Max and the Junkmen

Max and the Junkmen

Max is a Paris detective, aloof, independently wealthy, and frustrated by gangs of robbers whom he cannot catch. To re-establish his stature and save face, he decides to inveigle a group of petty thieves (led by an old acquaintance) to rob a bank. A reluctant captain provides Max intelligence and Max starts spending evenings with Lilly, a prostitute who's the girlfriend of the group's leader. He poses as a rich banker with money to burn and encourages Lilly to think about her future. He hints at a payroll that comes through his bank. The plot works, the petty thieves think they're ready for a big score, and the cops are in place. What could go wrong with Max's cold plan? Who's entrapped?

Max is a Paris detective, aloof, independently wealthy, and frustrated by gangs of robbers whom he cannot catch. To re-establish his stature and save face, he decides to inveigle a group of... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Max and the Junkmen torrent reviews

Nishlank J (jp) wrote: 100% entertainment, Bollywood at its best.

Manda T (ca) wrote: I was given the opportunity to see a live screening. I personally loved this movie and thought it had a lot of depth to it. The good intentions of a Father who overreaches and loses himself in the struggle, the Mother who tries too hard to make everything seem 'fine' and the daughters who are lost in the embrace of their father's overwhelming love and madness. It has some really amusing parts, some quite shocking and overall very dramatic. I would personally suggest going to see the opening!

Heather M (de) wrote: Crazy, strange, disturbing, but unforgettable. I am not sure that is a ringing endorsement though.

Baurushan J (jp) wrote: The then-newcomer British director Neil Marshall who also wrote and edited this debut film is painfully average. I was expecting more from this movie. When I sat down to watch this film, I was constantly staring at the time because the movie was that boring. I am quite shocked at how many people actually liked this movie. Apparently people liked this movie so much that Neil was urged to direct another horror film which was The Descent, a film that i first hated and then appreciated at a second watch. Anyway, the film is about a group of soldiers who are chased through the woods by werewolves and that's pretty much it. We don't get to learn the soldiers' names, their backstory, the werewolves' backstory or see them transform back into human beings when morning arrives. The soldiers' names are mentioned a few times and that's it, their backstores are barely brought up, the truth about the werewolves is hardly revealed and we never see them transform into humans and back into werewolves again. They just disappear and come back again for another blood-and-guts fest. Honestly where do they go during dawn? Who are these people? What are these creatures? What is their history? These are things I'd like to know! I like monster movies because when you explore with the ideas, they can be extremely creative. Here, director Neil Marshall seem to do hardly anything with the characters. Dog Soldiers gets a 5/10.

Timm S (ag) wrote: A Cash-Cow Follow-On...Nothing More To It. Hollywood Exec's With Dollars Before Their Eyes.

Josh T (it) wrote: It's got nothing to do with show and it's pretty crap.

Donna L (it) wrote: BAD at so many levels

Brandon W (au) wrote: At school, we had a decision to make of what to watch that's related to science, and the class chose to watch Night at the Museum. I haven't seen it in a long time, but I'll watch it with an open mind. Turns out Night at he Museum is a really good movie that is a really neat idea for a film. The cast are good in this, and this is probably gonna be the only film series that kids would notice Ben Stiller, and would watch the other Ben Stiller films when they grow up and enjoy. The effects look really good, and I really like that they go from being real, to actual wax statues that aren't CGI. The humor is pretty funny, but some of the humor can be very awkward at times. The movie has the standard kid plot film that kids would still like, but the adults would find it a bit predictable. Whether the adults would like this type of plot is entirely debatable, but I was honestly fine with it. Night at the Museum is a harmless kids film that children might actually learn about the history characters.

Russell H (au) wrote: This wasn't that bad. I never saw the original though. The acting was a little rough, as to be expected.

Cameron J (br) wrote: "The Istanbul Redemption"! Man, prisons are tough anywhere, but they seem to get brutal in Turkey, although Billy Hayes did come out and criticize this film for exaggerating how bad the Turks who put him through a world of suffering were. He must have gotten Stockholm syndrome, or rather, Istanbul syndrome, or something, but make no mistake, he did suffer, and who is more up to the job of portraying the full brutality of prison life than the guy who did "Bugsy Malone", everyone's favorite lighthearted gangster musical? I joke, but Alan Parker is well-known for either lively musicals or an unflinching portrayal of people suffering, and then there was "Pink Floyd - The Wall", which was a musical that was about as disturbing as this film. Yeah, there's talk about how much Alan Parker toned down that film so that it could sell to kids, but with this film, I guess it's safe to say that he really changed his approach to heavy subject matter, that is, if he actually had the choice to avoid an R rating with a script by Oliver Stone. I guess I can forgive Hayes for complaining about the subtlety issues regarding the themes of this film, because this was before Stone really broke out, so Hayes couldn't have predicted that a film with Stone couldn't be complete without subtlety issues. Anyways, the fact of the matter is that Parker began his career as a heavy dramatic filmmaker big, with a film that is about as good as it is disturbing (Not quite cartoon genital monsters floating around to Pink Floyd's "The Wall" disturbing, but still), despite its flaws. This is a bit of a formulaic hard prison drama, or at least it's gotten to be, establishing conventions that have gone on to be overexplored, thus rendering this plot a touch dated, to where it's harder to ignore what tropes stood in the '70s for films of this type. If nothing else, the conventions gradually become harder to ignore, because the film is a little too long, taking its time to flesh out certain aspects, if not get repetitious with excessive material which slows down a sense of momentum that is further retarded by an overly thoughtful directorial atmosphere. If anything is subtle about the storytelling, it's the often effective, yet also often dry thoughtfulness to Alan Parker's direction, which bonds with the dragging and leads into a number of slow spells, which prove to be the biggest problem deriving from the lengthiness, but not the only one. The film eventually divides attention between the lead and his peers a little too thoroughly, providing a few side plots which feel sort of episodic in their relative inconsequentiality, and a pinch over in their supplementing the film's thematic aspects. The film can get excessive with more than just its narrative structure, for although I think that too many people are making a bit too big of a deal about the portrayal of the Turks, the antagonists are thinly written, just as the disturbing content gets a little abrasive, in that they are overemphasized, until a sense of purpose for the content, in addition to a sense of progression to the plot which goes supplemented by the disturbances, is all but lost. The film gradually becomes disjointed, and although it's always compelling, it challenges your patience through its formulaically and often unsubtly dragging along an uneven and repetitious path. Still, the flaws are not as extreme as they could have been, and the ambition of this film is met almost every step of the way by inspiration, even in style. Influenced by '70s synthesizer sensibilities, if not a bit of disco, Giorgio Moroder's score doesn't always fit, when it is actually used, that is, but it is unique, entertaining and plenty effective in its alternating between liveliness and a certain bleak intensity, not entirely unlike Michael Seresin's cinematography, whose spare lighting compliments a sense of freedom by illuminating scenes set on the outside lushly, and, through contrast, emphasizes the heavy shadows in the prison and immerses you into this drama's world and atmosphere. The visual style ends up being a very important factor in the effectiveness of this film, for it's so attractively handsome, and so engrossingly bleak, breathing some life into the intensity of a very important story. The telling of this tale may be a little too disjointed and unsubtle for its own good, but the ambition is perfectly understandable, for this portrait on the brutality of a corrupt prison system, and on a man's struggle to survive under unreasonably brutal circumstances, is dramatically powerful and thematically worthy. I guess Oliver Stone has never been especially controlled with his plays on worthy themes, for he, as screenwriter, drives the film's subtlety issues, and yet, he is still a gifted storyteller, and this was the first major reflection of that, for Stone does not flinch from powerful, if somewhat excessively disturbing set pieces and distinct, if, in some areas, thin characterization. Stone crafts a generally solid narrative, and Alan Parker's direction brings it to life, with intense highlights that go anchored by a frantic style and chilling, memorable imagery, and mark penetrating heights in dramatic storytelling whose thoughtfulness is often blanding, but largely immersive, drawing you into the prisoners' horrifying world, with no small help from the portrayal of the prisoners. Actually, everyone is reasonably convincing and effective in this drama, but it is the leads who really draw you in, whether it be Randy Quaid and John Hurt as the leads' just as anguished friends, or leading man Brad Davis, whose deep and nuanced emotional commitment to the role of a decent, criminalized man who is gradually crushed by a harsh environment sells a sense of deterioration, which allows resonance to thrive with the progression of the plot. The film is very well-acted, and very well-crafted, for that matter, but it gets a little carried away with its structure and its themes, until it finds itself held back, though not much, for there is enough inspiration on and off of the screen to carry the final product a respectable way. In the end, there are a few conventional, or at least retrospectively familiar aspects found along the overlong path that the film blandly, unevenly and often unsubtly treks, and is made compelling enough by decent scoring, outstanding cinematography, extensive scripting, audacious direction, and strong acting, - especially by Brad Davis - to make Alan Parker's "Midnight Express" a generally engrossing and ultimately rewarding dramatization of the horrors Billy Hayes faced in a problematic prison system. 3/5 - Good