Joe Moore has a job he loves. He's a thief. His job goes sour when he gets caught on security camera tape. His fence, Bergman reneges on the money he's owed, and his wife may be betraying him with the fence's young lieutenant. Moore and his partner, Bobby Blane and their utility man, Pinky Pincus find themselves broke, betrayed, and blackmailed. Moore is forced to commit his crew to do one last big job.

It is 2001 crime film about a career jewel thief finding himself at tense odds with his longtime partner, a crime boss who sends his nephew to keep watch. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Heist torrent reviews

Jared P (it) wrote: Not bad despite its sad second act. It's first and third are great additions to the horror genre. Good job for you first film Damien

Fawn O (it) wrote: Expunging cynicism to exploit the inherent merriment in some otherwise austere circumstances, Horrible Bosses is brutally unrestrained and boisterous, especially with Charlie Day -- as per usual -- delivering nearly all of his lines by flamboyantly yelling them in constant exasperation. Although the premise heavily relies on some run-of-the-mill subject matter, the film triumphantly deviates from the familiar direction of exploits. Instead, this premise supports an angle that brings us to an entirely new level of criminal activity. In other words, your average hard-working men who deeply and passionately despise their respective bosses for reasons the audience may readily commiserate with, are finally taking matters into their own hands and they are going to do so with such extreme measures, we haven't witnessed anything like it from any of the many similar efforts involving a disgruntled working class that is just aching to air out their job-related frustrations in more inconspicuous and law-abiding schemes.Charlie Day, Jason Bateman, and Jason Sudeikis radiate harmonious relationships that override any thinly veiled plot defects or patterned comedic structures and they are relentlessly entertaining as they devise ludicrous homicidal schemes to take out their respective bosses permanently. Jennifer Aniston playfully immerses herself in a refreshingly novel role. Her screen personality deviates greatly from her reputation as the sweet, down-to-earth, girl-next-store type and she nearly steals the show as a nymphomaniac dentist, Dr. Julia Harris, who is determined to jump Dale's (Day) bones the moment he lets his guard down. Aniston offers a stellar and very sexy performance (even if her character's representation supports an undeniably sexist convention). Kevin Spacey, on the other hand, plays a sociopathic nightmare of a boss for Nick (Batmen), who struggles to keep his calm composure in the face of his boss's incredibly abusive antics. Colin Farrell, and this is debatable, spews some of the more amazingly horrible and politically incorrect lines in the film because he absorbs a role so despicably terrible, if he were your boss, you just might want to whack him too, but not before he trims the fat!No matter how utterly awful these bosses are, you'll be delightfully entertained when Day, Bateman, and Sudeikis reach their wits end and begin plotting their poetic justice! There's nothing more satisfying than seeing a personal fantasy be executed on the big screen for your viewing pleasure. [C+] -- 64%

Gome A (us) wrote: Jean Reno shoved us again that we should still count on him.... The film itself could have been bit shorter to make the action more tense but whatever it was not a masterpiece but it was a decent action drama....

Chevy P (nl) wrote: people need to see more then just the movie...see the sense behind it. the getting high on a daily bases is a throw me off. look at the moral behind da movie

Grant H (ru) wrote: Good movie. Fairly suspenseful, good performances from Potter, Freeman and Wincott, but the plot isn't as strong or as compelling as the first.

Paul C (ca) wrote: Hugely disappointing version of the celebrated Jospeh Conrad novella - but then i may have been expecting too much. Roth is more restrained than usual, but Malkovich seems to underplay his hand as the maddened Kurtz.

Jams G (ag) wrote: emanuelle beart is Stunning !! the movie is technically awesome but Very long.

Alexander C (ru) wrote: Worth finding and watching!

Nicole R (ag) wrote: This looks really good

Joo P (fr) wrote: I was just a lad of ten when I saw this 1973 BBC production of "Jane Eyre" for the first time. Michael Jayston and, above all, Sorcha Cusack made an everlasting impression on me. After all these years, to be able to see her again as Jane is... all joy! To acknowledge how well both these actors did portray their respective characters from Robin Chapman's fine script and under Joan Craft's competent direction, allow me to transcribe here the following excerpts from Charlotte Bront,'s immortal novel: From chapter XIV (Jane about Rochester): - "[...] he rose from his chair, and stood, leaning his arm on the marble mantelpiece: in that attitude his shape was seen plainly as well as his face; his unusual breadth of chest, disproportionate almost to his length of limb. I am sure most people would have thought him an ugly man; yet there was so much unconscious pride in his port; so much ease in his demeanour; such a look of complete indifference to his own external appearance; so haughty a reliance on the power of other qualities, intrinsic or adventitious, to atone for the lack of mere personal attractiveness, that, in looking at him, one inevitably shared the indifference, and, even in a blind, imperfect sense, put faith in the confidence." From chapter XVI of the novel (Jane about Rochester and she): - "[...] I knew the pleasure of vexing and soothing him by turns; it was one I chiefly delighted in, and a sure instinct always prevented me from going too far; beyond the verge of provocation I never ventured; on the extreme brink I liked well to try my skill. Retaining every minute form of respect, every propriety of my station, I could still meet him in argument without fear or uneasy restraint; this suited both him and me." From chapter XXVII (Rochester to/about Jane): - "[...] You entered the room with the look and air at once shy and independent: you were quaintly dressed - much as you are now. I made you talk: ere long I found you full of strange contrasts. Your garb and manner were restricted by rule; your air was often diffident, and altogether that of one refined by nature, but absolutely unused to society, and a good deal afraid of making herself disadvantageously conspicuous by some solecism or blunder; yet when addressed, you lifted a keen, a daring, and a glowing eye to your interlocutor's face: there was penetration and power in each glance you gave; when plied by close questions, you found ready and round answers. Very soon you seemed to get used to me: I believe you felt the existence of sympathy between you and your grim and cross master, Jane; for it was astonishing to see how quickly a certain pleasant ease tranquillised your manner: snarl as I would, you showed no surprise, fear, annoyance, or displeasure at my moroseness; you watched me, and now and then smiled at me with a simple yet sagacious grace I cannot describe." In these three passages of her novel, Charlotte Bront, gave to all readers a crystal-clear synthesis of how she imagined Jane Eyre and Edward Rochester; and it is exactly this we have the exquisite privilege to contemplate in the 1973 BBC production of "Jane Eyre". Please, believe me: in no other production (not even in the rightly praised BBC 1983 production, with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke...) you will find these characters portrayed so faithfully to the novel and so perfectly on screen as in this one! Michael Jayston is a great, truly great Rochester; Sorcha Cusack, with that beautiful round face, those lovely eyes and that velvet voice, is a Jane from the other world; and the connection between them is way, way far beyond simple "chemistry" or "physical connection": it is genuine empathy - just like the connection there is between their respective characters. The portrayal of the secondary characters is made in much the same way. The performances of young Juliet Waley, as young Jane, Tina Heath as Helen Burns, and Isabelle Rosin as Adle, of reliable veterans John Philips as Mr. Brocklehurst and Megs Jenkins as Mrs. Fairfax, of glamorous Stephanie Beacham as Blanche Ingram, and of "Leslie-Howard-like" Geoffrey Whitehead as St. John Rivers, are all very good and quite close to what can we read in "Jane Eyre". The real marrow of Charlotte Bront,'s novel: this is what one can get from this, the 1973 BBC production of "Jane Eyre". Nothing of real importance is missing here - above all, God. The final lines said by Sorcha Cusack, taken out of the last chapter of novel (sadly missing in all the other TV and movie versions...), are a sort of resume of Charlotte Bront,'s faith in God: after helping both Jane and Rochester going through their ordeals, God blesses her supremely and judges him with mercy; so, there is reason to believe in God. Just like the novel, this TV production is a story told by Jane's own point of view: it's a "flash-back". The use of narration through Jane's "inner-voice" is as effective here as it is old in the History of English Theatre (and Cinema, for that matter): it harks back to William Shakespeare, who used to make his characters turn to the audiences and speak out their intimate thoughts. Drama and humor, suspense and surprise are all very finely balanced in this BBC production of "Jane Eyre". As for the humor, I don't mean to be rude to those reviewers whom have written here criticizing Sorcha Cusack's performance, but I'm afraid they simply don't grasp British humour - particularly, the "understatement", which is present in almost every line of many of the intimate dialogues between Jane and Rochester (both in the novel and in this production). Every time I see Sorcha (with a naughty smile) saying to Michael (with a wicked grin): "Won't she [Miss Ingram] feel forsaken and [pause!] deserted?", I roll myself with laughter! That's Bront,'s humour at its best! What a cracker! It should be noted that this is neither a "romantic" nor a "gothic" production of Charlotte Bront,'s novel. In fact, I'm not even sure that "Jane Eyre" is a true romantic or a true gothic novel. As far as I remember, it was Jorge Luis Borges who stated that it could be classified as one of the predecessors of the so-called "Magic Realism" in Literature. Indeed, between "Romanticism", "Gothicism" and "Magic Realism", I personally find "Jane Eyre" much closer to the latter... and, judging solely from what we can watch in this TV production, both Robin Chapman and Joan Craft fond it the same as I do. I've seen the DVD release of "Jane Eyre" (1973) so many times since I bought it that I'm seeing it now in bits and parts - specially those witty ones with Jane and Rochester. That's how good this production really is! To my mind, in a scale of 1 to 10, the 1973 BBC production of "Jane Eyre" deserves 9.9. It would get a clear 10 out of me if it had (as it should!) at least fifteen episodes; but, since it was a "low budget" production, it has only five - and, because of that, the "gipsy scene" had to be pruned up to the point of becoming just a hilarious scene, and the character of Rosamond Oliver had to be simply tossed off. Nevertheless, it is the best of all screen versions there are of "Jane Eyre": the most faithful to novel, superbly tight and paced, very well put up together, with first class performances and Elgar's Introduction and Allegro for strings, Opus 47 (1904-05), as the musical background. In short, it is a sublime piece of Art. Don't miss it!...