An international anti-terrorist organization has a mission to track down weapons of mass destruction before they fall into the wrong hands. They discover the existence of a powerful weapon ...

An international anti-terrorist organization has a mission to track down weapons of mass destruction before they fall into the wrong hands. They discover the existence of a powerful weapon ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Doomsdayer torrent reviews

Bradley J (fr) wrote: Is this claptrap still scary to anyone? The series has run its course which is highly evident within this boring, unscary slog. Rating: 38

Ola G (ca) wrote: The Swedish intelligence officer Carl Hamilton (Mikael Persbrandt) must leave his girlfriend because he gets assigned to infiltrate an international gang of smugglers who are about to sell Swedish missiles to terrorists. Hamilton's life depends on making the criminals at all times believe he is a Russian. When the weapon dealers and the terrorists meet, the whole transaction haywires and Hamilton has to kill and run. Being on his own, he cannot retrieve the missiles. Back in Sweden he is berated by a new superior. He returns to his girlfriend and admits he wants to quit his job. They have a reunion but she is a doctor and has to leave him in the middle of the night because of an emergency. He falls into sleep, recalling in his dream how he had to kill at close range during his recent mission. When she touches him while his nightmare peaks, he reacts as if he still was among cutthroats. Before he can even open his eyes he carries out a trained reflex and kills her. Obviously shocked and dismayed he leaves he flat. He blames his mentor DG for having him turned into a killing machine. DG persuades him not to give himself up and sends him abroad to rescue a Swedish technician who seems to be involved in the matter of the smuggled Swedish missiles. But a Western agency for mercenaries named Sectragon plans to kindle a new war as a profitable new business opportunity..."Hamilton: In the Interest of the Nation" is loosely based on the books about the Swedish intelligence officer Carl Hamilton created by the Swedish author Jan Guillou which was quite popular during the 80s and 90s in Sweden. The character has been played by several actors on the silver screen throughout the years. Stellan Skarsgrd was actually the first actor to play Carl Hamilton and now the time has come to Mikael Persbrandt to play him. "Hamilton: In the Interest of the Nation" is a yet another Swedish classic so so attempt to make a swedish action film and I reckon it falls mostly on the poor acting. Persbrandt is ok, but the rest is more or less terrible. The budget must have been fairly big as the environments, set ups, props, action etc is of good standard, but thats all pointless if the direction and acting are not of the same standard. "Hamilton: In the Interest of the Nation" raises no eyebrows and my only real treat was the beautiful Saba Mubarak as Mouna Al Fathar.

Rose M (mx) wrote: I love this movie , John Shea play this character in a way I don't think anybody could he is amazing

Chris S (gb) wrote: Hate to say it as the trailer looked excellent, but this anthology is terrible. Story after story has no real resolution and doesn't go into much depth to be able to make your own understanding for each ending. Avoid it. It's a waste of time and that's coming from someone who enjoys crappie horror movies.

John D (ru) wrote: A harmless, fun movie that is an easy recommend. Nothing to take seriously, but fun to see a lot of shots of where I used to live in the North End of Boston. Also, I am in love with Cerina Vincent now.

Mike M (ru) wrote: For the colours alone, any fan of film owes this flick a viewing. Surreal backdrops inter-spliced with over-the-top action sequences, blanketed amid a tragic love story. Frantic dialogue in spots made reading the subs arduous, however, eventually I just turned them off and enjoyed the cinematography (the dubbed version, shock! Was horrible).

Blake P (mx) wrote: I shouldn't hate-watch movies. I know I shouldn't. You should walk into the theater with zero expectations, leaving with an unbiased impression instead of a smirk. But yesterday, I did something most movie critics should not do: I went to hate-watch "Insurgent" with my bubbly teenage sister who was most definitely not hate-watching the film. I won't go into details (to be fair, I just posted my review of "Insurgent" only yesterday), but what I will admit is that I left the cinema with a strong feeling of meh, if that's even a feeling (the youths act like it is these days). It's a "blockbuster" for the teen crowd, a B-version of "The Hunger Games". Its biggest crime is not being meh; its biggest crime is being so devoid of any kind of personality. In 2015, well-crafted action scenes and statuesque leads are not enough - they might have been in 1999, but we can no longer party like its 1999, because 1999 was, well, 16 years ago. Nowadays, all we can depend on is ... spunk. It's a shame that a blockbuster as lame-brained as "Insurgent" is going to make so much money; what does it really have to offer? Which finally brings me to "Tank Girl", the 1995 would-be blockbuster that is better known today as being the film that lost $21 million dollars at the box-office, the film that should have made a Lori Petty a star but didn't, the film that Naomi Watts co-starred in before she became the "it girl" from "Mulholland Dr.", the film that now resides in the throes of two golden words: cult classic. I was reminded of the film during, yes, "Insurgent," where Watts makes an appearance as the blandly handsome male lead's mother. In the theater, surrounded by giggling teenage girls, I found myself pondering about that money-losing cult classic I had known about but never watched for years. But enough for backstories; mine, most likely, isn't as interesting as I'd like it to be. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it's so unfair that "Tank Girl", which is exploding with spunk and personality, is confined to the sad remarkability of a cult film, whereas "Insurgent", which is about as interesting as your sad Uncle Alvarez, is going to make millions upon millions of dollars. (Cut to me going outside during this dark, rainy night, falling onto my knees, and yelling "NOOOOOOOO!" into the air like no one's watching). It comes down to this: please, please don't see "Insurgent". See the breakneck speeded, freakish, abstract, one-liner infused saunter of "Tank Girl". It won't make you smarter, and it certainly won't change your life, but I'll be damned if it doesn't enliven your spirits with its out-and-proud weirdness. The year is 2033. 11 years earlier, a comet hit the Earth with devastating results, causing an endless drought that has turned most of the world into a parched desert. Little of the population remains; most work for, or head, the scheming Water & Power corporation, who use their massive authority to act as a sort of new, evil government. Their latest advancement? They now have the capability to purify blood into water, which is totally reasonable and not at all disgusting. A few people have escaped the clutches of the nefarious executives, however. Among them are Rebecca Buck, aka Tank Girl (Petty). She prides herself in her unwavering wildness: she's overtly sexual, loud, gross, and fearless, deadly with a gun and tough-talking in her words. Unlike the Trises and Katnisses of today, she is blatantly ballsy. She doesn't regret her actions, and she doesn't care what people think of her. When her commune is destroyed by W & P, though, she is kidnapped by their hilariously ghoulish leader (Malcolm McDowell), who sees promise in Tank Girl's defiant attitude but is threatened by it, throwing her into slave work. But of course, she escapes, with a new friend in tow (Naomi Watts). Of course, she embarks on a crazy adventure. Of course, she ends up winning the mini-battle against the company. But who cares about predictability when it's all wrapped up in a tie-dyed package of kookiness? Assembling itself in a sphere of scale-models, campy set-pieces, outlandish prosthetic makeup, animated interludes, and a soundtrack and tone that suggests it all was funded by classic era MTV, "Tank Girl" swirls in a blender of batshit energy, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. I guess it wants to be too many things at once: funny, sexy, cute, action-packed, and most clearly, fun, for lack of a better term. It isn't great at everything it attempts, but what "Tank Girl" never fails at is being downright amusing. Petty's tough broad faade is consistently charming; her presence is so essential that her hit-or-miss (but mostly miss) career can be blamed for this career-defining portrayal. Personally, I think she's absolutely fantastic, but others might not be so sure (she's so delightfully manic). What makes the film work is how well it recognizes the bombastic insanity of its source. The comics, from what I've seen, are eye-popping creations of exaggerated punkiness, having all the swagger of a 15-year-old's brat's daydreams. That tonal emphasis is brought into "Tank Girl" without any misgivings, and that's why it's so much better than (here we go again) "Insurgent". "Insurgent" is so afraid to fail that it doesn't even try to be anything other than a fill-in-the-blank dystopian-set action-romance. "Tank Girl" can fall flat on its face once in a while, but at least it has the nerve to do so. It's not perfect, but Netflix streaming is much cheaper than a wasted ten dollars.

Courtney B (ru) wrote: Wow Jordan. I still can't forgive you for this one!

Dann M (kr) wrote: Yee-Haw! Hilariously entertaining, City Slickers rustles up a lot of laughs. When advertising executive Mitch Robbins has a mid-life crisis his best friends take him on a cattle drive for his birthday in hopes of lifting his spirits. Starring Billy Crystal, Daniel Stern, Helen Slater, and Jack Palance, the film has a solid cast that delivers strong performances. Additionally, the comedy is especially well-written, and has some insightful commentary on urban life and the issues that men face in modern society. The score too is quite good, and sets a lighthearted tone for the film. While it can get a little stereotypical at times, City Slickers is a fun-filled comedy with a heartfelt message about friendship.

Carmen M (ca) wrote: Love it, love everything about it.

Paul D (jp) wrote: Robert Shaw is sturdy as the great American hero, the film is less so, but it's still a fair watch.

Graham B (au) wrote: A film steeped in Casablanca, but no-where near as good.The plot is ludicrous and quite often boring(tungston cartel anyone?) It is the performances that keep this afloat. Hayworth is smoking hot as the eponymous temptress, but it is not a pleasant character. The film is oozing misogyny. Gilda, the character, is seemingly a metaphor for all womenkind. Whores who drive men mad and cause havoc wherever they are. I think the writer has mommy issues!As a post war film, there must be the requisite evil Germans, but they are such downplayed bad guys, especially compared to Ballin Mundson, luciously played by George Macready. It is Macready that steals the show for me here. A man full of hate, but thriving on it. HIs relationship with Johnny and Gilda, for it does play like a strange threeway, is a powder keg waiting to explode. Sadly it just all gets a bit messy. After an odd plot twist where Ballin fakes his own death, the Gilda abuse just fires up even more. So much so, that I really didn't buy the neat ending.An entertaining watch though for the performances and the homoerotic nuances between Ballin and Johnny. It's gorgeous to look at too. The entire film seems to take place at night as all are turned out in beautiful eveningwear. Rita Hayworth's hair should have a place in the cast. It really is one of the stars when she dances.

Jay R (fr) wrote: This was a pretty good movie and I'm not such a guy for love stories but this was more Real to me. It cas a bit too long for my taste but that didn't affect the over-all experience....which was nice.