Two extremely strong personalities clash over the computerization of a TV network's research department.
|Download||Desk Set||Other||32||29||700.25 MB|
|Download||Desk.Set.1957.1080p.BluRay.x264-CiNEFiLE [PublicHD]||BRRip||39||28||4 GB|
|Download||Desk.Set.1957.720p.BluRay.x264-SiNNERS [PublicHD]||BRRip||31||51||4 GB|
|Download||Desk Set (1957) [720p WS].mkv||Other||29||40||699.62 MB|
|Download||Desk Set Widescreen Version||Other||43||50||4 GB|
You may also like
Desk Set torrent reviews
Farah R (ca) wrote: I don't usually enjoy DC or Marvel heroes animated movies but there's something gripping about Son of Batman that got me watching it till the end.
Lucas M (au) wrote: Contracted's poor acting and flimsy script makes it good only if you want to throw up lunch.
Stephen H (es) wrote: It looks like a heart-warming movie based on a TRUE story. Shows you just how much some people will do for a fellow life form to survive and not think it any less valuable than any of our lives.
Lasse C (au) wrote: Another beautiful and unique movie from Paolo Sorrentino.
Shayna P (us) wrote: Dragged out, weirdly Christian (raising farmers from the dead), but very good production quality and filming despite the choppy dialogue.
Bryn C (br) wrote: Poor acting and an irritatingly standard soundtrack don't detract from what is possibly the best example of practical FX done right in modern times! It has puppets, models and even a sequence that is perfectly Indiana Jones face melt! I loved it! If you want a movie, it's around a two star flick, but if you want to see amazing FX check it out.
Manuel G (de) wrote: Ta Leoni is just amazing in this!
Kendall C (jp) wrote: A big wasted opportunity
Lorraine P (ru) wrote: Magnifique... les paysages sont superbes, les acteurs gniaux...
Tyler M (kr) wrote: It's Chuck Norris... Need I say more? Get ready, to go to Hell and... Well, mainly just to Hell... If you come back, consider yourself lucky. The Story: Get ready... Two Chicago cops travel to Israel to prevent the resurrection of Satan... I'll repeat it in case you didn't catch it the first time. Two Chicago cops travel to Israel to prevent the resurrection of Satan... Yeah... Whatever you're thinking, I think it's pretty safe to say I thought the same damn thing... It's not really stylish, it's not really well written, it's not really fast paced, it's not really even close to being plausible, it's not really good, it's not really even mediocre... But what it is, is a film starring CHUCK F***ING NORRIS! The Cast: CHUCK F***ING NORRIS!... As it's impossible to say anything bad about Chuck, I feel the urge to say this... He does what he does, and he does it how he usually does it... Kicking ass, by round house kicking people in the face... Oh, there's some other people in the movie, but they don't really matter because they're well, for lack of a better phrase, "not Chuck Norris". One to Five Scale: 2 It's great for a laugh, but it's so slow paced, you don't really see the legend himself kicking ass until the last 20 minutes or so... So if you should happen to come across this one by some strange turn of events, just skip the first hour or so... Because we all know, you're only watching it to see Chuck Norris kick some demon ass. Tyler
Brett S (jp) wrote: Energetic, catchy, and heartfelt, Hairspray is a funny and uplifting musical adaptation that will make anybody want to sing and laugh
Akash S (it) wrote: Jean-Luc Godard's audacious debut is one of the films that started the French New Wave, and it has most of the directors from the New Wave associated with it - with the script written by Franois Truffaut and Claude Chabrol, and Jacques Rivette appearing in a cameo as the dead man on the street. Even director Jean-Pierre Melville, whose reporting style and use of real locations had a big influence on the New Wave, appears in a short scene where he's an author being interviewed by Patricia and other reporters.Though not his best, Godard's 'Breathless' is his most famous and discussed film. Even after 50 years, it hasn't lost its vitality; it's interpreted in so many different ways. We all know that most of these New Wave directors (formerly critics at 'Cahiers du Cinema') wanted to shift away from the style and rules of Classic Hollywood, which most of the mainstream French films had adapted over the years. Godard tries to break these conventions and tries experimenting with various aspects of the film. Firstly, he casts Jean-Paul Belmondo, with his punched nose and unconventional looks (though quite charming), and Jean Seberg in a boy-cut tomboyish role, introducing her wearing a T-shirt and selling newspapers on the street (an intriguing and memorable intro). With regard to Patricia's character, though intended or not, the film did have quite a feminist undertone (much different from the female characters portrayed at the time). Other than this, the film mainly comprises of random conversations and a meandering plot. All these elements went on to reinvent Modern Cinema.Godard believed that most of the mainstream films tried to seduce people with their fictional reality, tried to entertain them and make them forget the worries of their daily life; he said that's how capitalist systems kept their people happy and content. He wanted to defy establishment and authority, both in terms of film and politics; though this film is not as Marxist as his later films, it's certainly quite anarchist in nature and his contempt for capitalism is clearly visible. Just like Patricia wonders, "I don't know if I'm unhappy because I'm not free, or if I'm not free because I'm unhappy." With random jump-cuts in a single scene or characters looking/talking to the camera, Godard constantly reminds the viewer that they're watching a work of fiction, thus making us watch the film in a different light, evoking a higher level of consciousness and compelling us to interpret the film's intended meaning. He wanted to stress that none of it was real, and that the director has complete control of what's being shown on screen. The film circles-in twice (in the style of film noir), once pointing to almost nothing conspicuous (to draw the attention outside of the film), and the next time when Godard himself appears in a cameo as the informer, thus ingeniously highlighting the fact that it's Godard (the director) who's controlling the plot from within and outside of the film. Even when Michel shoots the policeman, the scene is shown in such a haphazard and unusual way; the scene is as detached from the event as the protagonist, highlighting the moral jumps he takes in the situation. Though the New Wave directors were tired of the rigid style of Classic Hollywood, they were big admirers of Film Noir. Even in this film, Godard pays homage to it in various ways, whether it's the way Michel's admires and imitates Humphrey Bogart or the random circle-ins. Michel informs his identity with the tough-guy persona of Bogart's films, and the tragedy is that even when he decides/tries to escape such a life and identity, he's still pushed along the tragic fate of characters in such crime thrillers; he's stuck within it, there's no escape. And if we analyse both our characters, we realize they have none of the usual characteristics of a film hero or anti-hero; they are quite self-obsessed, amoral, aimless, so absorbed in the world of art (Michel in cinema, Patricia in literature), yet so oblivious to the world around them. Godard tries to highlight the absurdity of life without a political, philosophical or moral commitment. The final scene is as alluring and mysterious as the rest of the film. Whether it's the statement that's said or the gesture of tracing the lips - both being carried forward and reinterpreted by different members in its chain of action. Overall, let me state that 'Breathless' isn't a great film by itself; it's not even close to the brilliance and emotional resonance of Truffaut's "The 400 Blows" or Resnais' "Hiroshima Mon Amour", New Wave works which released the previous year. Other than a few captivating scenes and dialogues, most of the film is dull and boring; I wonder how dragging the original two-and-a-half-hour runtime might have been like. But the film is important for two reasons - the way it experimented with the format opened up new possibilities in cinematic storytelling, and it's the kind of film which offers such interesting interpretations and opportunities for discussion with other cinephiles.
Greg W (ru) wrote: one of hitch's best efforts with the whole thing taking place in a lifeboat but it never gets tiresome
Duncan M (br) wrote: not even half a star but I can't put a review on that so it's a not so well earned 1/2 star...
John A (ag) wrote: Kathryn Bigelow's 1991 crime thriller, is a superbly crafted film, which features, a great script, some top notch performances (especially from Swayze) & excellently choreographed scenes involving both surfing and skydiving. Patrick Swayze steals the film as the charismatic, Bodhi. Where as Keanu Reeve's performance isn't totally great, but it is one of his very few that doesn't come out as wooden or annoying. The actor's performances are mainly due to how well the script is written. Supporting performances come from Lori Petty & Gary Busey (in what I would call his best performance). Point Break is an extremely enjoyable, action thriller and puts the on screen friendships and loyalties to the test and you can almost feel the tension in Keanu Reeve's head as he figures out what he has to do. This showcases an extremely believable bond of friendship.