In his hidden laboratory deep in Russia, Dr. Karl Zimmer has invented the Mandroid, a humanoid robot which follows the motions of a man in a special control suit. He has offered the invention to the USA, who have sent Smith and Wait from the CIA for inspection. However Zimmer's partner Drago has different plans, wants to sell Mandroid to the military. The night he tries to steal Mandroid, he becomes exposed to the highly toxic Superconn. But he can flee and won't give up on Mandroid, even though he's terribly disfigured.

In his hidden laboratory deep in Russia, Dr. Karl Zimmer has invented the Mandroid, a humanoid robot which follows the motions of a man in a special control suit. He has offered the ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Mandroid torrent reviews

Al H (au) wrote: A Funny zombies film.

Dietrich B (mx) wrote: The most naturally charming film you will ever see. Short and sweet.

Josh M (kr) wrote: acting sucked, basketball was ok.

Chris S (nl) wrote: what is mostly outrageous that this flick was ban in Austrailia! There isn't a level of extreme to offend the hotheads of Australia anyway. Although a decent gore effects, the movie doesn't match up to Juan Piquer Simon's "Pieces". A decent horror film with laughable praticle effects, including that of the slugs.

Kevin C (ru) wrote: Good movie, 2 Cons. Cheesy effects and views and doesn't follow what history saids about the journey. Over all a very great movie .

Mickey M (gb) wrote: After stopping a former government worker from committing suicide on a public street, Washington, DC police detective "Regis" (Wesley Snipes) and his partner, "Detective Stengel" (Dennis Miller) are relaxing at a local bar when "Regis" gets a call on his cell phone to have him report to the White House, where a gorgeous woman (Mary Moore) was found stabbed to death in a public bathroom. "Detctive Regis" is paired up by Secret Service agent, and Olympic Sharpshooting Gold Medalist "Nina Chance" (Dianne Lane). Eventually, with the evidence they uncover, the two believe that the murder is a small part of a bigger picture surrounding American hostages in North Korea. They are also believe that a member of the First Family itself is the prime suspect until new evidence is uncovered that shows that the family member is just a pawn in the much bigger picture. Now wanted by Federal authorities themself, "Regis" and "Chance" have to go after the real murderer and stop "President Jack Neil" (Ronny Cox) from resigning. Let me start off by saying there is a major mistake in this movie. As you know, the White House is Federal property. Because of this fact, the investigation would automatically go to the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Washington, DC Police Department would never be part of the investigation. There are some pretty good performances in this movie. I personally thought the strongest performances were from Snipes, Lane (who I honestly thought was Ashley Judd because I didn't pay attention to the opening credits) and especially Alda. Other actors in the movie had to deal with weakly written characters. In fact, the entire script was pretty weak. However, there are some really good twists in the story that keeps your attention. The only problem with the twists is that they don't allow the audience to keep guessing til the end. Instead, they start giving you the truth without it being revealed by "Regis" and "Agent Chance" to the audience. Actually, some of the truth is revealed by them. Then, we see those behind the conspiracy doing what they have to to stop the two. You'd expect a lot of gun play in this movie, considering who is involved. However, there really isn't until the two leads are considered suspects. Only then do we have bullets flying. In fact, there is more hand-to-hand action than gun action. One thing that isn't quite clear is why the conspirators are doing what they are doing. It is pretty obvious that they want to bring the hostages home, but trying to destroy a Presidency in the way they try is not all that clear. There is a lot of implausible things in this movie. For example, the FBI being used to cover-up the truth is a little hard to believe. And using local police in an investigation on Federal property is a big mistake that somebody, possibly the author of the novel of which this movie is based upon, made. However, despite these flaws, it would still be a pretty good rental. Or, you can I suggest you check this out when you catch the movie on television.

Devon W (ru) wrote: Entertaining, but made no sense whatsoever. Enjoyed the camera work, you can see the same style and shots used in his later flicks, which is kinda neat.

Robert B (ca) wrote: Hell of the Living Dead (Bruno Mattei, 1980)I don't know why I continue to watch Bruno Mattei flicks. Mattei's MO was simple: take the flavor of the week, rip it off with minimal changes, and release the resultant low-budget product to make a few bucks. (Anyone familiar with the work of infamous mockbuster? studio The Asylum knows exactly how the chorus of this song goes....) He did it from day one (his second feature, known in English as SS Girls, is a ripoff of Ilsa, released two years previously) right up until his death (his final feature, 2004's Zombies: The Beginning, is Aliens, but with zombies). So it should be no surprise that this 1980 crapfest is more of the same; it's Zombi 2 combined with Cannibal Holocaust. It is, of course, as good as neither, and I say this as someone who thinks Cannibal Holocaust is one of the ten most overrated horror films ever made.Plot: an accident at a chemical facility in New Guinea turns most of the workers there into flesh-eating zombies (who, needless to say, hunt down the rest of the employees in the opening sequence). Two teams are sent in to find out what's going on"a military unit headed up by (handsome, square-jawed Neanderthal) Mike London (Conquest's Jos (C) Gras) and a media crew featuring (gorgeous, young, tanned) Lia Rousseau (The Final Executioner's Margit Evelyn Newton). Let's get those kids together in the midst of the zombie apocalypse, shall we? The two crews team up in a strength-in-numbers? attept to make it to the chemical plant, dodging zombies the entire way, in order to figure out what ultimately went wrong.The fact that Bruno Mattei's name is on this film should tell you all you need to know; the acting is far more horrific than the special effects Mattei's $2.98 (estimated) effects budget could get him, the pace is ridiculous, the cinematography looks as if the cameras were being operated by drunk babboons. (Actually, the drunk babboons would have probably had a union, gotten certifications, and done a better job). This is intensely, incredibly stupid, and unless you are a hardcore zombie fan who's seen every other zombie movie in existence that was not directed by Bruno Mattei, you can safely avoid this mess. 1/2

Bunmi O (de) wrote: one of the first movies i saw and loved. I know every scene. Love this

Karl L (au) wrote: William Shakespeare's tragic "Hamlet" is my favorite play -- one of the most mysterious and open to interpretation of all time (and thus there have been and will be many different takes on it) -- and so I watch it with a closer eye than most. In this outing, what has been done with the meager stage is commendable -- particularly a black, mirror-titled floor that gives the room an unsettling feeling. The film does have a darker atmosphere than most filmed productions, which is a step in the right direction for once, and the effort is evidently there to make this likely dazzling stage production into a movie. However, as time begins to drag in the second half and we realize the director has no more cinematic tricks in store for us, the film starts to fail to translate, outstays its welcome. That's not to say director Gregory Doran does not come up with some unsettling images -- he's mostly helped from his cast I think. The action here pales in comparison to other filmed versions.Kenneth Branaugh's film suffered from many of the same problem, he did not re-imagine it for film so much as plop it on, this film makes some more interesting use of camera angles as well as the faces of the perfect cast. The performances are inspired and delicately nuanced. Polonius, Ophelia, Laertes are decent but the real find is the sweet-natured Horatio, one of the best we've had alongside one of the best Gertrudes (a little unsure of her new husband, devastated by the possibility of madness in her son, not the witch Hamlet makes her out to be, caring and sensible), the best Claudius and the ominous and ruthlessly haunting ghost father of Hamlet (both played by a masterful Patrick Stewart -- this is some of his strongest work an actor) who is so careful in how he acts he is virtually unreadable. What exactly does Claudius think? All of his actions have two layers and Stewart's performance can be considered from two perspectives at any moment. Then there's the eccentric/sardonic/neurotic Hamlet played by David Tennant -- an impressive, unforgettably inventive, high-wire performance that takes big risks but never steps wrong. His key is to make Hamlet an intellectual... but one that is also a bit of a Steve Coogan kook, perhaps too clever for his own good, or worse just weird. His turmoil comes from being bothered by ideas. This is much different and more playful than the spoiled rich emo mess Hamlet played by Ethan Hawke in a very fitting contemporary update of Hamlet and the raging, mother-loving nut that is Gibson's Hamlet. (Branaugh and Olivier just played themselves as Hamlet, neither performance intrigues me.) Tennant's may be the greatest yet.And this film gets much right where others have been too literal, simplistic or condescending towards the material. From beginning to end we can never be sure whether Claudius is guilty or not and though Hamlet seems to be spinning into lunacy there is a sort of genius to Tennant's work here that keeps us on the edge of the doubt: perhaps there is a method to Hamlet's madness? As for the Royal Shakespeare's Company approach to turning their expertly designed staged productions into films, it's not so much their budget that fell short, nor was it the considerable talent assembled, and certainly not a lack of intelligence in reading the play but maybe a lack of imagination in capturing it. Still, they wouldn't be the first to miss there, and this more complex and enigmatic "Hamlet" and Hamlet may be a sign of things to come.

Anthony J (ru) wrote: From another era? Hell, its from anther planet. planet; Smaltz and relevant to absolutely nil nowadays. Overplayed in all ways. I almost unwatchable by todays standards.

Ollie W (nl) wrote: Harrelson and Tomei are superb, and the intercutting use of real footage and staged dramatics is a powerful and upsetting tool. Easily one of Winterbottom's more satisfying efforts.

J B (es) wrote: Spike Lee's bitingly incisive and impassioned "Chi-Raq" is essential viewing.