. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Gniazdo torrent reviews

Private U (kr) wrote: This is a well-directed movie. It has a good overall sense of emptiness. I think its main premise is to focus on the soul of the person. How the soul becomes vacant, empty, but then full again.I enjoyed this movie from start to finish!

Magnus S (gb) wrote: Although predictable, a perfect Indiana Jones for kids.

Orlok W (ag) wrote: The soul never dies--The beauty of childhood & innocence... Ways to Live Forever = Way Above Expectations!!

intuciic (fr) wrote: quite ok movie.. just too much mess in it... too unclear..

Zulf M (ag) wrote: Because it's all been done before you might re-run. But it's primarily made for kids. The odd characters are made to make kids giggle. The best actor was actually the little kid actress (Amy Schlagel). It's not the best kiddies movie.

Trey W (ag) wrote: "Flushed Away" Rating: 6.0 (Okay)One of the best films of my childhood. Well I'm still a kid, but whatever. Anyways Flushed away was ok. For a sort of original concept I felt this was too straight forward and had too much genre cliches. But it has a lot of whacky and sometimes crude and racist humor. It will appeal to children and adults. Also has unique and very like able characters, and a cool scenery. B-

Nathan N (ag) wrote: Notable for being a PG-13 film that uses the word "fuck". That is all.

Claire M (au) wrote: This movie is terrible. Bad acting, boring and slow paced. I didn't even make it all the way to the end. I was hoping the family would all get killed but apparently it has a feel good ending. Doesn't even keep King's original and more interesting ending,,which is a pretty sinister one. PS, you people posting fake good reviews should be ashamed. I actually started watching this crap because of you >:(

Quinto W (es) wrote: I don't mind slow-paced movies, but you have to give the audience something to care about while you're building all the tension and the problem here is that the movie tries to fill that time with the characters doing absolutely nothing. For a movie with mostly just four women on screen, it's surprising that none one of them is well developed or interesting, they all kind of speak the same. There are genuinely creepy moments, but not enough to compensate everything else.

JJ M (br) wrote: Godard doesn't do coherence. You would need to know a little about him before watching this. A introductory summary of the film wouldn't go astray either. More so than any of his previous nouvelle vague offerings, 2 et 3 brings all aspects of Godard's philosophical outlook on everything to the table: War, capatalism, industrialisation, consumerism, prostitution, beauty, nature, class, to name but a few. They are all presented here in a type of documentary style that Godard himself narrates (whisperingly!). All characters/actors turn to the camera to talk directly to the viewer, or just to stare, at various intervals. Although I understand that Godard was floating towards an impossible form of expression in his movies at this stage, for me this film had too much distraction and confusion to be deemed completely brilliant. The young boy's dream of a united Vietnam was definitely the soulful delight of the piece.

Andrew L (kr) wrote: Terrible sequel. How the hell does a boy manage to stay alive on an island with larger, more intelligent and more powerful dinosaurs for nearing three months, when a group of guys with really big guns can't survive five minutes!?