Rings

Rings

N/A

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:88 minutes
  • Release:1993
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:independent film,  

. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Rings torrent reviews

Courtney K (kr) wrote: wow; i actually really liked this one too. another artsy film which happens to be quite ironic: the characters are obsessed with being beautiful & this film has gained quite a reputation for it's aesthetic success. maybe that's why i liked it so much. and i really dislike Elle Fanning, but she says like 4 words in this film so i actually didn't mind her so much.

Julia M (br) wrote: This movie is the worst one I have seen in a while. The plot, script, acting, and directing are all so off it's hard to believe. It's not even so bad it's funny. It's just boring boring, and all of the discontinuity makes you angry. I wanted to see this movie because I like Steven Moyer from True Blood and like horror in general. It was just so so bad.

Amy R (ag) wrote: I don't usually watch "Christian" movies, mostly because they're preachy and out of touch with reality. This is neither, and it was awesome. From Don's beginning as a holier-than-thou Southern Baptist boy from Houston to his life-altering experiences at Reed College and in the confessional after RennFayre, this movie will make you laugh, cry, and think about how you might - or might not - relate to God. Either way, prepare to be challenged.

lanessia s (fr) wrote: a really funny movie

VickiLee C (us) wrote: A female-centric themed movie that delights and entertains. I return to this over the years time and again. This is my filmic chicken-soup for the soul.

Brana F (kr) wrote: Wonderful movie for those of us who actually crave real adventure and exploration. The original Richard Burton is so fascinating a character it's astonishing that this is the only movie about his life. Ian Glen is great as a man tormented by Burton's rather large shadow, and Fiona Shaw plays a small role delicately, gracefully. I agree..this movie should have made Patrick Bergin a mega-star.

dan s (us) wrote: A MUST SEE, the music is great also.

Jack G (gb) wrote: one of Godard's few great (or at least near great) films that he's done since the 60s. yeah, he's been in quite a slump- Week End was, almost the end of cinema. he's rebounded once or twice, but this, alongside Notre Musique and maybe bits of Number Two is all he's been able to offer aside from mental masturbation

Tim B (mx) wrote: Possibly the best of the old classic bible films. Excellent cinematography and effects considering it was filmed in 1951. Gregory Peck is believable and excellent as King David. The dialogue is a bit trite at times, but still generally strong. Susan Hayward is beautiful and solid in the role, and Raymond Massey is a delight as Nathan. A bit plodding at times, but an engaging telling of one of the most famous stories of all time.

Ken S (es) wrote: After working on "Robocop 3", Frank Miller was pretty jaded about the film industry. As a result he had no interest in allowing his baby (Sin City) to get adapted to the big screen. But Robert Rodriguez showed him not only could it be done, but it could be done really well. So Miller gets bit by the directing bug, and his first solo project is "The Spirit". "Sin City" was this great movie because it was a perfect adaptation of the original comics...its tone, style, characters, story...they were all direct adaptations. But this looks nothing like the original comic, it looks like "Sin City". The Octopus from the comics was a man only seen by his gloves, here he is seen so much and he is as over the top as you can imagine. The Spirit himself was just a regular guy fighting the good fight, here he has the superpower of healing and came back from the dead. This is very different from the comic it was adapting, and as a result it is pretty terrible. The funny thing is Frank Miller was once quoted as saying something about how much a movie suffers the further it gets from the source material. He proved his theory right here. The acting is bad, the movie's plot is completely unintelligible, and the movie wasn't nearly as much fun, or even as smart, as it would have liked to pretend it was.

Scott R (ru) wrote: cast is wasted in an unfunny meandering waste of a film