Fast Getaway II

Fast Getaway II

A former robber (whose partner was his father) has reformed and is now running an insurance business with his girlfriend. An ex-partner frames him for a burglary. When his father gets out of prison, they go after the ex-partner.

A former robber (whose partner was his father) has reformed and is now running an insurance business with his girlfriend. An ex-partner frames him for a burglary. When his father gets out ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Fast Getaway II torrent reviews

David v (mx) wrote: This is a weak copy of "Unfriended" and you soon get the idea. It has a couple of good moments but soon degenerates into standard horror territory. The computer monitor view soon becomes boring. It's a lazy film, nothing like as scary or intriguing as Unfriended or Darknet, and the only really disturbing bit is at the end The acting is very good, but the lead actress needs material a lot better than this

Lewis G (ru) wrote: great to get the subject matter out there but i disagreed with some stuff...

Esra E (nl) wrote: fatih akn tarznn biraz d?nda bir film, e?lenceli,gzel mzikli...izlen..

Eric M (ca) wrote: I hear this movie really needed just one good actor.

Jeff B (es) wrote: This one is so bad it's good.

Gary C (br) wrote: This film has the woman from 'Allo 'Allo in it! Renneeeee! etc.I can't work out whether it was excellent or awful...It's about a girl who goes into a modelling place but it turns out to be a front for a witch recruitment agency or something. They hang out in a place imaginitively called 'Witch World' which sounds like a theme park but is actually a dingy basement.Features nude photoshoots involving a Citroen DS Safari. It goes downhill after that.

Robert I (gb) wrote: A classic, but very long and it does drag.

Edgar C (gb) wrote: A romantic story from the 1960s France starring the renowned actor Jean-Louis Trintignant and the talented actress Anouk Aime (Lola, 1961)!Winner of the OCIC Award and the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival of 1966! That sounds convincing so far.Wait... Nominated for 4 Academy Awards in 1967, out of which 2 were won, which are Best Writing, Story and Screenplay - Written Directly for the Screen, and Best Foreign Language Film. Now that's a bad omen...It's not that I want to speak bad about the Academy, but...Well, in fact I do want to talk bad about the Academy.It actually turns me on...-----------So here we have an attractive recipe because its ingredients seem tasty enough, prepared at the right time, and with an enticing reputation thanks to Cannes. After all, few films open their initial credits proudly displaying their Palme d'Or.This is a damn mixed bad which left me frustrated, and yet longing for more.First, we have the visual style, which is the most troublesome aspect of it all. It constantly makes transitions between black-and-white and Eastmancolor. Why? No apparent reason, really. It is not nostalgia. It is not the characters feeling sad or depressed, and therefore repressing their sentiments towards one another. It wasn't something chronological, either. In fact, that would make even less sense. Nothing fits. Lelouch only wanted to say: "Hey! Look! I passed my Film University courses and I learned how to shoot images in both styles!" Good job there, boy.Second, the cinematography, which is surely gorgeous and well balanced, feels like being given more importance than to the emotional development of the characters. This is supposed to be a drama that reunites two people in common circumstances (a widow and a widower) that slowly unravel their feelings and personalities between each other while they balance their past love life and their current existence. Both the past and the current existence are also given sporadic attention. Ergo, with no proper background, it becomes even more difficult to feel sympathy for the characters, and easier to feel betrayed at the resolution. This is written not with the intention of implying that a film that gives more importance to the style commits a sin when forgetting about its characters; on the contrary, if your plot does not justify the style - like it should have happened here - credibility begins to show a decreasing trend.Thirdly, so maybe the fact that the characters are difficult to relate to because we have the cinematography and the gorgeous, catchy main score invading the story, maybe we can, then, focus on the story. Well, the problem is that the entire content of the sandwich is boring. Really, displaying scenes with no relevance for 50 minutes in the middle with some brief, but interesting intersections of plot management can deteriorate the experience, and it surely does here. This film would have worked way better if it actually had committed to its own responsibilities or to explore new potential areas, like the potentially successful character analysis/dissection it could have been, and that have increased in popularity today thanks to the work of Linklater and Kiarostami. Even the incredibly simplistic title is a sign about the predominant superficiality of it all.But then, we have some weird intermissions that take us out of the Hollywood realm, of the predictable territory and of the corny garden where cinematic clichs flourish, and we find ourselves in the middle of moments that are either hypnotic, thought-provoking or simply captivating from an emotional point of view: key scenes like the couple watching a man alone with his dog walking alike, and then talking about how a person can be beautiful if the person chooses life above art; like a son speaking about his dream to become a fireman and asking for a Coca-Cola in Spanish; like the last act, which seems like an attempt by the film to ammend past mistakes and put additional layers to the story.I see waited potential wherever I see, because there is love and intelligence at every corner, but poorly delivered... Maybe not poorly, but "uninspired" is the word, no matter how beautiful the last tracking shot is, no matter how strongly stories about couples dissecting themselves slowly resonate in my heart, no matter that it has two of my favorite French actors in my favorite decade of cinema, no matter how many times I will hum ("lalala") the main theme from now on during the entire week, like I am doing right now. I am being generous with it because it is not a conventional love story. It is pretty good at staying away from emotional manipulation stunts and clichs that push you away from a more realistic dream. There are strong strokes of poetry displayed throughout an uneven canvas of passion and self-discovery.66/100

stu b (es) wrote: Great film of old northern England life with the flawless as ever Hayley Mills. The music gets very annoying with all the piccolos and flutes playing all the time and some of the childrens acting is a bit stilted but a lovely film nonetheless.

Mark W (de) wrote: I seem to be the only person who actually really enjoyed this movie... As a lover of the old school b&w horror fun, this fit the collection quite nice! The prospect of the story is a little odd and generally quite inconsistent, but that's why you have to love these classic flicks.

Antwon B (jp) wrote: A perfect comic book adaptation. It tells the Story of a young Bruce Wayne struggling to become the dark knight detective and Jim Gordon on his path to become the commissioner of the city. And how the two men learned to forge a bond with each other. The live action films, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight took many beats from this very comic. The fan boys really annoy me when they complain about the voice acting. They believe that only Kevin Conroy (BatmanTAS 1992)can voice Batman. And they say that animators need to stick to the source material. And if they meaning the filmmakers follow the source, now the complaint is, "my mind fills in the blanks when I read the comics, where the film does not." The film makers cannot win! This film closely followed the source material and it does a fine job. It's better than that dreck, Superman Dooms day animated film. They shoulda stuck to the source. I read the comics in 1986 and was greatly surprise. If you enjoy comic book action animated films, give this one a go.

Li K (de) wrote: You know it's real love when you spin and kiss simultaneously. And judges are always forgiving community service sentences in favor of dancing if there's love involved, right? I was super unimpressed with Tyler's dancing, but made up for it by being super impressed with their ability to make a two hour movie with no character depth or anyone to care about on any level. And 4 sequels somehow.For me to not be thoroughly engrossed in a dance movie something is very wrong.