Coming to Grand Hotel, we will also know about the story of a group of very different individuals. They are staying at a luxurious hotel in Berlin and have to deal with each of their respective dramas . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
You may also like
Grand Hotel torrent reviews
Michael C (de) wrote: Not as good as the books.
Jeffrey M (ca) wrote: Like most other modern Japanese films that I've seen of this ilk. Style over substance. Extreme gore for gore's sake that is so over-the-top that be becomes trite by the end of the film. Terribly choreographed action sequences that are not at all exciting.
Sanjay T (gb) wrote: It's not good or bad.
Jonathan D (nl) wrote: A bit of a bore with nice ending
Bugi P (it) wrote: Enjoyable action and very typical of 90's with memorable bonding performances by Rourke and Johnson. But, that's all, destroyed by Daniel Baldwin and his armor suit friends. God hated them!!
Jason D (gb) wrote: This is a loose sequel Lester's earlier film, Class of 1984. As we delve further into the future, the major metropolitan areas have become increasingly worse with gang violence and youth rebellion. That is, until the treacherous Dr. Forrest (played hilariously by Stacy Keach, equipped with white mullet and contacts to signify that he is evil) develops cyborg teachers with military expertise. Their computer minds gradually become smarter and the teachers turn Terminators on the students' asses. It's up to lead, former bad boy Gregg (looking like a poor man's Corey Feldman) to save the day and kill the 3 cyborg teachers (one of which is the delicious-looking Pam Grier, who is unfortunately wasted in this role). Malcolm McDowell shows up to as the school principal, but that role is mostly ho-hum as well. It's really the last 35, 40 minutes of this movie that really packs a punch and makes it very entertaining.
Marcus M (jp) wrote: This film had two strikes going against it when it came out, which squashed it's overall star rating, and buried it's legacy at the box offices. You'll notice these strikes mentioned in a lot of these old reviews.Strike One: It came out a year after Indiana Jones. Not uncommon for Hollywood to come out with a bunch of copycat films all at once, some of which can be better than the original films they're copying. It's just that Raider's was too epic to have a follow-up that wouldn't pale in comparison. Also, because of this, the copycat films didn't really come out in full force until the mid 80's. As a result this film stood there all alone with no hope of comparing to Raiders.Strike Two: Tom Selleck was offered the role of Indy and turned it down. Can you come up with a juicier bit of fodder for critics? They went to town on that one, as you can read in these old reviews.What about the film though? It's not bad. They nailed the period setting of exotic locales as far as I'm concerned. The action is good, the performances are good. It captures pretty well The Indiana Jones style of adventure. So, it's not Indiana Jones. Who cares? What's wrong with a good adventure flick that follows the style of a film.Raiders created a whole genre of adventure films, and yet when you look at the serial adventures it was based on you realize it didn't create them either. This film is the first attempt at continuing with that genre, only when it came out people couldn't see it was following a genre, and treated it like a knock off.This is a solid 75% adventure film, and should be given another shot by modern viewers who aren't conflicted with the bias this film encountered. Enjoy!
Conor R (ca) wrote: what's flixster's problem? Giving this movie three stars is a crime. This was a great flick. I don't think anyone has bigger balls when it comes to women than Bogey.
Jim W (kr) wrote: The 39 Steps is a likable made for BBC film based on the book by John Buchan. The Alfred Hitchcock version is a classic and this film takes a smarter approach than the film-makers did that remade Psycho. Rather than being a shot by shot remake, it's pretty different than the Hitchcock version even if the plot is a lot alike. I also think Rupert Penry-Jones did a fine job in the lead as a man mistaken as a murderer of a spy and on the run from police.
Greg W (ag) wrote: good pirate actioner no relation to the natalie portman vehicle of the same name.
Paris S (kr) wrote: One of the most beautiful films ever put to print. Jacob's Ladder is American surrealism in motion, but the aesthetic is not quite supported by its story. There is so much potential here for a true masterpiece, but what we're given, though wholly entertaining, comes just shy of striking distance. The cast is very consistent as is the direction, but the plot offers so much unfulfilled brilliance that what we're left comes out as slightly underwhelming.
Jeremy R (ag) wrote: Corny sequel to the great original.
Josh H (au) wrote: Matt Gourley of the James Bonding podcast argues that the Brosnan Bond films suffer from a sort of tonal dissonance. Meaning, they can't tell whether to be tongue-in-cheek comedic, dramatic, or go-for-broke action movies. Basically, it's hard to take a dramatic love scene between Brosnan and Teri Hatcher seriously just a few minutes after Moneypenny calls Bond a "cunning linguist." It feels awkward, like the movie is trying to be all Bonds to all people but ends up being unconvincing on all fronts. I think it's an existential thing for the series: hard to get the tone right when your movie doesn't have a real reason to be other than venerated tradition (and, like most venerated traditions, its purpose is essentially to sell things). But I'm being mean. As escapist comfort food, a by-the-numbers Bond for when you're in the mood for a by-the-numbers Bond, Tomorrow Never Dies has its pleasures. There's Brosnan, fitting the role like a glove. There's Michelle Yoeh, great fun as Bond's roundhouse kicking Chinese equal. There are terrific action sequences that flow masterfully into one another as the mid-section of the movie just keeps coming. There's the late, great Vincent Schiavelli as a genial psychotic hit man. Johnathan Price is an over-the-top matter of taste, though his brief chop-socky impression toward the end is almost worth the price of admission. There are many flaws of course. The clunky dialogue, the faceless Red Grant stand-in of a henchman, the unconvincing Brosnan-Hatcher romance, the media mogul who, in 1997, has apparently never heard of the internet. Nonetheless, Tomorrow Never Dies is an entertaining if decidedly mid-level Bond affair.