A World War II veteran hunts down the Nazi collaborators who killed his wife.

Canadian flyer Laurence Gerard finds that his wife has been murdered by a French collaborator. His quest for justice leads him to Switzerland and Argentina. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


You may also like

Cornered torrent reviews

Andre S (it) wrote: Sadly, the movie doesn't live up to the outstanding TV series.

Alex r (de) wrote: Fourth and hopefully final film in the Anacondas series. This film still has every bit of awful filmmaking as the last three films that came before it. This is a poorly made film that looks cheap, and has no sense of delivering a good, thrilling story. The Anacondas films are bad, but this is among the worst films I've seen in this franchise. There have been some good nature gone wild films, but the thing with this series is that it just isn't interesting. The films weak plot, poor performances of the cast, really brings down the film. This is standard low-budget trash with no direction. This is a film that scraps the bottom of the barrel of bad ideas, and doesn't thrill the viewer. This is bad filmmaking at its worst. This film looks cheap, has a bad cast and no plot. If you're looking for a horrible film, then this third low-budget straight to DVD sequel to Anacondas is yet another bad film in a series that never should have happened. The first film was bad, but making three awful sequels is beyond terrible. Don't watch expecting anything good, this a failure in terms of a good horror film, and it really doesn't provide you with good entertainment, unless you're looking for the ultimate in awful entertainment, then this is one of those films to check out. You can guess that considering that this is a made for TV movie, that this will be horrible. Don't waste your time watching this. This yet a sequel that fails to delver what the viewer wants. Spend your time watching something else.

Ryan H (au) wrote: Note: I refer to Alex as a girl when using pronouns because that part of her outward appearance is more obvious and she's played by a woman.I would really love to know why the film was called XXY even though that applies to boys and not intersexed people. I'm sure Lucia Puenzo did her research, so it would be interesting to hear her response. Anyway, XXY is a great coming-of-age story that looks at sex in a way that hasn't been explored very often before. A surgeon and his wife and son travel with him to meet Alex, a 15 year-old intersexed person. Alex resembles a girl more than a boy, but she also has both male and female parts. That's why I thought it was interesting how often we see Alex's breasts in the film. It seems as if Puenzo wants the audience to question themselves and how they see intersexed people along with the way the characters see them. Alex's father, Kraken, wants her to decide for herself if she wants to take the medicine to keep down her male hormones, and Alex's mother wants her to get an operation to remove her penis. They have moved a few times because people discover the way Alex is and she gets bullied for it all the time. In the beginning of the film we hear she has punched her best friend in the nose, and as the film progresses we start to figure out why. He told his friends that Alex has a penis. The scene where they invade Alex's privacy really shows the internal struggles that Alex has had throughout the film. It's a really disturbing scene because we can understand better. At the same time, it questions sexuality in general. What makes a man a man, or a woman a woman? Is it simply what's between our legs? And why are we only attracted to a specific gender? Puenzo asks a lot of questions, and I don't think she wants to answer any of them in this film. The goal is to tell people to open their minds; to not be so closed off about sexuality. The only thing I would have liked from this film would be a deeper side story with the boy and his father. There's a scene where the boy asks his father if he thinks he's talented and it's a really emotional scene. I really wish it was a warranted scene. We've seen the boy be proud of his father, but we haven't really seen the way his father treats him. It seems like something that landed on the cutting room floor. Other than that, I really loved XXY. It's not too preachy and takes an honest look at a subject not often explored.

Sujal S (fr) wrote: Okay. The 1st half was funny, the 2nd half sucked.

Joshua K (de) wrote: it starred two young comedic talents. With a cameo from the man BURT REYNOLDS. Movie was okay, except Jeremy Piven would have been a better choice than the mall cop. Anyway it was okay for free.

Daniel P (fr) wrote: It was never going to work

Trish W (fr) wrote: This movie's pretty amazing- the best of bad. "You screw my wife...I'll screwdriver your head!!"

Sonya W (fr) wrote: I remember this being really bad but cant remember, maybe I will not see it again...

Spencer S (br) wrote: Part documentary, cinema verite, and Avant-Gard art film, "Man with a Movie Camera" shows the everyday life of the 1920s Soviet Union. The disparity is evident, as the cameraman moves between the dissident streets of merchants and the poverty stricken, and elegant bourgeoisie riding in motor cars, their hats fluttering in the wind. Vertov melds together the documentary feel of a single day in his home country with the interconnecting narrative of the filmmaker, the audience, and the surreal. The surreal is constructed from film splicing that resembles special effects that would be recreated in many other art films of that decade. The film itself stands as an amazing historical record of the beauty, the poverty, this new nature of filmmaking, and the astonishing strangeness of the world at this time. Essential watching for those who love the craft of filmmaking, or love historical records of that time.

Shamith G (br) wrote: Anchored by Tom Hank's profound performance, reined by Conrad hall's immaculate cinematography, absorbed by Thomas Newman's melodious background score, this basic period revenge drama is transformed into a pleasing , poetic movie experience.

Indra W (ca) wrote: It was obvious from the start who is responsible for the death of Conner. And I do not like the ending, it is very unlikely, uncharacteristic. I enjoy the settings though, they're incredible.

Jens T (ca) wrote: John Huston's screen adaption of the famous James Joyce novel The Dead was the master director's last film. The story is set in the first week of January 1904 in Dublin where a bunch rich friends is having dinner, all of different shapes and thoughts, we get to know what they are doing and what kind of awkward moments that might arrive, and political view. It isn't much, and it isn't my kind of movie to say it straight, but I really felt for some of the characters and could set me into their mind, so I give it a thumbs up.

Joanne A (fr) wrote: Very British... a spectacular characterization of a gifted soul.