Days of Harvest

Days of Harvest

1984. In the sultry, still sunny September of that Emilian rural district most soaked with catholicism and home-grown socialism...

1984. In the sultry, still sunny September of that Emilian rural district most soaked with catholicism and home-grown socialism... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Days of Harvest torrent reviews

Ax A (it) wrote: awwwww Fabulo major!

Elisa T (it) wrote: Beau d (C)cor, belle histoire pour les petits comme pour les grands... Bon ok j'avoue j'ai eu un gros faible pour la girafe, elle est trop chou ! :-)

Huai I (nl) wrote: A light-hearted cuddly movie with a pope I can like a lot. While most of the time it has a likable innocence, it really has its best moments when it breaks with that.

Munaah K (it) wrote: 'God works in mysterious ways' is the moral of the story and a very pious movie it is. Dr. Hassan brings the 12th century Chola Kingdom to life (watch it in the original Tamizh, the hindi version was horrendous) .. of course he mixes it up with theaterics and rewrites parts of history .. but he is amazing as Vishnu-bhakt Nambi challenging the bigotted Shivvite Emperor, Kulothunga Chola II for the Chidambaram Temple .. after that the movie is mindnumbing entertainment :p ..

Fabian U (us) wrote: Esto si es que es muy triste. Pesimas actuaciones, guiones y personajes... Se salva uno que otro efecto especial.

Guido S (fr) wrote: An attack in Saudi Arabia causes US agents to go and investigate which later escalates in typical Hollywood fashion. I found this film mostly boring throughout despite the subject matter which could have been interesting, but they never really committed to it like they could have. Instead, it turns into an action movie in the final moments which just felt incredibly out of place. Should have been better.

Virginie L (nl) wrote: magnifica fotografia del mare di Lampedusa, buona performance dai giovani attori, Valeria Golino eccezionale, la storia bella ma non approfondita abbastanza secondo me

Angie L (kr) wrote: It was a touching movie. I liked it a lot. It shows the relationship between sisters that have a mentally challenged sister. Great job of Dora Van der Groen.:D

Yash B (jp) wrote: A great deal better than a movie about cheerleading has any right to be. I expected to watch this movie and absolutely hate it. Its actually kind of funny and somewhat enjoyable to watch. It has smart and witty dialogue and a good enough premise that keeps you engaged just enough to stay invested in the story. I am perfectly aware that I am not the demographic for this movie so the fact that I even say its decent shows a lot. If you're a tween girl who's into cheer leading, you'll probably love this movie. But if you're not, you just might smile occasionally and not hate yourself for watching it.

Jesse O (au) wrote: I've sure been putting in a lot of time with 'older' movies. And I say it like that because, I believe, that I haven't seen a movie that was released prior to 1984 on this run. This is thanks to an add-on subscription, or at least a trial for one, for HBO. Honestly, they don't have many movies that I haven't seen and this was one of them. I've always wanted to see this movie anyway, so it ended up working out in the end. Another thing worth pointing out is, obviously, if you play video games, the influence that this movie has had on a video game franchise like Uncharted. A lot of people point out the similarities between Uncharted and Indiana Jones, what with its quick-witted sarcastic hero, but the exotic locations, perhaps even more so than Indiana Jones, seem more inspired by this movie. Granted, the Uncharted franchise goes to far more exotic places than this movie, and its sequel probably, did. Honestly, while I had a lot of fun watching this movie, I think the Uncharted franchise does a better job at actually making you care about their characters than this one. But I think that's due to the fact that you can tell a story in games through multiple releases, so you end up growing attached to the characters. Whereas this movie was really more of a one-and-done, even if the sequel did come out a year after this. But the sequel wasn't as favorably reviewed as this one, so there's that. Anyway, the point is that there was no denying the fact that I think parts of the film don't age as well as they probably could have and, to me, I felt the pacing could have been tightened up a little bit, like maybe have Jack and Joan meet earlier in the film and have their relationship be more antagonistic. Not necessarily even more antagonistic, just let it go on for longer is what I mean. Once Joan and Jack do meet up, however, the movie does pick up quite a bit and kicks its action-adventure and pulpy thrills. The story is as such, Joan Wilder, a pulp-romance novelist, goes to Colombia to save her sister from these thugs who want a map that Elaine's, Joan's sister, husband had that will lead them to the stone in question. Elaine's husband mailed the map to Joan, which is where she fits in. Once there she immediately gets into trouble, before she meets up with Jack Colton, played by Douglas, and she hires him to help her get to Cartagena, where she is to meet the thugs. Joan leads a lonely life, the novels she writes are more of wishful thinking of her part as to what she'd wish her romance life to be. Of course, as if you couldn't have already predicted, Jack Colton doesn't end up being anything like the hero in her novels. And that's the basis for the majority of the movie. The journey to find this stone to save his sister while, simultaneously, falling in love with Jack. I do think, however, that this aspect of the film isn't as well-developed as it could have been. I don't wanna say that the romance is forced, because it's not, there's an obvious attraction between the two, only helped by Kathleen Turner's excellent chemistry with Michael Douglas. The problem is that there's only a few teases of a developing romance, before they're downright fucking. And I realize that films have far more time constraints, particularly this type, than other forms of entertainment. Like in a book you can build a romance between two characters that feels organic and interesting. Or in a game where, again, a romance can build for hours, like in Mass Effect where you put in 40+ hours into the game before the romance pays off. In a television series you can build the romance across several episodes or even an entire season. Films are obviously more limited in that regard and I think that hurts the overall film. It's not that the characters wouldn't have gotten to that point eventually because, again, the leads' chemistry is apparent right from the moment they meet each other. It is what it is. There are sections of the film that are really fun. Like the scenes with Juan, who's like a friendlier Pablo Escobar, are the clear highlight of the film. There's also this scene right after the stone where everyone, from Zolo and his army, to the mountains all following Jack and Joan, who are driving away in a stolen vehicle. That scene was actually really cool and something that I would have hoped they showed more. Though I guess that would contradict what I said earlier about the pacing. I think the movie's third act, while not without its highlights, does drag a little bit and it hurts the movie somewhat. If the pacing was a little tighter, I'd have no problem giving this 3.5 stars. As it stands, I'm definitely more comfortable giving it 3. Don't get me wrong, it's a very good 'good' movie and I really did have a blast watching this. But I can't overlook its flaws. With that said, I'd still give this a recommendation if you haven't seen it yet. It's not a perfect movie and, really, no flick is, but this is a fun popcorn flick. Good movie here.

Slee B (mx) wrote: Death Wish 2 It happened once! *tense music* It is going to happen again! *tense music* But this time, he will even the score! "Who's to Blame", a song, starts to play in the background. *Footage of muggers, criminals, and hoodlums all being murdered are shown* When rape and murder are the crime, there is only one man- judge, jury, and executioner. "Say goodbye punk," BANG! Wow, that right there is an example of the trailer for the film Death Wish 2, a crueler picture and caricature than the first Death Wish. Yet, it is also really lousy and dumb, but pretty exciting and fun to watch. This is Sleaze Boy and I am going to take through this film. Now, if you have not seen the first Death Wish film, I implore you to rent it. (Expletive removed) based on the novel by Brian Garfield, the story followed Paul Kersey (bad*ss Charles Bronson) whose wife is murdered and daughter assaulted. He has a hard time coping with it and goes on with business as usual. On a business trip in Texas, he is inspired by western mythos to take the law into his own hands. Armed with a gun, he walked around the most dangerous areas in New York City, luring would be criminals and killing them. The film brought up certain points that are interesting even though a lot of commentators overlooked the indirect damage of vigilantism on a person. The film is recommendable. Now that we are in track, let us get into Death Wish II. Now Mr. Kersey lives in LA, "oh my god!" The film opens up in a dull colorful Los Angeles morning with radio sound bites reports about crime increasing. Paul Kersey is starting out once again with a beautiful girlfriend and his daughter Carol, out for ice cream. On his way home, he is attacked by a group of hooligans he encountered earlier ago. With his daughter kidnapped and made sexually assaulted and murdered, Paul decides to go at it again. He makes it personal when he identifies his daughter's corpse. He takes the law into his own hand, but not before getting a few things ready. He rents a room somewhere in slums of LA. He buys clothes: beanie, jeans, gloves, and other clothing that makes him look like a thief. Packing a Beretta Cheetah 85, Bronson goes on the streets searching for the men responsible for his daughter's death. He walks over by a group of guys and leers at them giving a homoerotic subtext. He finds the gang one by one, killing them in cold blood. Paul "you believe in Jesus?" Terrified the guy "yes" Paul "well, you're gonna meet" BANG! That is just a small preview of Kersey's cruelty. I guess one can say that is the negative effect of being a vigilante. The ending of the first film clearly demonstrated that Kersey would not stop from murdering. His thirst for vengeance was never fulfilled. Yet, we cannot really hate him because he is killing muggers and rapist who showed no mercy to the two helpless women. LA law enforcement is utterly inept and clueless trying to catch him, so they call help from New York who had dealt with a similar problem. Bronson is great in the film as always. He is shrewd and comical by allowing his character think he is so smart. The lines he delivers are humorous and love the way he carries himself and talks his way out of things. Jill Ireland is a complete ditz in the film. She is very simple minded and stands around intruding into Paul Kersey's extracurricular activities. Characters are dropped from the first one, most notably Carol's husband. Other characters and performances are either really terrible or very pointless except Laurence Fishburne and Vincent Gardenia, reprising his role as Frank Ochoa. If you are wondering, Frank was the man who succeeded in identifying the vigilante in the previous film. However, he was never able to arrest Kersey. The cops are very inept here it is almost a caricature. Ben Frank tops off the ineptitude and downright unpleasantness of the police as Lt. Mankewicz. One of my favorite scenes involved them trying to subdue a criminal and defeated by them. Here is another scene? The earlier film had police being swamped by the crime rate, but never inept. "Tell me what did he look like?" "He was a very good man! Where were you?" "Uh um, handing out parking tickets" Now let's see how Paul Kersey would have handled it. Paul is following three thugs around before settling into a park. He discovers they are meeting with an unnamed man that has a number of guns. Kersey makes his move which the alerted guys open fire. Armed with revolvers, pistols, UZIs, and an M16 rifle, the guys spray their bullets everywhere. Kersey fires back, hitting one in the stomach and one in the head. He even kills one man playing his boom box. The arms dealer takes off, but Kersey shoots the car and boom! The car explodes and goes over a cliff. The soundtrack was done by Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin. He is pretty good at it and he delivers some of his trademark guitar riffs like "Who's to Blame". I cannot describe the specific style Jimmy went for, but I have to say it crosses hard rock with funk. We see his music used certain scenes to help the mood and create tension. However, it is best when you see the theatrical trailer. The film was directed by same director of the first film, Michael Winner. I felt he did not live up to the chances the first one accomplished. Yes, there is a lot of stuff brought here. Being a sequel or 2, it meant things were going to double up: double the rape, double the nudity, double the bodies, double the bullets, and double the explosions with a lot more. However, in doing so, intelligence and values are cut in half. We are left with cruel exploitation film that will make you either laugh or are disgusted, for example what kind of crap is that. You get Carol to start recovering from her catatonic stupor only to have her raped. Sad, it does end from there! She takes off running and jumps out a window getting impaled by rail spike in the fence like in Mortal Kombat, laughed. It was bit cartoonish and excessive. Other problems involve the way the film is. There is a lot of potential when it comes to the shots of LA's streets and air, but the camerawork feels rather clumsy. We get shots of the slums, at least what it looks like. The shooting locations of the film are superb at times shining some culture. I own a DVD version of film that comes in from 2 through 4. Unfortunately, they are all full screen and Death Wish 3 was missing, but I got the collection at a cheaper price though. Before writing this review, I went to read a few number of reviews to gather some thoughts because I was at a lost with words. I looked up film critic Roger Ebert's review to get ideas to what I want to say. However, the most help came from a review when I found it in Google titled Rough Review. It helped a lot because it helped clear my mind to what I wanted to say. Death Wish 2 is one of the most gratuitous self-indulging exploitative trashes I have ever seen! It declines into a form of savagery. Upright citizens will want to shower after watching it. What kind of values do we have here? Murder "bad" people and you will win? The first one was understandable and savvy, but this one is just! I advise for parents to not allow their children to watch it because they might find the film inappropriate unless you were raised like me, ha-ha. The film is so bad it is entertaining, but it is mostly terrible. Yet, I cannot fully trash it since I had a great time watching it. I did yearn for more corpses and groovy-hard rock music to fill in the action scenes. If you love exploitation and action films, you will love it especially if you are with a group of boneheads. The rating I choose for the film intended for of the whole audience, but take note I wink to that specific group of the readers. I strongly recommend watching the trailer of the film available through YouTube. As the film sets in for the finale, I was surprised to what see happened to Paul leading to an ending I love. A beaten building stands while a shadow of Kersey is seen walking. The camera cuts off to an aerial view of Los Angeles and bang!

Jos M (mx) wrote: Con un toque original sobresale del resto.

Naische F (mx) wrote: Burt Reynolds is veteran stuntman Sonny Hooper, one of the best stuntmen in the business. He realises that he is getting a bit old for the business when he meets a young up-and comer hotshot stuntman played by Jan-Michael Vincent. We also get Adam West playing himself as the main actor on set (but too briefly, because I really enjoyed his impersonation of Reynolds walking with some ladies sporting a mustache and chewing some gum). Reynolds tries to push himself to the limit by escalating the movie stunts and soon bears the consequences and risks, only until he comes up with a super stunt involving a rocket-car! Lots of action and explosions on the set of action films. We get a deeper look at the happy and sad lives of stuntmen and the real unsung heroes of action movies. Interesting for fans of Reynolds and a good look at what he would have done to the James Bond series had he been chosen as 007 in the 1970s. There are some stunt/action moments that parody a Bond film, including the sounds and styles of that series too. A remake could definitely be made of this one. This was originally the inspiration for Lee Majors' 'The Fall Guy' TV show.

Joseph H (de) wrote: It's nothing new but The Conjuring is down right terrifying! There were very good moments of suspense and overall brings the chiche haunted house film to a high standard. James Wan knows what the horror genre is all about and he gives us some fantastic new scares to add to our collection to our nightmares and that's more than what we are use to getting from a horror movie at this time.

Zachary M (mx) wrote: There are two kinds of people you make bio pics about; inspirational people and controversial people. Margaret Thatcher is a controversial figure for many. While the movie does boost some strong performances, the story just seems a bit flat. I don't know if it's because of poor screenwriting or if Margaret Thatcher just isn't that interesting of a person. Probably a bit of both.

Paul D (ag) wrote: A decent attempt at making a pseudo-style slasher horror in another world.