1945 Prague. Citizens join fights actively against a tank brigade heading near the city. Thy are organizing a resistance against the Germans.
You may also like
Nemá barikáda torrent reviews
Juan P (kr) wrote: Very funny, not politically correct but really down to earth and full of idiotic and raw humor.
Armando B (jp) wrote: Armando saw Student services and said it was a decent movie,while predictable in certain aspects the plot wasn't that all predictable in others.Deborah Francois was a good bit of casting as Laura.,but it was a very good foreign film It's not a must see but i wasn't bored .So I gave this movie a C+.
Kevin R (es) wrote: Pirates give me the williesTinker Bell and Terrance are best friends. Tinker Bell is awarded head fairy of the autumn and given the responsibility of presenting the moon stone and activating it with the special scepter. As Terrance helps Tinker prepare, he accidentally breaks the scepter. Tinker unfriends him, like Facebook, and never wants to see him again. During her fit of rage she breaks the moon stone. Tinker will need to find a way to fix everything herself after pushing her best friend away."The treasure of true friendship will never lose its glow."Klay Hall, director of episodes of The Simpsons, Garfield and Friends, King of the Hill, and Father of the Pride; as well as the upcoming Planes, delivers Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure. The storyline for this picture was surprisingly entertaining, but what was really impressive was the awesome animation. The voices were okay and included Mae Whiteman, Lucy Liu, Raven-Symone, Kristin Chenoweth, and Jesse McCartney. "I didn't think I'd need any help. I was wrong."I watched this off Netflix with my daughter this past weekend and found it more entertaining than I anticipated. The plot has several twists and the characters are dynamic. This is far from a great movie, but isn't the worst sequel to a Disney picture. I recommend seeing this movie with your child."I'm standing behind you."Grade: C+
Joe J (ca) wrote: This could be interesting to see what he get's away with
Jeff B (kr) wrote: Solid movie. Good music, cast, story, and Asia Argento is sexier than ever. The ending was not what I expected, but I liked it.
Anthony C (br) wrote: this movie was awsome
Markus M (ca) wrote: As an adaptation of the original Bram Stoker novel the film is nowhere near being on par with the best of them which include the 1931 Tod Browning film and Werner Herzog's remake of Nosferatu. What carries the film then are the performances - particularly the endless charisma of Peter Cushing.7/10
Hannah D (es) wrote: I wasn't sure if I was going to like this at first, but the sound of the wind blowing in the Himalayas kept me hooked enough from the beginning to persist with it, and by the middle of the film, I was really enjoying the script, and by the end fully understood its place in the top 100 British films!
Frank M (mx) wrote: unforgettable performances and a powerful story from Ernest Hemingway delivers something very special.
In Your D (es) wrote: Too pretentious. Just by watching the trailers for upcoming movies on the DVD while I made popcorn in the background, I knew the following film was going to be hit-or-miss for me.Sure enough, I find a brutal and honest portrayal of the lessons of love and heartbreak-- completely demolished by schizophrenic editing, smug "wink-wink" self-awareness, and a nonsensical narrative from a production team that doesn't trust its concept enough to let it play out naturally and chronologically. Instead, all of the good moments are lead into and interspersed with obnoxious art-house flourishes, like voice-overs, on-screen clocks and gayish musical cues. Some of the soundtrack choices are interesting, but who cares? I came to see a movie, not a music-video. It reminds me of that scene at the beginning of Airplane II where Ted Striker is breaking out of a mental hospital and one of the searchlights stops on Jack Jones singing lounge music in the courtyard. Does there really need to be musical commentary in the background? As much as I admire Regina Spektor's vocal creativity, most of the soundtrack sounded like a 9-11 dispatch of her being assaulted in her home.Joseph Gorden-Levitt and Zoey Deschanel are clever and subtle, as usual, but their thespian spirits are wasted on characters with no real motivation or appeal, unless you consider every date-movie cliche of the last twenty years in one package to be a reasonable form of art. There is an intelligent message here, but it barely survives crammed between the drudgery of the time-jumping numbers-screen that throws us jarringly back and forth with little warning, and stock "buddy" characters that punctuate moments of perfect subtlety with, essentially, burp and fart jokes, ruining any sort of serious cinematic immersion. Are we really expected to know where we are in the story based on a non-linear and arbitrary selection of days, or even care?Most of the scenes are too short to allow the dialogue to build in any meaningful way, or express the character's personalities, leaving both factors unremarkable. I didn't buy a 12 year old giving Tom complicated, experience-driven relationship advice. I also didn't buy the intrusive, "meanwhile, in the lair of the super-villain" voice-over narrations, squirting exposition in my ear at inappropriate times. And what's with these two? The narrator tells us that Tom's skewed view of love comes from "a fatal misunderstanding of the movie 'The Graduate' as a child". First, as a rule, never mention better movies than your movie in your movie. Secondly, what if I've never seen 'The Graduate'? I'm shit out of luck? Tom writes greeting cards for a living and can't figure out how to ask Summer on a date. Greeting cards exist for the soul purpose of getting people laid. See the dissonance here? For that matter, why does he even bother with Summer? She's a brat, and a nympho, and the moment Tom learns about her past "experience", he should have been prepared for disappointment.This movie doesn't earn the right to tell its story out of order. To do so, the story needs to be something profound and original and benefiting. As it stands it's just a distraction from the lack of a concrete topic, and the shuffling of time is used here as a cheap mechanic for the film to set up a series of contrived "reveals" to flatter us with flashy cleverness. "Look over here!" "Now look over here!" The very first one of these oh YOU moments involves shocking us with the fact that the girl of Tom's dreams is named-- get this-- Summer. Get it? It's the name of the movie! Now the word "summer" means TWO things! What a rug-puller!So a few diamonds form as this brownie bakes in the oven. A scene involving Tom and Summer skipping through an IKEA store complaining that "all the sinks are broken" is particularly hilarious. When Tom finally makes headway with Summer, he struts out into the street in front of her building like Fred Astaire as various passerby break into spontaneous song and dance. Tom's meltdown in the boardroom is poignant and powerful. The film delicately handles the horrible "catch-22" of relationships: it's not easy being honest with someone you really care about, for fear of losing the tenuous bond you share. The final sequence between the two lovers, set in an important park with an important view, is profound and bitter in its pitiless clarification of broken love, even if it is the love between retards. Summer's explanation for her betrayal doesn't really clarify anything (maybe that we gave women the vote so that they could "date for dinner") but it does showcases the profound effect the two had on each other. Fate, as it adheres to cause and effect, has a brutal way of wearing down the romantic soul with cruel reality. Every other moment in the movie does everything it can to sabotage our connection to the mise-en-scene. The lessons learned by the two leads and the way they learn them is the only strong point of the film. It's buried in a package that does an honest message no service. Instead, in its desperate plea to be relatable, it alienates us with its new-aged hipster bullshit, then forces us to re-break our own mended hearts and look inside for a fortune cookie. Thanks, dicks. All of this sentimental gunk is muddled in the drudgery of the film's stupid way of storytelling, so if you have any life experience of your own good luck getting anything out of 500 Days of Summer except maybe a spontaneous hangover. You know that episode of Family Guy where Peter tapes over Citizen Kane with "It's his sled. From when he was a child. There, I just saved you three hours." That's what I would do to this film, if I cared enough to look back.
Eric M (br) wrote: Reserving judgement for when I see it, but it does pack a massive amount of 80's nostalgia into its one minute, seven second trailer.
Stanley C (kr) wrote: With a unique main character who is angry, greedy and violent, Falling Down fails to accomplish anything except inspire an entire generation of angry white men.
Grant K (kr) wrote: Redford is multilayered, menacing yet suave and sweet, Harrelson is decent and showcases real pain. Moore is... Moore. Three actors giving their all are let down by atrocious, soap opera style cinematography, a dumb, illogical, unoriginal and cringe worthy script, (with atrocious dialogue and incessant narration), and an overall sense that nobody but the actors care. An awful, awful misfire.
Christopher B (us) wrote: Huge 80s/metal fan so really enjoyed this. A little cheesy sometimes but enjoyable and funny.
Sean M (fr) wrote: Each short rating4/5 short 12/5 short 23/5 short 33/5 short 33.5/5 short 5