Carl Winters decides to come to Australia to find the reason why his wife is dead when she investigated a story on kangaroo poaching. Carl meets Jake Cullen who believes the existence of an enormous razorback while most of local people suspect his words. Ultimately, He confronts the cruel beast. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
You may also like
Razorback torrent reviews
Alfin N (it) wrote: "Somebody tell me who am I!?" Wow.
Trevor S (gb) wrote: A decent and funny indie movie.
Dyllan Jay R (au) wrote: Tragic tale of brotherhood and patriotism. The action is gritty, heart-pounding, and tense as hell with random gunshots and explosions going off to catch the viewer off-guard. It's really difficult to say who to root for: the older brother who wants to make a name for himself, or the younger brother who just wants to make it out alive?
Pawan P (fr) wrote: This 16th century drama in sexy film is filled with visual and verbal splendor.
Elyse E (mx) wrote: A beautiful and tight biopic with plenty of intentionally (and unintentionally) funny moments.
Dann M (ru) wrote: Jeff Bridges and Karen Allen star in the science-fiction thriller Starman. Directed by John Carpenter, the visual style is rather impressive and has a fantasy-esque quality to it. The story however, is a fairly boilerplate alien chase plot. Yet there are some interesting turns, such as the use of the Voyager 2 space probe as a plot devise. And, Karen Allen gives a remarkable performance that grounds the film and gives it some heart. Still, there are plenty of cliches and formulaic characters to go around. Starman may tell a familiar tale, but Carpenter's able to do some new things with it.
Ethan F (us) wrote: This is the worst Humphrey Bogart movie I've seen yet. He doesn't come into the film until the half way point. The first half of the show is the setting up, the second half is where all the action is. They were both very entertaining, but the later half actually had Humphrey Bogart in it. This wisked me to sleep, a good movie to get ready for bed with. The main character has a very intellectual british demeanor to him which i wish i had a vocabulary like that at my disposal to get all the chicks, even so I mean he's going up against Humphrey, so he has no chance.
Kip K (es) wrote: The movie version of "Do you like Brahms" the novel by Francoise Sagan.Ingrid Bergman in a touching performance of a middle aged woman torn between her love to her playboy lover of 5 years and a sensitive younger man who gives her the love and attention she wants and needs.With the charming Yves Montand as the older lover and a somewhat nervous and uncertain in himself Anthony Perkins as the younger man.Recommended.
Marcus W (mx) wrote: The score is intrusive and jars with the imagery, but switch it to mute and the horrors will speak for themselves.
Jack G (gb) wrote: My wife has a term for certain films which carry the weight of importance, and are worth being important, about, but are so heavy as to nearly break ones consciousness. Diary of a Country Priest is that kind of film. It comes out of the gut and heart from director Robert Bresson, and he means it to be a personal cry from its main character, the Priest who becomes a Parish in the French countryside. A film like this one, which takes religion so seriously as to give Ingmar Bergman a run for his spiritual-philosophical money, is loaded with language and thought, though mostly in voice-over. We hear and oftentimes see what this Priest (never given a name, in the credits he's "The Priest of Ambricourt) is thinking and feeling, and more often than not he's in agony. Oh, such pain and agony. He wants to be close to God, and be able to let others feel His Love. Not so easy when it's the countryside and they have more pressing concerns, like doing the menial works they have and trying to live day by day.There is an unusual amount of scorn for the Priest. Maybe it's because he's so serious about it all, or doesn't look strong enough to really lead people on in any divine way. I think it's more to do with a combination of his disposition, being a sickly, naturally lonely fellow by choice (he is a Priest after all, though even if that profession never existed he'd be celibate anyway), and a Post-WW2 malaise where people become jaded and untrustworthy. And somehow as the film goes along people trust him less and less, or feel close to him. He tires to connect with a middle aged mother who is having such doubts, and their conversation is the centerpiece of the film (at least to me). It's a tense, soulful discussion about faith and what God's Love really means. I'm sure for any person who has questioned faith at one time or another, whatever side you're on, it's a powerful scene that explores how feeling is so much more of a problem in living than thinking when it comes to God and faith, and what hope that may have for a person.Yes, the film is "Cinematic Oat-Bran" - good for you, and so much to take in (even at two hours) that it makes one weary. Perhaps that's the idea, much like with Bresson's also very depressing Au hasard Balthazar, it is meditative and precise in how it presents characters, realistic but also stylized in how it draws back its human characters from the usual drama. In this film I could tell when a character was angry or emotional not by the loudness of voice but by a certain intensity that is hard to describe except to see it. One big advantage to the film is that while Bresson is using a first-time actor, Claude Laydu, to play the Priest (something Bresson would do his entire career, non-professionals, countless takes, withdrawn, hollow acting), that he is intense and soulful just in the eyes, and how he speaks. The character is weak but hardly inhuman, though everyone else seems not to think so. He only has a few people on his side at all, and those are his superiors; one younger girl could have befriended him, perhaps in an upbringing that wasn't so dismissive and hateful of what someone like the Priest could bring to the Countryside. I sometimes wasn't clear on why there was so much disdain, but maybe it's not necessary. The strength of the film, and it's a strong one, is how relentless Bresson goes to achieve this sense of spiritual inquiry in the guise of a character study. Yes, there is, at times, a little too much narration in a scene (some of it is interesting in how ordinary it is juxtaposed to an image, other times as a narrative device it falls flat). And its last fifteen minutes are so bleak you'll be careful not to have a razor close-by to do a slicing of the wrists. But the cinematography is simple but demanding in how it moves towards characters or follows them, or how the night is punctuated by the Priest as a lonely figure in the moonlight. And the music is a nice dramatic touch as well, when it comes up it means to amp up the drama where it may be hard to grasp on screen.Maybe as a "non-believer" I didn't get as much as others might. Frankly it didn't affect me the way a Bergman religious-philosophical film would, though it may be comparing apples from different farms. Diary of a Country Priest, shot in black and white and seemingly done in a timeless frame of existence (though that of a 20th century medium) is essential viewing for serious film "cineastes", though I imagine calling it a "masterpiece" makes it sound like there's work to be done watching it. There is. You do have to meet it halfway. Once you do it gives its stark and haunting rewards, but it's draining too; like the 2006 Paul Greengrass film United 93 I was sucked in to the direction, impressive and groundbreaking as it was in creating its own kind of cinematic language... and then wasn't sure I ever wanted to watch it again.
DEE WASH THE KING (ca) wrote: CHRIS ROCK IS FUNNY AS HELL IN THIS N.W.A. SPOOF I WONDER IF HE GOT HIS ASS BEAT BY THE WORLDS MOST DANGEROUS RAP GROUP AFTER DOING THIS ONE.
Erik C (us) wrote: The books are amazing, the film is simply crap. I just wish that Peter Jackson had been the director.