An old mafia leader tries to quit his old bloody past after getting out of jail but his rivals don't let him realize his plan. Asim Mavzer, played by Yilmaz Guney has to take the revenge for his daughter. A crime movie in old Yesilcam style which looks like a Western.
- Stars:Yilmaz Güney, Hülya Darcan, Yildirim Gencer, Bilal Inci, Ahmet Danyal Topatan, Erdo Vatan, Peri Han, Melek Görgün, Necati Er, Ihsan Gedik, Serif Gören, Muammer Gözalan, Osman Han, Yasar Sener, Hülya Sengül,
- Director:Yilmaz Güney,
- Writer:Yilmaz Güney
. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Live Target torrent reviews
(br) wrote: The first film was excellent; the sequel is nothing short of a triumph.
(nl) wrote: Clair and Brad....WOW!!!!!! The perfect chemical reaction that makes you want to watch over and over. Let's not leave out Hopkins who gives another one of his magnetizing performance makes this movie an all times treasure.
(jp) wrote: A classic Lynch film. Could be my favorite
(mx) wrote: Monkey Trouble is the first film i ever saw with Thora Birch and where i first became a fan of hers. Dodger the monkey is so cute and really suits his name Dodger much better than his real name, which is Finster!!! Eva trying to teach Dodger to no longer steal is really funny and when she goes to stay at her father's house that's when the fun really begins!!! This film is fun for all the family to watch over and over again. I loved it when i was growing up and still do now. My Actor/Actress review: Thora Birch - proved to be a great actress and made me an instant fan of hers Finster the monkey - adorable!!! You know, i've always wanted a monkey myself!!!!
(nl) wrote: tried to watch this again, it had its potential to be a dark story but iut died after i saw the mole trying to be gospel
(fr) wrote: yet another shit sandwich
(mx) wrote: First Errol Flynn was the consummate Hollywood action hero, and then he was the consummate Hollywood has-been. The substance abuse, the wrecked relationships, the legal scandals; by the end of his life he was a guy who needed a lot of rehabilitating. "My Favorite Year" is a posthumous rehabilitation of Flynn, and it is also a sweet and funny tall tale about what his redemption might have looked like had it happened during his lifetime. Flynn's actual appearance on the 1950s variety show where Mel Brooks was a young writer came and went without incident, but in "My Favorite Year" that forgettable television moment is reimagined as one huge, crazy, boozy incident worthy of Peter O'Toole in his hellraising days. O'Toole infuses all of Flynn stand-in "Alan Swann"'s lines, every flourish of his hands, every drunken stagger, with a precise mixture of charm and pain.The story is mostly a buddy comedy of the sort that thrives on the emotional closeness of its characters. Maybe a supremely irresponsible person like Swann, whose insecurities cause him to limit his relationships to the categories of one-night stands and autograph sessions, wouldn't really tolerate the presence of a straight-laced worrywart like the Mel Brooks stand-in for days and nights on end. But in the movies, opposites attract, and here they make a good pair. The young writer gets to meet his hero, and although Swann is a case in point of why it's not always best to do that, the movie argues that the hero is always there, in a way, inside the less-than-heroic has-been. Swann is self-destructive, yes, but with each new failure comes a chance for one more last hurrah, one more horse to jump on and ride into the sunset, one more crowd to win over. O'Toole is heartbreaking when he shows Swann's weakness and vulnerability, and this makes each new triumph, however modest, all the more inspiring. At the high points, the young writer is the necessary sidekick, a witness to a performance that exists solely to be seen and applauded, and when the cycle returns to darkness and doubt he is the hero's conscience. It's an old formula, but it works.Between the party-crashing, horse-stealing vignettes, there is a by-the- book romance storyline and an organized crime farce. Both are simple fare, but they do a lot to raise the stakes of Swann's television appearance and to set an amiable atmosphere through a vibrant supporting cast and obvious but endearing jokes and set-pieces. The movie's various threads all crash together in a big finish that is predictable, and not believable, but very satisfying, entertaining, and moving-not unlike a great Errol Flynn movie.Replete with tributes to Flynn's filmography, "My Favorite Year" is a must-see for fans of the Australian-born swashbuckler. "Captain Blood," "Dodge City," and "The Adventures of Robin Hood" are repeatedly and lovingly referenced, under thinly-disguised alternate titles, and the iconic scene from the ending of "Robin Hood" is recreated in astonishing detail, complete with a Basil Rathbone lookalike.
(nl) wrote: What a piece of shit! Mostly long shots of the girls walking, very little dialogue and when a character does speak it is useless. If you're a fan of bad scenes of vampires raping their prey, french women with body hair everywhere, and a slight undertone of vampirism, then this movie is for you. A horrible exploitation movie.
(es) wrote: Sort of a big budget remake of the second serial to air in my favorite show, Doctor Who. The serial in question is The Daleks, which introduces the oldest and most recurring villain (the...uh...daleks). The film is sort of hit and miss. Personally, Peter Cushing isn't as entertaining for me as William Hartnell, his TV counterpart. This film on its own isn't all that special. The effects and color are stunning, and make the cheap old black and white originals pale in comparison...but the feel isn't quite as special as the series was from the start.
(kr) wrote: Watching this recent Royal Shakespeare Company production.
(au) wrote: I fully expected Bangkok Dangerous to be bad because it is an American remake of a Thai film which unfortunately features Nicolas Cage in the lead at his point as a sellout in the late 2000's.Bangkok Dangerous follows a formulaic path for its script. I've seen many films which give a certain list of rules to anti-heroes and hitmen which are used to determine if the characters are strong or not, but Bangkok Dangerous' protagonist Joe is a generic version of any such character. Bangkok Dangerous makes an attempt to give a strong characterisation to Protagonist Joe, but the attempt is so half-hearted and lazy in its writing that it is unnecessary for the filmmakers to even bother at it. I can't say how good the original Bangkok Dangerous was, but it isn't hard for it to be better than this piece of crap.Bangkok Dangerous follows a consistently generic path and never transcends that. There isn't really a second in Bangkok Dangerous that I considered entertaining because it introduced nothing new to the crime thriller genre and in the process was simply consistent in failing to entertain. There is little in the way of plotting in Bangkok Dangerous and the pace is poor because audiences are likely to find themselves waiting around for something to happen and being disappointed when it doesn't because that was precisely the case with me when I watched it. Bangkok Dangerous is not a good film and is the furthest thing from general entertainment because as a crime thriller, it isn't gritty and is seriously lacking in thrills or even any action whatsoever.Bangkok Dangerous wastes so much time during its 100 minute running time by pacing things so awfully that nothing ever really goes down. I cannot begin to explain just how slow and dull the entire experience of Bangkok Dangerous was, and it failed to capture its scenery well at all so the question of why the film even bothered to take place in Bangkok whatsoever is so pointless. Bangkok Dangerous is bad enough as a standalone film, but I can't begin to wonder just how bad it is as a remake. If it is this bad and boring as a simple crime thriller which doesn't live up to the standards of Nicolas Cage's better works or even the slightly superior films that he sold out for. Bangkok Dangerous doesn't even pass of as an entertanining example of one of his films that is bad enough to be an unintensional comedy because there is simply nothing funny or bad enough to be unintentionally funny about Bangkok Dangerous. From a storytelling or scriptural perspective, there is actually nothing that I would give any praise whatsoever to, because Bangkok Dangerous is just that bad.And the visual experience was too grim. Bangkok Dangerous boasts poor form cinematography which doesn't real remain stable or zoom up on the appropriate things to focus on, just a lot of random other things. The angles of the cinematography in Bangkok Dangerous does nothing to benefit the film because it more often focuses on the backs and arms of the actors than it is one their faces as they say things. And all it captures is the grey visual aesthetic of the film which is poorly lit and gives no visual appeal to the film. There is really nothing good to look at in Bangkok Dangerous and no cameras that are really taking a good look at it, so you have to wonder exactly wqhat is going through the head of directors when they desperately attempted to capture some kind of visual experience in the film. I really do not understand what angle they were going for because the visual style of Bangkok Dangerous is too indifferent to be either effective or even the slightest bit artistic, so it fails to capture whatever the hell is happening on screen well enough. Then again I guess it doesn't really matter because the lack of originality in its plot dynamics end up ensuring that nothing good happens in Bangkok Dangerous, and in the end I walked away from the film having wasted too much time on too little entertainment.The casting decisions of Bangkok Dangerous are no better, though none of the actors hold a bad candle to Nicolas Cage.Nicolas Cage simply is not right for the lead role. Joe is not a strong character, but Nicolas Cage proves to be even weaker when facing the role. Following the generic and half-hearted acting path which he has taken with many characters in the past, Bangkok Dangerous ends up being a film featuring another one of his forgettable performances. He isn't believable as an action hero this time because everything that happens feels mostly improvised and doesn't show him kicking any major ass, so Bangkok Dangerous proves to be one of Nicolas Cage's significantly worse action vehicles. It just goes to show that he is not the right man to take on lead roles in Hollywood remakes of films because apparently that wasn't figured out after the abysmal result of the 2006 film The Wicker Man. Bangkok Dangerous simply reminds us of that once again, and hopefully it will remind many filmmakers in the future who think that Nicolas Cage and remakes can coincide well.Chakrit Yamnam was ok though, and by comparison to Nicolas Cage he was impressive. I mean his performance in Bangkok Dangerous isn't great and doesn't make him a memorable actor, but his decent performance is one of the significantly better elements of Bangkok Dangerous.So Bangkok Dangerous is just truly dreadful. Nicolas Cage is bad, nothing happens and what does fails to be captured due to poor lighting and crappy cinematography, so it is an unoriginal film and a poor remake, and I know this without even having to see the original. It serves as potentially Nicolas Cage's worst film, and one that isn't even bad enough to be so bad that it is good because Bangkok Dangerous is just way to damn boring for its own good.