From Mexico with Love

From Mexico with Love

A washed-up trainer takes a self-destructive young boxer under his wing.

A washed-up trainer takes a self-destructive young boxer under his wing. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


From Mexico with Love torrent reviews

Edward K (fr) wrote: From a behavioral standpoint the movie borders absurdity. Not just the movie endorses that a murder goes virtually unpunished in exchange for a pathetic behavior of a hateful skinhead who unrealistically repents, but also hints that there is a morality lesson to be learned on a cold blood murder.

Cee C (gb) wrote: one of the least appreciated film of edmond pang.

Jay M (us) wrote: In Hong Kong, English-man Paul Wagner & his company have completed construction on the Victoria Harbor tunnel with the help of equity partner Nigel Griffith. Paul & his wife: Katherine, have two, twin sons, Chad, & Alex. Body guard to Paul & his family is (Dead-Shoot-Shooter) Frank Avery; a friend that has-been-employed after his tour in the Vietnam War.Returning home after the opening ceremonies Paul dismisses Frank to take the night off; shortly after he sees that they-are-being followed; when Paul makes a call on the C.B to Frank he learns that it is not Frank's car that is following them. Frank quickly picks up on what is going on & does a 180 degree turn to rush to get there; when he pulls up a gun fight ensues & he sees that he has arrived too late to save Paul & his wife. The twins remain in the back seat with the nanny; when Frank elevates up his position to the car door he tells her to get the kids & get out of there. The nanny in a state of panic only grabs Alex quickly & leaves; Frank-is-forced to make a retreat & seeing that one of the twins remain he takes him. On his way out he sees that Paul's business partner Nigel Griffith is with a prominent Chinese business man Raymond Zhang; both have plotted to have Paul & his family killed.It is twenty five years later. Chad has grown up in California & become an Aerobics & martial arts instructor; Alex orphaned in Hong Kong shortly after his parents death is a street smart martial artist that owns a Mah Jongg Parlor & does shady business. Frank has found Alex with the help of an associate & decides it is time to reunite the twins & take back what is rightfully theirs.This move is a typical martial art movie that is completely predictable from beginning to end; it has all the things one would expect to find in a Jean Claude Van Damme movie; only this time there is double the Van Damage! Bolo Yeung (bad guy from Enter The Dragon & Blood Sport) is back together with Van Damme as the head honcho of Raymond Zhang's tri-add team of hit-men; he brings that hefty hefty hefty look to the screen along with some humorous things in the fight scenes.Over all this film will be enjoyed-by-martial art buffs I think; along with an audience that is just in the mood to watch a martial art flick. I give it a borderline thumb. Not Van Damme's best film but far from his worst.

Huw G (fr) wrote: Inconsistent characters, in a series of CGI filled set pieces, weakly linked and with no apparent care for believability. If you can not worry about that then the over the top action is ok.

Stuart K (de) wrote: Orson Welles' last completed film, and one which could be one of his finest ones, is a playfully, playform experimental quasai-documentary about forgery. It was made while he was trying to get funding for The Other Side of the Wind, which he filmed on and off between 1970 and 76, but the backers of that asked him to do this essay. The result could be possible one of the most original films ever made. Welles introduces the film in his own unique way, using magic and sleight of hand to show what a charlatan he is. He says this is a film about fakes, and he uses two examples, art-forger Elmyr de Hory who was living in exile away from the law in Ibiza and Clifford Irving, who wrote the supposed "authorized autobiography" of Howard Hughes. Welles lectures the audience that a forgery is a form of art, and that he himself used forgery to get into theatre, beginning in Dublin in 1931. The whole film is a deception, a piece where Welles tells us the truth for an hour, and then, for the last 17 mins, tells us a very convincing story about Picasso, which is all false. Alot of this was from an abandoned documentary by his friend Franois Reichenbach about de Hory and Irving, which Welles appeared in, but Welles makes it his own, using some clever tricks to deceive his audience and it does put in a good case for forgery, no matter how wrong it is.

Metaflix I (kr) wrote: Legendary director Sidney Lumet pairing up with legendary actor Al Pacino automatically establishes grand expectations for the movie Serpico. Both manage to carry their weight in this true story about one man's crusade to expose widespread corruption within the NYPD, and yet in many ways the film lacks the sort of visceral impact that their future collaboration delivers in Dog Day Afternoon.Parts of the movie feel campy, while the portrayal of corrupt cops could have been written with an emphasis towards subtly and nuance. Perhaps this is just being nitpicky. But at a time when these two gentlemen were making other films such as The Godfather, Network, and the aforementioned Dog Day Afternoon, all of a sudden Serpico feels a bit more second-rate.

Pedro D (au) wrote: Silly and slow-ish, but enjoyable comedy. but i am biased because anything is good for me if Shirley macLaine is in it.

Ashley H (us) wrote: The Shanghai Gesture is an amazing film. The sets are great and the score is nice. Gene Tierney and Walter Huston worked well together. The screenplay is well written. Josef von Sternberg did a good job directing this film. I enjoyed this film because of the drama. The Shanghai Gesture is a must see.

Ted C (au) wrote: While there is little here to surprise you, Eastwood and Adams deliver such high calibre performances that even Justin Timberlake is tolerable. The father daughter relationship is powerfully real in its dysfunction and the genuine emotional relationships make the picture well worth your time.

Patrick W (fr) wrote: Great story with well thought out character development. The opening was a little lacking, evidently the show don't tell principle was not taken into consideration when Dixon is being chewed out for beating suspects. I also felt that ending on that up note was a bit of a cheat. I could understand Dixon surviving and having to fess up, but the implication that he'd get off with a slap on the wrists cheapens the impact of his decision. Besides, even if they don't get him for murder, it's at the very least manslaughter, criminal negligence, evidence tampering, obstruction of justice, and desecration of human remains. Plus being an ex cop he'd probably get shanked in holding

Lev M (us) wrote: Well, I watched it just now and really liked it, its' surreal, over the top at times and I thought that was great-Sure it won't get an Oscar but it made me laugh more than most comedies I see these days

Cory B (br) wrote: hell yea prince is the man

Bob P (mx) wrote: Not bad. Seeing it once was enough though.