Kaydara

Kaydara

This story takes place in the universe of the Wachowski brothers' film 'The Matrix'. Kaydara, a bounty hunter who is living separately from the Human Resistance Group, does not believe in the prophecy of the 'chosen one' . He thinks this 'saviour' is a threat to the awakening of Man's self-awareness. He considers the 'chosen one' as his enemy and if they cross paths, will not hesitate to confront him.

This story takes place in the universe of the Wachowski brothers' film 'The Matrix'. Kaydara, a bounty hunter who is living separately from the Human Resistance Group, does not believe in ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Kaydara torrent reviews

Delphinus C (br) wrote: Interesting enough story, and characters. Some of the action sequences were quite nice, but by the end I felt there were a few too many cheesy, cliched bits. Camera is sometimes all over the place, tolerably so, but not ideal.

Facebook U (mx) wrote: Wow, a summer movie for teens that just feels like reality. Nothing in the film seems made up almost. The acting is plain spot on. The boy in particular. Oh no, everybody was just great. The arc of the story was also plain perfect. In the extras of the dvd, there might be subtil smell of homersexuality that might have been in the film. Btw, one author is like the twin of a well know Qubec actor. Many characters were like stolen from Qubec. If this occurs in Florida, it makes a lot of sense. Really fun, touching and dramatic film. I was pleasantly surprised.

Jessica K (gb) wrote: It makes everybody believe in magic. Nobody could of suspected the twist in this movie. It makes people want to do magic and learn all the tricks of it.

Jacob S (ca) wrote: A poor conclusion to the BIONICLE films, Web of Shadows does little of what the previous films had that made them so enjoyable.

Daniel H (ca) wrote: Amazing movie! I loved it a lot. Coming from a history nerd it is verifiably accurate.

Brad S (ag) wrote: I had actually only seen this once around the time it was released. Not a great movie but works if you want something light. I was surprised to see a young looking Julie Bowen from "Modern Family". For Sandler or silly comedy fans only.

Alex S (jp) wrote: Classic! Great film!

Jason L (fr) wrote: The scarecrows are great, but the story is lacking.

Jason M (ag) wrote: A wonderfully satisfying children's film! A Japanese animated film produced by Disney, this is certainly not your standard Pixar/DreamWorks animation. The beauty of the simplicity of the plot set in rural Japan, involving a father establishing a home in the country with his 2 young daughters, while the mother is in hospital, serves as the basis. However, throw in Totoro, a strange and friendly forest creature and fantasy merges with reality in a bizarre, comedic and entertaining way! In fact, the creatures are so strange that this film is so differentiated from American productions and so many questions are left unanswered. Yet we feel that this is perfectly fine. We realize that loose ends need not always be explained. Although light on action and details, there is never a dull moment. My two young children enjoyed this film along with me. However, it is not comparable to the complexities in most American children's masterpieces such as "Up" and others, yet similarly satisfying in a more grassroots manner.

Brad S (ru) wrote: What a fantastic action-suspense film! I had been meaning to watch this for many years, and I am glad I finally did as i thoroughly enjoyed it. It's about a hijacking of a NYC subway train, and the bad guys all us colour coded pseudonyms(you know Tarantino was a fan). What really makes it is the great cast, featuring Robert Shaw("Jaws"), Walter Matthau, Hector Elizondo and and young looking Jerry Stiller("Mr.Costanza"). Highly recommended!

Anthony K (ru) wrote: I'm not a musical buff. Hell, I would even hesitate to call myself a movie buff. Last time I checked my RT counter, I've only seen about a thousand movies in total. Subtract that from the literal millions of titles out there and I've only taken a chip off the crust. But, what I lack in breadth of knowledge, I like to think I make up for in willingness to taste almost any flavor of movie out there. I'll scoop up mid-90s rom-coms, French New Wave, and so-bad-its-good Asylum fare in equal (okay, maybe not equal) portions. For that reason I dove into this oft forgotten late-60s musical question mark starring everyone's favorite tune-belting duo, Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood. Yes, they actually sing in this movie. Yes, it's actually as bad as you think.First, this is an exceedingly ugly film. The tone straddles somewhere between slapstick camp tongue-biting satire, but you wouldn't know that looking at the dreary sets caked in gray-black muck and sapped of all warmth as if a dementor leaned in and kissed all life out of the production design. Blame the iron fist control of writer (yes, writer) Alan Jay Lerner, who essentially seized control of the picture from day one, demanding (among other things) that the movie needed to shoot on location in the middle of nowhere Oregon literally a forty-five mile dirt road trek from the nearest hotel. $20 million was a lot of money back in the day, and a majority of that budget went to building and maintaining these soul-sucking sets as far away from the reach of man as the filmmakers could muster, while flying in Mr. Eastwood via chopper every morning. But I digress. Paramount threw a bunch of money down the drain here.Then there's the questionable, ad hoc decision to make this a musical. Yes, it was based on Lerner and Loewe's Broadway play of the same name (also a notorious flop), but the songs seem out of place and none are particularly noteworthy except in how mind-numbingly bad they are. If you want a good laugh, watch Lee Marvin mumble-growl his way through "Wandering Star" or the only decent singer belt out his pet names for the wind and rain like anyone asked him.Finally, the story itself is a bit of a headscratcher. Prospectors in 1849 California sing their way through the construction of a gold rush town while kidnapping and fighting over women like toilet paper in a post-apocalypse (except with severe rape overtones). Meanwhile Marvin and Eastwood enter into a mnage trois marriage with a woman they bought (Jean Seberg) and she falls for both of them (Stockholm syndrome much?). To cap it all off, our heroes dig under the town to collect the gold shavings that fall through the floorboards. To what end? I really couldn't tell you.It's hard to know who this movie was made for. It has all the trappings of a quick, ill-advised cash grab in the wake of West Side Story and The Sound of Music. At the same time though, it feels like too many hands tried to pull it in creatively dissonant directions. Having read Paint Your Wagon's "making of" story in James Robert Parish's "Fiasco," most of the blame seems to lay Lerner's back. Being a control freak, he stepped on so many toes that the creative direction of the film spiraled out of control. That's not to say that it would have been better with his noninterference, but if he'd stayed at the sidelines, he wouldn't have been such an easy scapegoat.And finally, this movie commits the biggest cardinal sin in my book. It's boring. Wrechedly, paint-dryingly, grass-growingly, cobweb-collectingly boring. You're better off watching ten hours of Nicolas Cage freaking out on YouTube. Okay, maybe nine. It isn't THAT bad. 3.7/10

Zoran S (gb) wrote: Excellent debut from Makavejev. It's more conventional than the films that follow but it's still a bitter and smart work.

Hayden G (ru) wrote: Wildly theatrical, and simply touching, even if it is a bit cliche. Totally underrated.

Ruben A (jp) wrote: looking at the pictures, this seems sorta random