Döngel kârhanesi

Döngel kârhanesi


. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Döngel kârhanesi torrent reviews

Geoff R (kr) wrote: Should be renamed "you've seen this before" not only generic but overall boring.

Aaron M (kr) wrote: Terry George is obviously passionate about the subject, and combined with the strong performances of all involved makes it an engaging film but certainly not a great one. Personally the loss of a child was portrayed more effectively in "In the Bedroom", but that's just my opinion.

Marta R (nl) wrote: Liked the music, acting of female lead - LOVED, and the stories, but still didn't quite get the story line thread...

Chris L (br) wrote: Why can't pretty boy actors who play military men cut their hair to at least try to look like military men?!?!?

Joey L (mx) wrote: Great movie about 2 best friends who try to take their lives back and start over. Love it.

moncheri c (jp) wrote: i cant get it to play

Johnny S (mx) wrote: More is less in this very disappointing sci-fi ramble. Wenders was seriously losing it by this stage and would have done better with a hand held camera and some black & white film stock (i.e like he used to)

Paavo L (jp) wrote: ois janna tietaa mita mun paassa liikkui kun aloin tata katsomaan. no anyway, suoraviivaista 80-luvun actionia. siina saa moottoripyorajengi ja "kauhuelokuvan kuolematon" psykopaattikin kyytia kun Chuck Norrisin vahtivuorolla yrittavat pullistella.

Michael H (de) wrote: While quite an achievement to make, and a beautifully shot film from a first time director working with a completely untrained cinematographer, it lacks a narrative or through-line to carry the viewer. As a document of rural Indian life, it's marvelous.

Tom H (de) wrote: Good Romantic Comedy. Buster Keaton is also in this. but he is grossely underused.

Mandy V (br) wrote: Based on the fact that the novella is such a different entity than the adaptation, I just can't bring myself to even appreciate this film. The potential was there with such extreme simplicity that I fail to understand the direction taken. Why change such a good thing? A real shame.

Mad M (es) wrote: Pretty good. Realist and raw cop/gang flick.

Thomas F (kr) wrote: Really funny-anyone who works in an office will appreciate it.

Jesse M (es) wrote: Although unnecessary, this sequel is surprisingly effective and a solid horror film in its own right. No it is not as good as the first film, but that is typically what follows such a classic film. It did so much right that the sequel could only maintain or fumble the quality. That's not taking anything away from Poltergeist II, because it delivered spooky entertainment with a villain that is etched in your brain long after you've seen it. Rev. Cane's creep factor was off the charts. The family returns with the same wholesome likability which saves the film from mediocrity.The spiritual element with the native american culture helped give the story a different perspective about things that go beyond human understanding. It gives the film its own personality Once again the visual fx are a highlight showing terrors of all shapes and sizes. The overall package resembles the quality of its predecessor, but it pales due to a rather abrupt climax. You gotta have a top notch end game, but it just didn't satisfy. In the end this is solidly scary with returning characters that we know and love and a villain that chills the very core of your soul. It is only a shame that the filmmakers dropped the ball at the end of an otherwise worthwhile sequel

JUSTIN C (ca) wrote: Interesting plot twists.