The movie is set in Oslo in 1960. When the new TV channel NRK opens they have a talent competition where the winner gets 50,000 kroner. And Olsenbanden Junior just has to get in on this, ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Olsenbanden Junior på rocker'n
The movie is set in Oslo in 1960. When the new TV channel NRK opens they have a talent competition where the winner gets 50,000 kroner. And Olsenbanden Junior just has to get in on this, ...
You may also like
Olsenbanden Junior på rocker'n torrent reviews
Christi L (es) wrote: A David vs Goliath on Climate Change. And finally someone's talking about FIXES.
Vmedia Berkeley Ca S (ca) wrote: New Director Ash Christian, makes good creating a new Dorothy code phrase. "Fat Girls" becomes the new Icon next to Dorothy her herself. A modestly impressive debut -- especially considering that writer/director Ash Christian was 21 when he made it -- this poignant comedy will appeal to anyone who vividly remembers what it's like to be a high school outcast BIG-HEARTED and often quite funny if crudely made, "Fat Girls" cleverly subverts the clichs of high school comedies to serve an autobiographical story about an overweight gay teen in a small Texas town. Ash Christian, is appealing (if somewhat mature) in the main role. He hangs out with an enormous girl (Ashley Fink) while his sex life is limited to furtively groping his ostensibly straight co-star in the school's production of "The Odd Couple." This a cute freshman director picture and I look forward to Ashes' next film Mangus! Vmedia Berkeley Calif.
Jesse O (jp) wrote: Pretty good horror movie. It relies on atmosphere, which is good. The problem is that the majority of the movie is really quite boring to sit through and it's only in the last act of the movie where things really pick up. Cut 15 minutes from this movie, which you could have done quite easily too, and the movie wouldn't have been as boring to sit through as it was. Thing is, the atmosphere is good but, visually, the movie doesn't really do anything to enhance that atmosphere and it doesn't come on as strong as it, probably, should've. That's about it really, it's a slow movie until the last act which, just barely, makes the movie good.
Todd S (nl) wrote: Once again, we have a Statham movie, where the story isn't the focus and doesn't matter much at all. The allure of this film is the terrific characters created by Luc Besson. The mysterious driver with OCD is back, but is well into his retirement. Instead of helping the bad guys get away, Frank Martin (Statham) is driving rich people around, but he's forced into action when their young son is kidnapped. The story here is somewhat simplistic, but the bad guys are as creative as you will ever see in this type of film. I'm not sure where they found Alessandro Gassman and Amber Valletta, but they were so much fun to watch. He is a self-obsessed drug lord, with ridiculous moves, and big plans, while she is a deadly assassin, whose ability with a gun would put John Wayne and Clint Eastwood to shame. When Statham is added to the mix, you have the perfect formula for one intense movie. Transporter 2 was terrific in that it never stops moving and you will see things you never thought were possible outside of CGI, it was unbelievably entertaining. From the stand point of a film aficionado, while these amazing moves and characters make for a lot of fun, the story and dialogue are severely lacking. This film is not for people looking for a great story or loveable characters, it's made for adrenaline junkies who want to see explosions, long fight scenes, and intense thematic action. If you're all about the action, you won't find much better than this, but if you want there to be some greater purpose, a worth-while cause to fight for, or want to see the world become a better place because of all that happened, you'll be disappointed.
Frances H (de) wrote: Fascinating portrait of a deranged woman who wants to prove she is "special" at too great a cost for even for loving and timid husband. Kim Stanley shines in one of her rare film appearances.
Katie R (ca) wrote: Stewart and Rogers should have made more films together. They had excellent chemistry.
Blair K (ru) wrote: sweet kids movie that is endearing and hilarious. have always liked john lithgow and he never disappoints as usual :)
fero H (ag) wrote: This was a fun movie to watch; much better than I anticipated. Usually sequels have totally run their course by the fourth time, but not so here. In fact, this might even be the best of the Mission Impossible films.It has a good mixture of interesting action scenes, suspense, drama, humor, great scenery of Venice, Italy, and fine acting. Nothing is overdone to the point of being too much and, as most MI films go, it has the normal espionage-type intrigue to figure out.It's just plain entertaining. Kudos to all: the director, the actors and the special-effects and cameraman. A superb job done all around.
Isaac A (kr) wrote: This movie was good but it didn't scare me... at all.
Kevin M W (mx) wrote: A comedy about lying is difficult to approve of and yet Zemeckis' team and presentation will at least have you consider it's viability. The fantasy, about two used car dealerships vying for dominance in the desert Southwest, is a decent platform for the general thesis, a natural one. Where else does one expect lying as a given (and don't say politics or prostitution, cause that's too easy)? Sure, like lying, they go a little overboard, but it's all in good fun.