sees as the obstacles he faces in life as a Jew despite that privilege. In his words to paraphrase an old adage, he is often invited to the trough, but isn't allowed to drink. His running prowess does earn him the respect of his classmates, especially his running teammates, and to some extent the school administration, if only he maintains what they consider proper gentlemanly decorum, which isn't always the case in their minds. Born in China the son of Christian missionaries, Eric, a Scot, is a devout member of the Church of Scotland who eventually wants to return to that missionary work. He sees running as a win-win in that the notoriety of being fast gives him... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
|Download||Chariots of Fire||720p||69||53||873.12 MB|
|Download||Chariots of Fire||1080p||49||47||1.85 GB|
You may also like
Chariots of Fire torrent reviews
Bill M (br) wrote: well done. lighthearted, dry comedy about Jewish and Islamic stereotypes
Bronwyn V (es) wrote: One of the best Aussie films to come out in ages, great cast and wonderful story
Jeremy J (us) wrote: Off-beat pseudo-detective story that wants to be THE BIG LEBOWSKI but comes up short when translating from a pretty good script.
Mayank A (fr) wrote: Fun Movie. The plot's full of hole but the lovely and nutty characters (DJ's) with their endless gags make it a entertaining ride. Richard Curtis is a master of making feel good movie.
Emil (ca) wrote: Lol when i first started to watch this movie i was thinking! WTF IS THIS?!?! but i keep watched and it got better to the end! but it was really boring
Tetiana (ca) wrote: a really great movie!!! with a good lesson in it
Charles P (ca) wrote: The love story that sets the scene for White is never truly realized. Thus the unpredictable, sometimes darkly comical events that follow are never as resonant or convincing as they would be if the characters were any more than pure symbolism.
Harry W (ca) wrote: Serving as Eddie Murphy's directional debut and teaming him up with comedic legend Richard Pryor, Harlem Nights sounded like it had too much talent on board to skim past.Harlem Nights has an interesting context. Though the humour in the film is very stereotypical of African-American characters from Eddie Murphy films, in a nice change of pace from the more lower class characters viewers are used to, Harlem Nights is composed mainly of African-Americans in the higher class of Harlem, a working class setting. It is interesting to see, and the production design of the film really sets it up like an old time gangster movie setting. Everything in Harlem Nights looks good with much colourful detail put into the production design and the Academy Award nominated costumes, making the setup feel very legitimate. And the way it is captured with the cinematography is terrific. Harlem Nights is a thoroughly stylish feature making it a treat on the eyes, and the musical score of the film is also an ice touch. If only it were nearly as much of a treat on the brain as it were on the eyes. The script in the film is relatively lazy. With the characters being largely racial stereotypes, the dialogue in the film does not focus too much on the plot but just spends so much time emphasizing that the characters like to swear a lot. It is very lazily assembled, relying on the natural talents of the cast members to supply most of the humour. Though Harlem Nights does indeed feature a strong collection of cast members who easily work with the stereotypical roles handed to them by the screenplay, the actual characters in the film are thin and there are so many of them who just reinforce this notion. To add to this, the plot in the film ends up scattered, borrowing generic elements from many other films and failing to tie them into a plot well at all. It just ends up confusing and boring, not strong enough to be worth keeping up with as it is just a bunch of loose gangster plot points shoddily constructed into the narrative. Some of the ridiculous moments of dialogue in the film are worth a chuckle, but it is not a coherent film and is not constructed well enough to be a strong piece of filmmaking. For a debut feature, Eddie Murphy proves that the only thing about him as a director is creating a film with style and gathering a strong cast because ultimately his best role in cinema is to be in front of the camera as opposed to behind it. The film is basically his version of Citizen Kane as he wrote, directed and starred in it. Unfortunately, he doesn't really do much in any of the areas except for creating a scattered film which happens to look good. Even his performance is lacklustre because his role matches the inconsistent tone of the film, almost as if he really wants to go straight in the film. He doesn't put any over the top comedic virtues into his performance and so he is overshadowed by the superior comedic talents of many of the cast members around him. I don't know precisely what angle he was going for in Harlem Nights, but whatever direction he took clearly did not work despite the fact that it clearly had potential. That atmosphere of Harlem Nights seems so serious at times. For a film with such a crude script, the story itself seems to take itself very seriously as a gangster tale. It gets too caught up in that theme so much of the time that it forgets to be a comedy, while at others it attempts to implement a light atmosphere in during some very sserious themes. The tone in Harlem Nights is thoroughly inconsistent, and its inability to consistently walk the line between being a comedy and a crime drama. All in all, Harlem Nights wants to be a legitimate gangster film and a parody of one, but Eddie Murphy fails to find the right balance to make it work. The only slight value that comes from the humourous intentions of the film are the performances of the cast.Richard Pryor is a decent lead in Harlem Nights. Though he is hardly as funny as you would hope due to the fact that his role is more of a serious one than a character that matches his stereotypical stage persona, he acts out the part well and shares a strong chemistry with the surrounding cast. He interacts well with Eddie Murphy in particular, and considering the influence that he has over Eddie Murphy it is awesome to see them on screen together even if the material is not as good as it should be. Richard Pryor isn't perfect, but he is welcome in Harlem Nights.Redd Foxx is nice to see in his final cinematic performance. Considering his legacy in African-American entertainment, he is a thoroughly welcome cast member. And considering that the script in the film allows him to use more edgy language, it is fun to see him have his moments in Harlem Nights.Della Reese is a nice touch because in contrast to some of her more gentle roles such as in the television series Touched By an Angel she really goes over the top and delivers a really funny supporting effort during her brief period of screen time in Harlem Nights.Danny Aiello makes a solid villain due to the fact that he approaches the role fully seriously and with a sense of true grit, and Arsenio Hall is a funny touch.But despite a solid cast and a stylish look, Eddie Murphy's inexperienced directorial work over Harlem Nights ensures that the story ends up more misguided and scattered than his script had already set it up to be, ensuring that the tone of the film is never consistent with humour or crime and that it is just not as funny as it should be.
Li K (au) wrote: Recommended on the scary movie quest. Not scary, but enjoyed it for the classic sci-fi that it is. Imagine that if I read the book I'll like it better. Also pretty certain I need one of these robots. It cleans, it tells people to go away, it disposes of their heads if they don't, it digs bondage, it brings breakfast in bed, and it self destructs after impregnation. Everything about that strikes me as hawt. Minus a star for flawed logic in overall premise, and for too-old girl who throws tantrums being enough to make even me want to donate my uterus to science before getting any use out of it.Thoroughly enjoyed there being a robot named Joshua and watching scientisits play chess with the "computer".Yay for now having further understanding of popculture references.
Chinmai R (mx) wrote: It's been at least five years since i've seen it, so I'd love to see it again. I remember it being a very nice story.