El jorobado de la Morgue

El jorobado de la Morgue

Paul Naschy plays a hunchback with below average intelligence who works at the morgue. He is in love with a sickly girl who happens to be the only person who is kind to him. Each day he ...

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:87 minutes
  • Release:1973
  • Language:Spanish
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:murder,   whipping,   rat,  

Paul Naschy plays a hunchback with below average intelligence who works at the morgue. He is in love with a sickly girl who happens to be the only person who is kind to him. Each day he ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

El jorobado de la Morgue torrent reviews

Marcus M (au) wrote: WOW!!! the ending brought me to tears.. i know alot of work is put into this experience of burning man, but to see how much work they do, brings joy to my heart... I have seen many documentaries of burning man, but this by far is my favorite.. it was just released in theaters and on iTunes today.. and now have goosebumps cause i leave in 4 days for yet anther playa adventure.. cant wait to be back home with my friends and family!!! the people who own and and all the volunteers who put in the hard work all year long. seriously need a standing ovation.. see you in the dust people!!

Ferdeian A (ru) wrote: this was better than the first movie they made wait who am I kidding it wasn't this one was a little bit stupid for me

Matthew P (au) wrote: Smokin' Aces 2: Assassins' Ball -- technically a prequel to the original Aces film -- is a lot like its predecessor in terms of plot and style. It's a heavily stylized action film in which everyone is fighting to kill or protect a single individual. This time around, it's an FBI veteran named Walter Weed (Tom Berenger), which means that a working title for this film was probably "Smokin' Weed," which would have been infinitely funnier but wouldn't have the brand recognition, I suppose. Assassins' Ball is a fitting title, too, considering what eventually happens. Essentially, a bunch of assassins have been given a target, Weed, and a time frame in which to perform the kill -- an arbitrary time of 3AM on April 19th, for whatever that's worth to you. The government wants to protect their agent, obviously, so they put him down in a bunker so well protected that it would take idiocy on the part of the agents for it to be penetrated. I think you can see where this is going. The assassins have to fight through each other and the FBI agents in order to try to collect their bounty. Apart from the FBI being the protective bodies, you could be forgiven for thinking that this is the same storyline as the first Smokin' Aces, because it pretty much is. This is a prequel, though, meaning that any characters who appear in the original film have to live through this one. That takes away some of the fun, I think; when the action scenes come, you know that a couple of these people can't die. Anyway, it's not like it really matters, as the characters that appear in Smokin' Aces don't play terribly major roles in this one. Or, perhaps it was just that I didn't remember many of the people in the first film, because it was overloaded with too many characters who ultimately didn't matter. The ones in this film are a lot like that, too, but because there aren't nearly as many, at least you can keep track of all of them. They all have a central gimmick that pretty much defines their personality, and that's about all that matters. We don't spend as much time with the characters this time around, which is to the film's benefit and the director's credit. Most of them will eventually be killed anyway, and it's not like we're supposed to root for the assassins -- the film does make it clear that our protagonists are Weed and the man tasked with protecting him, Special Agent Zane Baker (Clayne Crawford) -- so do we really need more than a stereotype? In this film, I think that answer is an emphatic "no." It works to have caricatures ... and not spend a great deal of time with them, which would reveal just how shallow they are. It's easy to see how low the budget is for this movie. The explosions in particular look incredibly cheap. It's as if they took a circa-2000 stock effect and threw it in whenever an explosion was desired. That, and a noticeable and also really poorly executed Natural Born Killers tribute -- especially because nothing is done with this after it happens and there's barely a connection between the characters used in the tribute and Oliver Stone's movie. Maybe it was subtly trying to tell us something about them, but it doesn't register. There definitely are some fun action scenes, and that's what you're here for, right? A large budget has been replaced by excessive amounts of gore. Seriously, this is a surprisingly bloody movie. You see a guy get shot, and you think "well, that was a bloodless shot," and then we see the wall behind him and pretty much all of the blood in his body is splattered on the wall. Did I enjoy Assassins' Ball more than the first Smokin' Aces? A part of me thinks that I did. It's a slightly shorter, more heavily stylized version of the same movie, but with fewer meaningless characters and a more simplified, less convoluted plot. Sure, it doesn't have the same big names -- although its cast, which I'll get to shortly, does contain names most will recognize -- and the ending is significantly worse, but it is, at worst, on the same level as the original, if not slightly better. The cast might not have the same A-list stars that were in the original film, but you're sure to recognize some of these names, especially if you have seen more than a few direct-to-video films in your lifetime. Vinnie Jones, Autumn Reeser and Michael Parks are probably some of the most well-known names of the cast, while Tom Berenger and Clayne Crawford have their own fanbase. Tommy Flanagan is the most important returning name here. The cast is fine and play their stereotypical and gimmicky roles well. They also seem to have a lot of fun, which is always nice to see. Smokin' Aces 2: Assassins' Ball is no worse than the original, and if I'm speaking honestly, I had a bit more fun with it than its predecessor. Sure, it's a lower budget retelling of the same basic story, but it's done with style -- sometimes too much -- and trims much of the unnecessary fat that filled the first installment. This one is for fans of the original who are looking for more of the same, and also the one that you should watch first if you're getting into the series. It's a prequel that works best if you see it before the original.

Darren P (it) wrote: Mindless gore. Here is the script: "Be gross."

Mrs DiCaprio (us) wrote: another long lost movie!

John L (ru) wrote: This was a difficult one that left me scratching my head at the end. But aspects of it (some, not all) began to sink in a bit after the fact. Definitely original and shot very well...but requires some patience and probably more than one viewing.

Martin (us) wrote: Better than most westerns. Steve McQueen is a great avenger.

Andrew S (jp) wrote: Boringly boring! Dull as dishwater on a Sunday afternoon! Stick with the TVS show. Never really laughed once and switched off towards the end. A mixture of the Spice Girls versus One direction!

Bradley K (jp) wrote: Nice little fight picture that achieves a lot through great economy.

Alisha B (ca) wrote: Game of Death is not the Juiciest Tomato their is but it is not rotten, i found it quite interesting, i saw it as Judge Dredd (Karl Urban, Olivia Thirlby) but in a hospital, kind of. Their were weird times in the film that were not explained. But i honestly believe that this film is under-rated and should be seen by more people. So i give this film 3 out of 5 and Its not quite rotten, anything different to make this film worse would make it rotten.

HelenaErmy V (gb) wrote: "ele io non l'ho visto, poi lo rivediamo assieme?" LOL NOPE