An out-of-work and penniless American pilot is offered work in Mozambique and promptly becomes an unwitting pawn in a world of drug smuggling, kidnap and murder. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
An out-of-work and penniless American pilot is offered work in Mozambique and promptly becomes an unwitting pawn in a world of drug smuggling, kidnap and murder.
You may also like
Mozambique torrent reviews
Tanya L (us) wrote: saw this movie again tonight . second time watching it bec ause of mmaroberts
Sabrina U (jp) wrote: Sounds like porn to me.
Thomas P (ru) wrote: this film is not as great
Carol H (jp) wrote: A dark and unfunny Hollywood satire.
Paul Z (br) wrote: The Grey Zone furnishes soul and significance for an episode that's little more than a postscript in history books, the story of the Jewish work units in the Auschwitz concentration camp. These prisoners were made to assist the camp's guards in shepherding their victims to the gas chambers, then disposing of their bodies in the ovens. Nelson attempts to utilize the past to remind us of the fragile vagueness of our own principles, that most of us will never have to know what we might have the capacity for in particular conditions.And yet Nelson's dialogue is like a horse race. It sounds like American slang and divulges its theatrical roots, which works against the potent acting and the intrinsic impact of the subject matter. His screenplay needs to show more of the catch-22, instead of have his characters put on hostile debates about it. No doubt there is much tension created through all the tug of war, but characters are too graceful and fluent while speaking under pressure and in conflict. I don't feel anyone's true nature comes through in their words, except perhaps Harvey Keitel's surprisingly becoming SS officer. You can virtually hear the components of his principled device stirring as characters rap their adages and aphorisms. There's an affected purpleness to everything. Sometimes it works and sometimes shrieks of pretension. Nelson takes an emotionally inconceivable situation and comes close to sterilizing it with self-conscious technique. But ultimately, these are defects that, ironically, make fodder for subsequent discourse.Nelson, an actor himself, knows experientially how to stimulate and inspire his cast, which is comprised of other strong performances than just Keitel's. Needless to say he must also know how to make an actor seem not to act, how to put him or her at their ease, bring them to that state of relaxation where their creative faculties are released. I think for every time that's done successfully here, there are just as many instances where we see through the baroque artifice.Whether its sense of style seems to trivialize the authenticity of its situations, that's not to say it aims for the heart and misses. There are nevertheless many extraordinarily bleak and, most significantly, unflinchingly emotional scenes and moments that it's out of the question that you'd not be moved by the film. The violent rebellion, played not for hero worship but with somber fatalism, using minor key tonality in its score. If this story must be told and retold, and to be sure it must, then The Grey Zone is to be praised for discovering a new approach. The film's feeling for images gives it a grave intensity, but it's thrust by the acting, self-conscious or not. And not like many mainstream Holocaust films, even great, monumental ones, The Grey Zone is actually frank enough to renounce the prospect of hopefulness in Auschwitz. Or the world.The film sneers at how we, most of us, more than we'd like to know, feel we can generalize about groups of people, races, nations, ethnic and religious groups, how in the bleakest of examples of this shameful human weakness gone to the extreme, it is all self-fulfilling prophecy. When you take away the rights of people, when you dehumanize them, they will of course work as corruptly and extremely as you to survive your oppression. One day sit down and make a list of groups of people in any or all countries, not least of which ours, that can be equated to this, and you may see a less distilled, less explicit holocaust that may or may not end.
Morpheus O (de) wrote: What I heard about this movie was far better than what it ended up being! First I heard something about the story and it was definitely something intriguing, albeit morbidly disgusting. Then I heard that Sid Haig was playing the lead character. This probably would have been a far better film if that had been true.Then I heard more about the story and that just made me want to see it even more. Then I finally saw the movie and although the acting was terrible, it was about as good as I expected it to be since by then, before I saw it, I knew that Sid Haig wasn't in it. The acting may very well be the worst thing about the movie but, the directing and the dialogue both try real hard to be even worse than the acting....At about 43 minutes into the movie, Kevin Smiths gay lover shows up and he's the spittin' image of Gino, the older son of the main antagonist. I swear to God it's the same dude! And if it is him, ....WTF, they couldn't afford to hire another actor to play a 5 second non-speaking role?!This movie sucked!!
Hunter W (ag) wrote: It's amazing how great the visual effects still look, and how much John William's score still makes the heart soar.
Tyler A (kr) wrote: it's no menace or boyz and comes across real Gotti sumtimes like a 90s gangsta rap video. but solid flick Ice T pulls it off as a street wise cop and Chris Rock is real as Pookie the basehead
Jonathan R (ag) wrote: Horrible. Turned it off.
I dont know w (de) wrote: Looks like a good dutch film.
RA L (de) wrote: WEB. Toda una sorpresa. La mezcla de denuncia a un rgimen totalitario y de exploracin psicolgica de un matrimonio es espectacular. Acaso tiene su par de momentos sobreexpositores, pero es un gran trabajo de atmsfera, cmara, actuacin y escritura. / A total surprise. The mixture of denunciation of a totalitarian regime and of the psychological exploration of a marriage is just spectacular. Perhaps it has one or two overexpository moments, but it is a great work of atmosphere, camera, acting and scripting.
james h (it) wrote: early japanese atempt at sci-fi. you can see why japan switches to animation to eliminate the bad actors
Scott H (es) wrote: Kingsley's magnificent performance, which captures the true mind and spirit of Gandhi, is what drives this ambitious film to success, along with great direction by Richard Attenborough.
Tor M (nl) wrote: Funnier and more playful than the first one but mostly very much like AFOD. I guess I won't add to much text here, since they got so many similarities. I'd rather focus on the differences.I think I like the story is even better and there are more impressing gun shows here. The music is also better here - something that's pretty incredible, a wild archievement. The characters are equally cool, with a more psychotic villain and two bad ass guys here instead of one. Mortimer is an amazing character, but "The Man With No Name" is naturally the most bad ass one though. It's cool that Klaus Kinski is in it, a face I never thought I would see here. The showdown is fantastic but not as great as the forst one on my opinion.In total I liked the first one a tiny bit better. Maybe I was a bit fed up with the wild west after the first flick, but I doubt it. So, if you dig the first, you will dig the second film. No need to see them in order, but I've read that the third one got small connections with the first two. Looking forward to it.9 out of 10 chimes.
Robert D (us) wrote: Great film of one of the all time great short stories. A must see!