• Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:104 minutes
  • Release:1983
  • Language:Norwegian
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:city,   norway,   ice hockey,  

. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Hockeyfeber torrent reviews

Shad S (ca) wrote: Amazing movie. Tin can son of a bitch.

Ellie L (kr) wrote: wow... talk about your twist at the end. pretty good... intensive storyline

MarcAndr B (fr) wrote: You've seen this one before. It's not a bad movie, per se, but it isn't a good movie either.For fans of found-footage films, it may be worth a watch if you've seen all the rest. Then again, if you've seen the rest you won't find anything new in this.The documentary style definitely gives more credence as to why someone would keep filming when being chased down a dark tunnel, but the shakiness and horror tropes will give you the sense of dj vu.

Toby F (mx) wrote: Watch this documentary. Do it. Now.

Bill B (ag) wrote: Okay, so I got kinda rooked into this with a group of family, but it was somewhat entertaining, i that the earnestness and cornball pathos of it are kinda funny and the women look amazing, so it's a perfectly harmless way to kill an hour and a half.Rental? Maybe?

Mike F (fr) wrote: It wasn't perfect, but gave me a probable sense of the voyeur that he was.....

Colo G (mx) wrote: crimen drama thriller

Emma H (jp) wrote: such a romantic movie

Jon P (ca) wrote: Brutally cynical and beautifully depressing, I Stand Alone is a standout study of nagging insanity.Gaspar Noe's gutsy film follows a semi-sympathetic, ultimately pathetic anti-hero, deconstructing his own hazy descent into meandering madness. At its most shocking, the film hits on a handful of home truths. At its most disgusting, it leaves us ashamed to have recognised said home truths.I Stand Alone hits you like a bullet and Philippe Nahon is astonishing and equally terrifying as the film's - and society's - damaged core.

Paul C (mx) wrote: Interesting early Colin Firth vehicle. Part psychological thriller / part character study. Not perfect, but worth a look

ra r (es) wrote: I am at awe on how there was a sequel to this film. This might just be Nicolas Cage's worse film. If you like Con Air, stay away from this one. This film never lifted off at all.

Ben L (ag) wrote: Sometimes it's a good thing to revisit movies that you hated the first time, and that was the case for me with War of the Worlds. I can't remember why it disappointed me so much when I originally saw it in the theater, but I was a bit leery to try again. I still have one significant problem with the film, and that is the fact that I don't really like any of the characters. I find Ray (played by Tom Cruise) to be a very poor father figure who really needs to get his life in order, and his two kids are annoying. What I managed to connect with this time, however, was the story that these characters were walking through. The way that they encounter so much destruction, death, and the decline of humanity is captivating. It's riveting to watch how these characters are forced to do things they never imagined themselves doing in order to survive. What really surprised me, because I didn't remember it, is how much agency Tom Cruise had on the events in the film. My memory was that he just watched things happen and ran the whole time, but there are several scenes when he makes aggressive choices in order to fight back and keep his family alive. Still, there is an awful lot of luck involved in the whole film, and that did bother me a little that he dodged hundreds of "bullets." The most impressive aspect of War of the Worlds is the special effects. I think they hold up remarkably well even a decade later, and put to shame what many modern films deliver. I have a new found appreciation for this film. I still think it's lesser Spielberg, but it's certainly not among his worst films (which I would have said before re-watching it.)