Godzilla vs. the Smog Monster

Godzilla vs. the Smog Monster

From Earth's pollution a new monster is spawned. Hedorah, the smog monster, destroys Japan and fights Godzilla while spewing his poisonous gas to further the damage.

From Earth's pollution a new monster is spawned. Hedorah, the smog monster, destroys Japan and fights Godzilla while spewing his poisonous gas to further the damage. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Godzilla vs. the Smog Monster torrent reviews

KingDoge G (fr) wrote: I loved this movie! Just awesome!

Shawn D (ca) wrote: This movie is a tie for the worst movie I've ever seen. Super low budget and completely predictable "plot". I tried to find any depth to this movie but there was literally nothing to it. I can't even believe the producer let this movie out to the public. It's not even one of those movies that it's so bad that its funny. Its just bad.

Emily A (ru) wrote: Woohoo! Score one for inventive Canadian cinema! Perry Mucci is so sweet and charming as Norman, and is wonderful especially in contrast to David Ingram's Victor. Norman, which slightly one-dimensional is endearing as the hopeless fanboy who clings to his co-worker. Victor is the most interesting character in this movie though, because little by little his true talent and, with them, colours start to show, all thanks to his nerdy little mentor. This movie may look like hell, but it's really pretty good.

Omar K (mx) wrote: ??Let Her Buck?? Ever since I was a child those three words always stuck with me, always reminded me of horses and a particular equestrian yarn where the words made the horse, Hidalgo, run fast like the wind. Horses are seldom protagonists that struggle to excite audiences because who wants to see a drama about a horse, it??s a horse for goodness sake! Films like The Horse Whisperer or War Horse try to emphasise the complex psychological centre of these animals, but we can??t identify with these animals?? mentality, only their abilities to gallop and jump. And 2004??s Hidalgo doesn??t attempt to demonstrate the psychological connection between horse and rider; it takes the horse and puts the rider onto it for the most part of the film, and creates a swashbuckling adventure of a race that emphasises how horses should be depicted. Hidalgo is meant to be based on true story of Frank Hopkins, an American horse rider who won the gruelling Middle Eastern ??Ocean of Fire?? race in 1891 against Bedouins riding pure-blooded Arabian horses. This fabled event is now regarded as never having occurred in history due to the inaccuracy of Hopkins?? claims and the impossibility of the race. But seeing as it was over 120 years ago in Arabia, I highly doubt everything kept recorded must be factual and that this event, and the mighty legs of the mustang Hidalgo, occurred and lived on in reality. As we pick up American Frank Hopkins and his mustang, Hidalgo, in the 1891 Wild West, a wealthy Arabian Sheikh sends his envoy to ask him to either stop using the phrase ??the world??s greatest distance horse and rider?? or allow Hopkins and Hidalgo to prove themselves by entering the ??Ocean of Fire?? race: an annual 3,000 mile survival race across the Middle Eastern desert. As the Sheikh breeds the supposed greatest type of horse in the world and a wealthy British horse breeder bets her horse on the race too, Hopkins must fend off tough competition, whilst also battle the gruelling desert conditions and contempt from other riders. With checkpoints featured during such a tiring race, these interludes pave the way for the interweaving of smaller missions that Hopkins must face considering he always finds himself in the middle of everything? with Hidalgo there to whisk him away when he needs him most. Hidalgo begins in the American Wild West, and not being a fairly keen Western supporter, I was inclined to never give the film its rightful chance, but the opportunity I gave it was enough, for it moves landscape completely to the Arabian desert, and much to my happiness it paid off! Heritage are very much part of the setting, and have something to do with the change in atmosphere. From the cowboy boots and southern accents to Arabian dresses and lavish ornaments, the backdrop swap couldn??t be more refreshing because not only does it open up a whole new avenue for the storyline to go down, but also inclines the audience to continue watching essentially a new film. The film is so bogged down in heritage it kind of overpowers it to an extent where the culture interferes with our interaction of the almighty race. It goes without saying that Hidalgo is a swashbuckling adventure that utilises its setting as a means to expand its story. From the mighty sandstorms to golden mirages, Hidalgo has plenty of action to get involved in. There is also a sense of camaraderie and passion between the characters for the horses and the race that Hidalgo becomes an engrossing piece of entertainment, and nothing less. Although we can feel its unoriginality as an adventure story, it never gets boring and all you do is root for Frank and Hidalgo until they cross that finish line. The only problem is that this swashbuckling action and adventure story is divided between moments of solemn conversation and thought. One moment Hopkins is riding against a sandstorm, the next he is handcuffed for sleeping with the Sheik??s daughter, and then he must outrun bandits, to afterward reminiscing of his past, singing a depressing song in the process. This divide needed to bridged if Hidalgo wants to be looked at more than just a daring adventure story. Viggo Mortensen stars as Frank Hopkins, a great American horse rider. Hidalgo came just one year after the release of the final Lord of the Rings film showing not only how Mortensen is moving on with his career, but also the attempt to distinguish his career from being simply known as Aragorn. Without Mortensen, Hidalgo, the film and the horse, would crumble because his talent allows the film to retain a sense of dramatic license. Omar Sharif??s Sheikh Riyadh eases into the film and into our good books thanks to his open attitude. Sharif??s divided personality of loving American things yet having to remain stern in the face of Hopkins makes him a likeable down-to-Earth character. Zuleikha Robinson stars Jazira, the tenacious daughter of the Sheikh. She mysteriously promotes herself into the main cast, which is welcomed because there is a shortage of female characters. Quite hilariously, there is an appearance by J.K. Simmons as Buffalo Bill Cody, who has such hair like a mop, and a patriotic outfit to boot, that it takes quite a while to recognise him, and by that time he will have vanished from the screen, never again to be seen. Hidalgo may be a godsend for equestrian flicks due to their scarcity at being made, but it at times suffers from detrimental sluggishness. Hidalgo suffers from a poor beginning where there is so much going on nothing is really taken in, causing the Arabian landscape to come as quite of a shock, but definitely an improvement to what the Wild West was offering. Still, once in the desert, there are so many riders, rich people and slaves that confusion will still be up there. Only a miniscule of characters are delved into deeply, a handful more are given a bit of time, some are mentioned, but possibly 90 per cent of the cast are extras. Only Frank is really interesting, Hidalgo??s an enigma, the wealthy Sheikh is quite expansive, but the female characters are dull, and the other riders are hardly explored unfortunately. But, at 136 minutes, Hidalgo is still a hefty adventure and you may be wondering where did the time go? I actually don??t know. Hidalgo simply breezes past as the long race is interweaved with smaller missions, sieges and character development scenes, and when Hidalgo and Frank cross the finish line, the film as an experience feels worth it. The Verdict: Both sluggish and adventurous in its story, Hidalgo??s swashbuckling nature brands it as one of the better films in the equestrian canon. ???????????????????? 6/10

Miguel M (mx) wrote: it was ok...could it been better

Jeff B (jp) wrote: A beautifully-directed and touching story about a young, sensitive, intelligent boy who has to come to terms with the loss of his mother, his dog, and his own budding sexuality. Lasse Hallstrom is an extremely underrated director.

Deadly V (kr) wrote: GREAT PHONE STALKING SLASHER!!!!!

Ana A (jp) wrote: Rather old movie, but cute.

Private U (jp) wrote: OMG SUCH A FUNNY MOVIE! SENIORITA CHAPELNO

Matthew P (jp) wrote: In the Name of the King 2: Two Worlds comes highly anticipated after the mega-blockbuster that was In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale. Of course, at this point you've probably already realized that I'm joking, as A Dungeon Siege Tale was an absolutely awful movie. It was boring and essentially a Lord of the Rings ripoff that took everything good about Peter Jackson's trilogy, threw it out the window, and kept the rest. Uwe Boll, for whatever reason, wanted to make a sequel, so here it is.It doesn't really have any relation to the first film, by the way. That's probably for the best, as even Uwe Boll must have realized the dud he made. This one actually begins in present day, as a former soldier, current karate teacher named Granger (Dolph Lundgren) is chilling out in Vancouver. Some warriors from the past invade his home, try to kill him, and eventually bring him back to the past. He's informed that he's part of a prophecy, and that he, some good warriors, and a doctor named Manhattan (Natassia Malthe) need to go kill a witch.Of course, there's more to it than that, and to give the film credit, it does throw a twist -- predictable as it is -- into the mix later on. It also contains so many random elements that come up for absolutely no reason that it's almost an incredibly compelling watch. Unlike the first In the Name of the King, this one is at least watchable. It's even crazier, but that works in its favor. You are glued to the screen watching a glorious train wreck, and I can't say I was disappointed.You don't need coherency in a film like this one. In fact, because the first one tried to make sense at all times -- even though it more often than not failed -- it couldn't be as crazy as it wanted to be. This one just throws whatever it wants at its characters and you have to either accept that and love it or move to something else. You know those kids who make things up whenever they think their story is starting to bore you? In the Name of the King 2 feels exactly the same way in its storytelling approach.And, get this: Despite being filmed on a far smaller budget than the first one -- $7.5 million as opposed to $60 million -- In the Name of the King 2 looks a heck of a lot better, and even throws in a CGI dragon near its finale. Now, the CGI is awful, but that's kind of charming in a movie like this one. The sets and costumes have actually improved, perhaps because so many big name actors weren't involved, and the film doesn't seem quite as fake as a result. In fact, the scenes that felt the least realistic took place in modern day Vancouver.Even the action has improved. Oh, sure, we're using shaky-cam and quick-cut editing, but there's blood, and the swords actually look like they hit people. There's a little bit more creativity, and the choreography has been improved. Sure, it's still not great, but in a film like this, I'll take any silver lining you can find. I was rarely bored during In the Name of the King 2, save for a couple of meaningless dialogue exchanges that go on for far too long.The tone is also much lighter this time around, as characters are actually free to make jokes. Dolph Lundgren might not be a great actor, but he has screen presence and is far funnier than Jason Statham was in the first film. He cracks wise, and so do his supporting cast members. Instead of the super serious tone of the first film -- despite all of the weird things going on around the characters -- this one is a lot lighter and more enjoyable as a result. These characters recognize the absurdity of the situation.I suppose most of the elements of the film are still awful, but I'll gladly take all of the improvements and run with those. It doesn't make a lot of sense, the actors are all awful, the twist is predictable, the cinematography, while better -- all of the shots are at least in focus this time -- still is too shaky for no reason, the CGI dragon, while a welcome addition, looks terrible, and the dialogue is horrible. But I didn't mind most of that in this film. It was cheesy and horrible, but fun. It's a somewhat enjoyable B-movie.Mostly, it's just so insane and crazy that it's compelling and you can't look away. The hammy acting works here, and Dolph Lundgren, while half-asleep for part of the film, actually works out quite well in the lead. Natassia Malthe, who played Rayne in the second and third BloodRayne films (Boll also directed those), is even less emotional, yet still over-the-top at times. Their romance falls so flat that it almost works. Some of these things you just have to see.In the Name of the King 2: Two Worlds probably shouldn't exist, but after having seen it, there's a part of me that's glad it does. Sure, it's silly and poorly made, but it's a huge improvement over the incredibly dull A Dungeon Siege Tale, and I'll take a fun, poorly made film over a dull one of whatever quality nine times out of ten. It has a certain charming quality to it, and the insanity that is contained within is something that you almost have to see. And, since you don't have to see the first film, at least that isn't a hurdle that needs to be overcome.

E L (de) wrote: Some elements don't work too well, otherwise this could have been better.

Nick G (jp) wrote: Very inspirational movie.

Kaung S (nl) wrote: If many parts of the story made sense, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (whose title never truly lived up to the film), that boasts powerfully action-packed CGI-prominent battles, would have been a marvelous addition to the DC universe.