The film is set in a terrorizing world of the future, where technology commands the movements of individuals, supervised by the doctors, carrying out a program to improve the human race. Thus, instead of doctors creating a monster, the monsters are already there as the species of the future - but one of them is suspected by the doctors of being a human being. That is Golem in reverse.
- Category:Thriller, Sci-Fi
- Stars:Beatrix Thomson, Patric Knowles, Glennis Lorimer, Reginald Purdell, Allan Jeayes, Frederick Piper, Googie Withers, Mabel Poulton, Marek Walczewski, Krystyna Janda, Joanna Zólkowska, Anna Jaraczówna, Mariusz Dmochowski, Wieslaw Drzewicz, Henryk Bak, Jan Nowicki, Wojciech Pszoniak, Krzysztof Majchrzak, Grazyna Bernacka, Zofia Czerwinska, Natalia Sikorska, Arkadiusz Bazak, Zbigniew Buczkowski,
- Director:Piotr Szulkin,
- Writer:Piotr Szulkin (screenplay), Tadeusz Sobolewski (screenplay), Gustav Meyrink (novel)
The film is set in a terrorizing world of the future, where technology commands the movements of individuals, supervised by the doctors, carrying out a program to improve the human race. ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Golem torrent reviews
(es) wrote: There's nothing much to say really .. A model gets raped beaten and abused (with an electric thing going somewhere it shouldn't) and then there's a bit of revenge. There's no catharsis or reason for it outside of just one nasty scene after another .
(gb) wrote: "3 Days to Kill" is an average action comedy film that features Kevin Costner doing his best "gruff Harrison Ford" impression. It intersperses several well-executed shootout sequences with a shallow family plot. The Parisian setting and the intrigue behind Amber Heard's character set the stage for a riveting story but what develops feels like a bunch of ideas that were borrowed from other films. As I mentioned, Costner's voice and disposition are reminiscent of most Harrison Ford action films, his crippling adrenaline-induced hallucinations seem to be inspired by "Crank," and the plot device of a man trying to develop a relationship with his daughter amidst dangerous spy missions feels very clich. This led to a familiarity that had my wife and I debating whether we had seen the film before. The predictability of the family story left little room for surprises. We even developed an expectation that one particular character would reveal herself to be a bad guy... only to realize that we were remembering a different film and definitely had not seen this one before. While the story lacks originality, much of the comedy hits the target. The running gag of Costner's "I Love It" ringtone going off at inappropriate moments never gets old and his reliance on his targets (Mitat and Guido) to help mend his relationship with Zooey creates some great moments. If you are looking for a serious action film, "3 Days to Kill" will let you down but if you are looking for something predictable and light, it might be just what you are looking for.
(kr) wrote: Fun, flirty, playful. Captured the essence of the book, for the most part.
(kr) wrote: Mostly watchable prequel.
(ca) wrote: American Swing dips into the sticky underbelly of the 70's sexual revolution with this candid documentary about the rise and fall of one of New York City's most notorious night clubs.
(es) wrote: With today's technology B horror films need at least a little bit of real looking special effects. This is worthless in every aspect.
(es) wrote: This is a good movie, watch it. Tells the story about the realities of war and immigration to the US for a Vietnamese family. It's not "hard to watch" despite the realistic portrayals of prisoners of war, and death. This movie is well acted and the story is put together well. Redeeming despite the tragedy.
(gb) wrote: This would have been a good movie if Johnathan Schaech wasn't the worst actor in screen history.
(de) wrote: Great and funny first entry, Mike Myers was born to play this role, Not to mention the other roles he plays.
(it) wrote: Such a Na's a$$ movie. Forget how much I love it.
(mx) wrote: Watch for Divine. Nothing else.
(au) wrote: Eli Wallach = Best Bandito Ever
(mx) wrote: A shockingly beautiful and humanizing film. It's amazing how empathetic the film is to its protagonist Lola- portrayed quite literally to the rest of the world as a man-eating beast, displayed at the circus to pay for her sins. But as we see through flashbacks, Lola is a tragic figure, betrayed by love and simply drifting through life, trying to keep her dignity. She's only ever tried to be truthful both to her men and herself. Beautifully shot film with fantastic color. I love the surreal circus displays and her wonderfully over the top outfits. There's a lull in her last memory of Germany, but for the most part it's a well paced and certainly fantastically (and revolutionarily) structured film.
(de) wrote: a gritty noir based on real events surrounding organized crime in phenix city, alabama, which due to it's proximity to fort benning, georgia was a haven for all manner of vice.by itself i think it's a fairly standard film but the fact that it's based on real events lends it poignancy. thus it's more interesting for its historical relevance than as a work of art.
(de) wrote: When we all wish we are special and privileged, to be like royalty or special service, to come from ancestors of great honour, to realize that we are living an ordinary life, that is misrrable. But, when we do, it can change our life for the best. Being part of an organization that is destined for you, to being a wicked spy agent we all grew up knowing. Saving the World is the dream, getting the princess, and being part of something bigger. If life just had hidden jewels we can't see, hidden compartments, hidden weapons to fight, every boys dream. Not to mention having that wicked mentor, whom grooms us.
(au) wrote: Another decade-old movie here. This one's from 2004. I remember seeing it before, when it was new. I liked it then. Let's see how I like it now.This movie takes its time. With a running time of about two and a half hours, the first half is dedicated solely to set up the who, where and why of the story. Even though the first few minutes of the film already give away the obvious plot, the movie manages to keep a certain level of suppressed suspense throughout half its running time. John Creasy (Denzel Washington) reluctantly takes a bodyguard job in Mexico City. He's a former special ops agent, now an alcoholic, who is at the brink of taking his own life. To his surprise, this new job gives him something to live for: Lupita Ramos (Dakota Fanning), the young girl he's hired to protect. Of course, she eventually gets kidnapped, but not after she's touched his heart.Denzel Washington is one of the greatest actors of our time. And while Man on Fire is not the best of his career, he certainly hasn't received the praise he deserves. Most unfavourable reviews of this film state that all the visual beauty and impeccable production of this movie only serve one purpose: the gory and violent second half of this film.I disagree. Not only do the visual beauty and impeccable production serve the story as a whole, I will postulate that the second half of this movie isn't half as bad as it's made out to be. Yes, Creasy clips some fingers. Yes, Creasy obliterates an entire hand with a shotgun. Yes, Creasy even kills a man with a MacGuyver-style explosive in his rectum. Sounds violent, doesn't it? Now that would be a problem for me if those actions were solely for entertainment purposes or for Mr. Creasy's personal satisfaction. But they aren't. He very clearly strategizes to connect the dots that will lead him to the man responsible for Pita's kidnapping.Of course you can condemn the violence just for the acts in themselves. But what you'd be doing at the same time is reveal how naive you are about the world we live in. If sitting these criminals down with a soda or a cup of coffee was sufficient to get some credible information out of them, I'm sure Creasy would have done it. If waiting for Mexico's judicial system was sufficient, he'd done that too. But Creasy is not as naive as these movie critics. He doesn't commit violent acts because "bloody=good" in the movie theater or because he enjoys separating fingers from hands. He merely adapts himself to his environment and starts speaking the languague of the degenerates he's dealing with.In doing so, he manages in no-time what the combined do-gooders police officers and truth-hunting journalists never managed in decades: get to the people who are responsible.It seems like the audience is split on the subject, which is fine in itself. It's just unfortunate that I get to read attempts by 'critics' like movie-mom Nell Minow from 'Common Sense Media', who will get full credit for the following quoted review:"Parents need to know that this movie has extreme and graphic violence, including torture and attempted and actual suicide (portrayed as honorable). Children are in peril. A character has a drinking problem. Characters use strong language. The movie's strengths include strong inter-racial friendships and respect for spiritual values."What? Since when do parents not know that when they see 'Rating: R' on movie that they will get at least some if not all of the above? 'R' has been the new 'NC-17' for quite a while now. The tagline of the quoted review is "Extremely violent; not for kids." Well Duh. What did you expect, go check the R-rated isle on Netflix and see if you can find something that is actually very much suitable for kids. In her defense, Minow's description of the movie is spot-on. But then 'Sex' gets a 3/5 warning for this film and 'Drinking, drugs & smoking' gets 0/5? Did we really see the same thing?Long story short: most critics are either so lost that they forgot that 'R' means there is some clearly adult-only material here; or they are showing signs of extreme naivet about their world view and how to deal with organized crime sydicates.Pros: good production value, good acting, etc.Cons: If you believe that violence does not and should not exist in this world, go see something else.Verdict: Go see
(ru) wrote: Kinda cheesy, but I loved it.