Robots

Robots

Rodney Copperbottom is a young robot inventor who dreams of making the world a better place, until the evil Ratchet takes over Big Weld Industries. Now, Rodney's dreams – and those of his friends – are in danger of becoming obsolete.

In a world of sentient robots, young idealistic inventor Rodney dreams of two things, making the world a better place and meeting his idol, the master inventor Bigweld. When Rodney travels to the big city to join Bigweld, only to find himself opposing its sinister new management. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Robots torrent reviews

Craig T (ag) wrote: If you want to watch Cotillard pop pills, drink water, and say the same thing over and over again to different people, by all means give this a viewing.

Denise A (es) wrote: Checked under the bed now before I go to sleep lol

Juli N (de) wrote: This film indulged my inner child! Was a grand trip escaping the real world and finding sanctuary in a wonderous and magical tale that won over my heart with its beautiful story about people who still believe in fairytales when the world is so overpopulated with jaded cynics!A breath of fresh air! And my favorite Colin Farrell film!

Phil N (jp) wrote: You wouldn't have earmarked Cellular (starring Chris Evans, Kim Basinger and the Stath) as remake material, but that's exactly what's Connected is - an Asian makeover of David R. Ellis's 2004 thriller. Debt collector Bob is on his way to the airport when he intercepts a frantic call from a young woman who claims she's been kidnapped - will Bob help her, and can he get to her daughter before the bad guys do? Connected is solid if not spectacular stuff. Profilic director Benny Chan keeps it pacy but watch out for the continuity gaffes during the car chase!

Sandrine B (ag) wrote: J'y suis alle pour Didier Bourdon et j'ai ador l'humour noir du film. Fallait oser!

Steven C (br) wrote: What I would consider Alan Rickman's final film, Eye in the Sky is a smart political thriller about the decision-making process and the emotional and legal hurdles of the declassified drone program to prevent further acts of terror. Starring Helen Mirren, Aaron Paul, and Alan Rickman. Available on Amazon Prime ATM. Grade: A

Jaime L (es) wrote: hahaha... I liked this movie what can i say i liked it.. I know, it's a bad movie bad it has something I don't know probably the leading actress, but I enjoyed this movie jejeje... of course it's not a horror master piece but It's not boring maybe it's just me but the movie is acceptable....

William W (es) wrote: A fun bizarre movie in the style of Russ Meyer! Boobs a tutti plen and gore!

Jason K (ca) wrote: Very Very AWESOME MovieI Recommend It

Brian B (de) wrote: This sequel is actually better than the first! Terrific plot with a great cast but it's not horror, it's sci-fi. Morris Chestnut did a phenomenal job and it's always nice to see a knockout beauty like Salli Richardson on the set ;)

Alia G (gb) wrote: Watched this on a whim and wasn't sure what to think. I felt completely lost amid the story but actually couldn't turn away from it.

James H (us) wrote: Very much a rip-off of the much better Fantastic Voyage from 1966. In spite of the superior technology available today, the original holds up much better. It still has some good scenes however, it's reasonably tense and the acting isn't too bad.

steven c (au) wrote: A Beautiful piece of cinema art.

Patrick L (jp) wrote: The French Connection ReviewBottom Line: 1.5 stars out of 5. Saw this movie 7 or so years ago. Didn't like it. Decided to give it another chance as part of my Best Picture project. Years later, I've changed, but I dislike the movie just as much as before, if not morso. Boring, one dimensional characters, heroes totally uninteresting and frankly repulsive. Good car chase is the only redeeming quality.Directed by: William FriedkinScreenplay by: Ernest TidymanBased on: The French Connection, a novel by Robin MooreStarring: Gene Hackman (Popeye Doyle), Fernando Rey, Roy SchedierMusic: Don EllisRelease Date: 10/9/1971*Notable for being the first R-rated movie to win Best PictureStory: The plot centers on drug smuggling in the 1960s and early '70s, when most of the heroin illegally imported into the East Coast came to the United States through France.The Good:In the middle of the movie the main "protagonist", if we can call him that, Popeye Doyle chases a suspect in a car... who is escaping via the elevated passenger trains in Chicago. This is what everyone talks about regarding this movie, and its no wonder. There's nothing else remotely memorable in the entire film. Its a well made scene, with the camera often put right on the nose of the car as it sped down the streets with the elevated train tracks above it.A lot of myths have grown up around this scene, including that when the camera was mounted on the front that they traveled at upwards of 90 MPH while filming. I find this unlikely, and director of photography Owen Roizman, wrote in American Cinematographer magazine in 1972 that the camera was undercranked to 18 frames per second to enhance the sense of speed. Some people also believe that this was all filmed gurilla style, without the cities permission, but that's not true either.While a great scene, it was ruined for me. Popeye Doyle, the main police detective featured in the movie and the de facto protagonist, finally catches up with his prey, Pierre Nicoli (played by Marcel Bozzuffi). Nicoli has committed several heinous acts during his attempt to escape, but when he is running down the stairs to the street and encounters Doyle, he is unarmed. Nicoli turns to go up the stairs, and Doyle shoots him in the back.First of all, Doyle is not a good character. I didn't find any positive qualities in him whatsoever. He appears to be a drunk, a philanderer, a racist, and an idiot (as he is accused by other cops of having gotten an unknown police officer killed in the past). So, I was biased against him, and then he goes and shoots this unarmed villain in the back? Boo. That's not satisfying as far as I'm concerned.Now, legally, Doyle may have even been in the right as Tennessee vs. Gardner was not decided by the Supreme Court until about 14 years after this movie was released. But still, do we want our hero cops in movies shooting unarmed people in the back? Not me.The Bad:That wasn't a very ringing endorsement as far as the good aspects of the film went, was it? I'm trying to control my fury over this movie. I've heard so much about it over the years and there have probably been 1,000 or more pages of ink (most likely more) written about its greatness, and its basically a zero as far as I'm concerned.Anyway, the biggest problem I have is with the characters. They aren't very interesting at all. There's no good dialogue. There's no interesting conversations to be found anywhere in the movie. There's no humor. At one point we see the two main detectives (Gene Hackman and Roy Schneider) playing cards and laughing as they listen to a wiretap. What are they laughing at? Just the wire? Its not funny. We learn absolutely nothing about these characters other than they are detectives looking for heroin smugglers and that apparently, Doyle is a jerk. The movie is often credited as being made in a "documentary" style. I've seen a lot of documentaries, and they are much more interesting than this. Maybe a nature documentary, since the animals can't talk. Documentary style, in this case, seems to mean we are treated to long stretches where characters are just looking out a window on steakout. Thats all. They aren't listening to the radio, or talking to their partner. They are just watching. Or, as in later in the movie, when they are searching the car, we see them take the car apart piece by piece (to a frankly ridiculous level, I'm supposed to believe they put this hunk of junk back together again after taking it almost completely apart). So for several minutes we watch as pieces of this car are removed. No conversation, just unscrewing bolts and removing pieces followed by a lot of shaking heads as they find nothing.Boy... sounds interesting doesn't it? How is that documentary style? You know what would REALLY be happening as they removed all those hundreds of parts from a car and found nothing? There'd be a lot of talking, a lot of coffee breaks, a lot of cursing, joking, talking, a lot of anxiety over whether or not they were going to find anything. That stuff... that would have added interest to the scene. Instead we just get piece after piece removed until they finally find something.Alright, so then we get to the ending. They finally have the bad guys right where they want them. They know where they're going to be, they know they have drugs, and they have a plan to arrest them. Somehow, this plan goes awry and a shootout ensues.One of the films villains, Sal, is killed by Roy Schneider's character Detective Russo. Again, as far as I can tell, Sal is unarmed at the time. So great, another unsatisfying villain death. Doyle chases main heavy Charnier into an abandoned factory. We hear a noise, Doyle fires a shot, but who does he kill? Charnier? Nope. Another cop, and it almost plays like he meant to do it, as this particular police officer, Mulderig, had been hounding Doyle throughout the movie about being a bad cop and getting other cops killed.It's possible that Doyle is one of the worst protagonists in the history of American cinema. We're supposed to be what? Rooting for this guy? Upon learning a few seconds later that he just killed Mulderig, does he show any remorse at all? Nope. None, just runs off into a darkened corner of the building where we hear another shot.Now, lets talk about this ending. Including everything I just talked about, this is one of the worst endings I could have possibly envisioned for this movie. So within a few seconds of killing a cop, Gene Hackman's character of Doyle runs into a dark corner and we hear a shot. Boom. Movie over, credits start to role. So at first I think, "really? That's how the villain dies? Another unsatisfying bad guy death? Just a shot in the dark and we don't see anything."But no. That's not how the villain dies. We're told in some captions that Charnier has actually escaped and that most of the other criminals that were arrested get pretty light sentences. So what the hell was that ending about? He just runs off, fires a shot and nothing? They had the building surrounded, there are cops everywhere, there's no where to go. We don't get to see the villain escape either?Now, some might say "But they solve it in the sequel!" Ok, sequels weren't as common back in the 1970's. No one had anyway of knowing if a sequel would ever come out, and in fact didn't for four years.Anyway, for my money, this is one of the worst endings I could have possibly imagined.Bottom Line: 1.5 stars out of 5. Saw this movie 7 or so years ago. Didn't like it. Decided to give it another chance as part of my Best Picture project. Years later, I've changed, but I dislike the movie just as much as before, if not morso. Boring, one dimensional characters, heroes totally uninteresting and frankly repulsive. Good car chase is the only redeeming quality.

Darwin K (fr) wrote: very out there & trippy.

Alexander P (gb) wrote: A really good film from Wajda, exciting, romantic, horrific and entertaining. The final day of WWII in a Polish town following two assassins attempting to correct the wrongs of a failed assassination attempt and the main characters turmoil between love and duty. A moving film and a really good one.

Travis R (us) wrote: Although its allegedly adapted from the Ernest Hemingway novel of the same name, To Have and Have Not is so clearly a rip-off of Casablanca that it's a little embarrassing. That said, it really speaks to the quality of Casablanca (or, perhaps more likely, the talent in this movie) that a knock-off could be this good. To Have and Have Not has all of Howard Hawks' signature flourishes and character archetypes to the point that it might be his most quintessential work. The script (penned partially by William Faulkner) is sharp, the performances are solid, and - it's impossible to discuss this film without bringing up this final point - the chemistry between Bogart and Bacall (their first of four screen performances together) is just incredible. If only all derivative works were this inspired.

Thomas R (mx) wrote: Ashley Hinshaw (Angelina) seems emotionless throughout and is a fairly hollow performance. No real plot and pretty flimsy middle and end.

Chucho E Q (ca) wrote: I need to watch it again before re-rating it.

Joseph H (gb) wrote: One of the best movies of all time! Predator is a great action, horror, thrill ride that will never get old!