Convoy

Convoy

A tale of life on board a Royal Navy cruiser assigned to protect the vital convoys between America and England during WWII.

A tale of the highs and lows of life protecting the vital convoys between America & England during WWII. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Convoy torrent reviews

Josh S (de) wrote: Nowhere near as good as the first.

Courtney K (jp) wrote: i thought this was cuuuuute! predictable, of course, but what good rom-com isn't? haha. what's his name is slowly growing on me... he's not fantastically good looking or anything, but he's really good at being that down to earth, charming boy next door kind of character; it's hard not to like. and i think she's cute. she was awkward in Crazy Stupid Love, but she's cute in this movie.

Carlos I (us) wrote: The weakest of the series for sure. But it's cool to see more of the back story and interconnections.

Danielle K (br) wrote: Transsiberian is a refreshing thriller with fantastic actors. Ben Kingsley is one of my favorite actors, and he does a wonderful job of playing the scary Russian 'cop'.

robert y (mx) wrote: fucki n awsome movie

Harry W (au) wrote: Being the film which established the career of Wes Anderson and put Bill Murray in the dramatic spotlight, Rushmore sounded like an innovative journey.Rushmore was quite a polarizing film. There is no denying that it had its own version of brilliance, but the extent that the viewer embraces that is all dependent on how much tolerance they have for the iconic directorial style of Wes Anderson. As someone who finds his style odd in the wrong narrative and brilliant in the right one, I am someone who deciphers that it has polarizing results at times. In the case of Rushmore, I could feel true brilliance afoot.Rushmore comes from long before Wes Anderson's massive budget ensemble cast spectacle films, limiting itself two a budget of $20 million. As a result, the man attempts to build all the style he can with what limitations come his way. And as a result, it is difficult to see them. The premise is a very oddball one as is the case with all of his films, and the fact that Rushmore is rooted more in reality than some of his more fantastical later works means that it can be difficult to fully embrace at times, but it was consistently entertaining one way or another. The narrative can prove all over the place at times because the many supporting characters are only lightly expanded upon and there is a very heavy extent of subject matter coming in from all directions. There is no telling where the story will go next because it is so full of surprises, even if not all of them are good. Yet even if the story can't always be perfect, the screenplay is full of very strong characters. There are essentially three main characters at the heart of the story who all have their own tale to share, and they are given a grand extent of the narrative each. The genuine dialogue in the film is also great because there is brilliant insight, clever wit and a style of writing so intelligent that it almost seems as if Wes Anderson has created his own language for the film. It is a brilliant combination of insightful academia and genuine character insight, smoothed into the everyday dialogue of the characters easily.The style in Rushmore still manages to reach true heights of brilliance. Embodying the Wes Anderson vision with such tenacity, for better and for worse, Rushmore delivers it brilliantly. The loose narrative is a trademark of the director, but so is the incredible style of it. With a highly skilled ability to turn anything into imagery, Wes Anderson's film makes use of remarkably artistic manipulation of simplistic cinematography and gentle editing to go along with it. It finds life in every little detail of the scenery which is most impressive during the more bleak scenes where he brings colour into frames that are very heavily dominated by grey lighting The man's eye for imagery and mind for a brilliant script is what ties Rushmore together and makes the experience unforgettable. The musical score is also terrific, further mystifying the experience by reinforcing its somewhat surrealist mood.Yet perhaps the most gripping thing about Rushmore was the leading performance from Jason Schwartzman. For an actor making his debut, Jason Schwartzmen is the flawless embodiment of a truly brilliant Wes Anderson creation. So tenaciously dedicated to capturing every inch of the character, everything from his perceived perfections to his insecurities. To balance them, he captures a personality which remains so relentlessly direct on delivering everything on his mind regardless of how intelligent or ignorant it could be. He is incredibly direct, and that headspace is so tenacious that after the film I was left in a state of mind where I frequently found myself speaking in the same manner as Jason Schwartzman with everything I said. I too found myself speaking swiftly and honestly in a manner which was clear without changing my tone of voice. In the most literal sense of the word, that means I could feel the character. Jason Schwartzman's performance resonated with me so heavily, and he was able to create a character who was both awkward and yet sympathetic as well as dramatic and hilarious at times. He oscillates between the tones of comedy and drama while bringing a flawless delivery of Wes Anderson's script into play, so his performance is truly remarkable.Bill Murray is also great. Though I'm more accustomed to seeing him work with Wes Anderson and in dramatic material, I can imagine how wonderful it would have been to witness the man take such a career turn back in 1998. Bill Murray retains some understated comic elements for his effort in Rushmore which bring in the laughter, but they are played into the film very sporadically so that it comes as a surprise. More of the time, he plays a dramatic spirit to the viewer which breaks free of his comic archetype extremely well. He established his comic nature as being his natural persona in countless films, but he does the same with his dramatic effort in Rushmore. His natural charm is a very ligthearted drama with a natural ability to bring comic life into unexpected situations, capitalizing on his best talents and some never-before-seen ones. Bill Murray is brilliant, succesfully sharing an excellent chemistry with Jason Schwartzman which proves to deliver both an exchange of dramatic wisdom between the talented actors as well as creating a comic chemistry where the two are able to bounce off of each other. Bill Murray's work with Wes Anderson in Rushmore can only be characterized by the final line in Casablanca, as being "the beginning of a beautiful friendship".Olivia Williams is also great. Capturing a natural level of sophistication in her role, Olivia Williams' charms easily trick audiences into falling in love with her in the same way Max Fischer does. Her genuine passion and gentle nature is so intrinsic to her that she is able to effectively stir up one of the most sympathetic characters of the story. She presents the source of much emotional difficulties to the main two male characters even though it is through no fault of her own, and her ability to keep her charm present through the lighthearted drama and comedy in the film brings a stronger sense of reality to the slight edge of surrealism in Rushmore.Luke Wilson is also a genial presence, and Stephen McCole's natural comic charm makes the experience funnier.So though Rushmore has the stereotypical loose story of a Wes Anderson film with a lot of ambition to take in, the man's ability to create brilliant style as a director while backing it up with an intelligent script provides the front for a brilliantly atmospheric comedy-drama with impeccable acting.

Brett W (nl) wrote: Best of Best 3: In Name OnlyRemember how in the original Best of the Best Phillip Rhee and Eric Roberts banded together to confront racism in a small southern town? Me neither. Anyway, I guess for a recycled Steven Seagal script it's not terrible or anything. I mean it's got Shooter McGavin and Gina Gershon, that's somethin'.

Dylan D (br) wrote: Lucas is a rather complex film about life that doesn't at all go where the audience might think it's headed. And that's from where much of the beauty flows. As life isn't an A-to-B journey, neither is the film. Instead, it's a zigzagging adventure through the process of maturity and discovering how life works, and why. It's seen through the eyes of good, honest characters, not perfect characters, but relatable people with the best of intentions who do their best to evolve with life but not at the expense of somebody else. It's a touching, warm, inviting, and sincere motion picture that's easily amongst the best of its kind to ever grace the screen.

Eliabeth B (us) wrote: Bad, really bad, supremely bad, did I mention that it is bad?

Pampalini L (mx) wrote: A marshal tries to bring the son of an old friend, an autocratic cattle baron, to justice for the rape and murder of his wife.

Andrew I (ag) wrote: Saw some of the middle of this and it looks extremely irritating.

Haravikk K (ru) wrote: I found it strange that this film was so poorly rated compared to the original, as personally I'd say that both are roughly on par; that is, both are okay, but far from great.This film makes a far better attempt at Candyman's backstory, and doesn't portray *all* of the police involved as complete idiots, though it's not much of an improvement. The bulk of the film is however a typical bloody horror romp with cheap scares, bad writing, and characters you don't give a damn about, resulting in it being more a relief when they're cut down in droves and you don't have to see them again.Some story elements do however redeem it, and personally I feel they elevate it above the first film; the kid haunted by visions of the Candyman and the teacher struggling to work with a community overshadowed by a horrifying urban legend that turns out to have close ties to the horrors endured by her own family make for a more interesting and tighter plot, even if it still isn't great. Significant elements are carbon-copied from the first film, to the formula of the main character saying "Candyman" too many times and finding themselves the subject of the eponymous villain's twisted affections for the remainder of the film.Personally I'd recommend this instalment over the first for anyone new to the series, as the basic plot is essentially the same, but with less conflicting elements and some better handling of the urban legend.

Hunter G (es) wrote: It's a good movie, but the main problem to some people is that it's violent, some violence is good, so, pretty good movie.

kelly (us) wrote: need to finish watching

Gina W (br) wrote: Sad movie about a young boy (Billy Casper) whose is abused both at school and at home, and appears headed to a dead-end life. He finds a kestral and finds contentment raising and training the young hawk. However, this movie does not end happily. It was filmed in 1969 with Ken Loach as the director. He worked with local townspeople in the coal town of Barnsley.

Dick M (nl) wrote: Motoko and I both give it 5 stars. Sally Fields and everything else in this 1979 flick on unionizing the textile mills is 5 stars. Even if you're a Republican, you should see it.