A DEA agent and a local sheriff have to wrestle with their consciences as they start raids on local farmers, who have started growing marijuana simply to keep their farms operational. Story... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
A DEA agent and a local sheriff have to wrestle with their consciences as they start raids on local farmers, who have started growing marijuana simply to keep their farms operational. Story...
You may also like
Harvest torrent reviews
Greg W (mx) wrote: interesting mix of kung fu/comic book/action/period pic/ like the way they intercut archive footage with new stuff gr8 mix
Karsh D (jp) wrote: British hoody drama as a group of young friends want to set up a pirate radio station in a disused block of flats....but someone isn't happy!
Matthew C (ag) wrote: Knowing the details of the production I knew I would love it going in. It was made for next to nothing, with a HVX200 (I believe) in New York, with Andrea Martin. C'monnnnnnn.It's not a bad little movie. I can't help to think that watching it in ten minute chunks over the course of days took it down a notch for me, but I have no problem recommending it to people whose hearts do not speed up when they think about shooting films guerrilla style with cheap equipment.
olivia (us) wrote: I love Michael Jackson, going to see the movie "This is it" on the 29th, CANT WAIT!
Tor M (us) wrote: Three homeless people in Tokyo finds a newborn baby among the trash on Christmas Eve. That itself is an all right plot, but as i develops into something way more exciting and mystery-like - it really impress! It looks good, like a typical anime - sometimes with very impressive animation.OK scenes, some OK jokes but it tries to balance a bit to much at times. It tries to be heartbreaking, funny, raw and soft at the same time and it get's a bit much at times. Still a very solid film that I did enjoy, especially the very dysfunctional gang of three, that acts almost like a family.6.5 out of 10 Christmases.
x x (it) wrote: haha what a fucking shit movie!
Tibor B (de) wrote: Fascinating, truly unique debut film from Hungarian Palfi with an extraordinary almost dialogue free, hyper-sensitive soundtrack that captures the micro-details of human and animal life in, above and even below a small rural village. In terms of mood it reminded me vaguely of Terrence Malick and the extraordinary heart attack scene in Lynch's Blue Velvet. If all that wasn't enough there seems to be a darkly comic homicide subplot. The only parts I found intrusive were the obvious CGI sequences, particularly a low flying US jet, but it's a small criticism and if anything it increases admiration to Palfi's ambitious approach and his formal / technical and narrative experimentation.
Holly K M S (it) wrote: This is the worst thing I've ever seen. But in a hilarious way. Go to see it if you'd like to have a real laugh with brief nods to it's franchise. Oh dear!
bob w (es) wrote: a dark, deeply disturbed art house film. not disturbing, but disturbed. a ridiculous movie about a family of malcontent misanthropes. if michael clayton is a monet, this film is subway graffiti.
Scott C (gb) wrote: I love Richard Donner and am not opposed to kids' movies, but I did find this a tad sappy. It is noteworthy though for trying to tackle some pretty dark subject matter.
Harry W (es) wrote: As any sensible person would expect, I went into Deathstalker II with expectations to see much of the exact same thing I had already seen in the first Deathstalker.And as I expected, it was much of the same but with a slight decrease in quality.The quality of the camera in Deathstalker II is even worse than in its predecessor, because everything on the screen is very fuzzy due to the cheap camera quality. It makes everything look even more rough, and the sound achieves the same thing because there is constantly a fuzzy noise going on in the background of Deathstalker II from start to finish. If you can look beneath it and all the other stupidities in Deathstalker II, then you may find yourself enjoying it.While the cheap looking production design in Deathstalker made it appealing due to the entertainment stemming from its low quality in Deathstalker II things are worse because everything is so poorly lit. Its clear that again the sets and such are cheap and lame, but the lighting is poor. Everything in Deathstalker II is a mix of being visually dark as well as fuzzy and rough, and while it's not that bad when scenes are shot inside, it isn't too great when shot outside. The distinct absence of sound effects in many scene make the low quality of Deathstalker II all the more laughable because it is clear that in many of the fight scenes that editors have forgotten to add many sound effects and leave the film more joke worthy than it already was. While the fight scenes and sword fighting sequences boast cheesy B-movie entertaintment from a guilty pleasure perspective, the fact that the sound editing is so poor makes it all the more ridiculous and less credible, although that was pretty much just what I expected. It makes things even funnier.And the cinematography was ok. It never got shaky or anything and managed to keep everything happening on screen within the limited visual plane. So while everything in the film looks rough and grey, it is at least captured well by good cinematography and editing that constantly keeps itself well in time.The cheap musical score is at least rather catchy, so again that proves to be one of the few aspects of the film that are positive because that are good. And it gets used to dramatise ridiculous melodramatic moments in the film which make it all the more laughable for its stupendous quality. The musical score manages to make Deathstalker II more entertaining than you might expect.All in all, Deathstalker II manages to live up to the quality of its predecessor. It exceeds the quality of Deathstalker in terms of scenery and story, but fails to live up to its quantity of nudity. If there were more naked women in Deathstalker II which was what made its predecessor so great, then it could have been a sequel superior to the original. But alas, that was not the case. I kind of expected that though with Jim Wynorski as director since there was such minimal nudity into the poor quality teen sex comedy Screwballs which he himself wrote. So while he keeps most of the visual aspects of Deathstalker II in tact, he fails to supply the nudity to please the pre-pubescent teenage boys watching this on its original release in 1987. Though what little there is does prove pleasing.John Terelsky's lead performance as the titular Deathstalker fails to live up to the already low quality of Rick Hill's performance in the role, because it isn't so bad that it is entertaining. It is simply bad. His performance has him looking like an extra from Revenge of the Nerds who played a jock and sounds like a younger version of John C. Reilly as his voice was just breaking. He doesn't have the same emotionless hulk of a performance that Rick Hill did, he was just a bit much of a hollow prettyboy. But he put up a decent fight during the fight scenes so he is a semi-decent replacement for Rick Hill.Monique Gabrielle never shuts up for the entirety of Deathstalker II, so she gets fairly annoying fast. Her lack of acting talent is laughable and stupid, but not entertaining most of the time. She only has the appeal of being attractive and looking like a younger version of Roasanna Arquette which she used to build her career as the Penthouse Pet of the month in December of 1982, as well as a lot of adult themed films. While it isn't deniable that she is attractive and her nudity is a treat for the eyes, she cannot act and in scenes where she gets the most dialogue it proves annoying. But to speak as I would if I was a teenage boy watching this film upon its original release in 1987, "Monique Gabrielle has a damn nice pair" and that is what she brings to Deathstalker II. Nothing more, nothing less. So as a low budget sword and sworcery flick from the 1980's that never transcends its standards, Deathstalker II proves to be a fairly worthy sequel to its low quality predecessor and delivers a lot of the swords and sorcery necessary for its success, although a bit less of the nudity.
Richard L (mx) wrote: I think this is the closest we will ever get to hippie science fiction, and it is very, very tedious.
Peter F (fr) wrote: This early film from Werner Herzog showcases that the director was seemingly always a maestro of both the surreal and the natural. Shot entirely with dwarf actors, the film certainly has enough motif to it already, but combine that with alluring black-and-white filming, bizarre humor and a surprising sense of rebellion, and it's a film that the work of an utmost auteur. Maybe not one of the director's best in the long-run, but slightly lesser Herzog is still a must-see!
Umberto A (ru) wrote: Meavigliosa interpretazione di Volont
jay n (kr) wrote: Joanne Woodward is exceedingly fine here, the picture is slow paced but worthwhile for the superior acting. An interesting story of a repressed woman emerging from her shell.
Alex K (br) wrote: Loved this film could not stop laughing, thank you Ryan Reynolds and Wesley Snipes for adding large amounts of jokes.
Nathan C (ru) wrote: Fun and outrageous adventure with our Aussie friend being fish-out-of-water in the Big Apple. It takes some build-up to get going but when it does, it doesn't stop.
Jr M (ca) wrote: I love this movie. It makes me feel so Mexican.
Pia K (kr) wrote: Ihanan tiivistunnelmainen trilleri, jossa upeat nyttelijt Richad Gere & Diane Lane. :) En muistanutkaan ett elokuvan loppuratkaisu jtettiinkin rsyttvsti katsojan ratkaistavaksi... o.O (Suom. Kohtalokas syrjhyppy)