Royce is a member of the ultra-secret service "Black Hole", working for the US Government on top-secret missions. When the senator responsible for forming Black Hole disbands the organization, Royce's fellow Black Hole members plot revenge on the man responsible for them losing their jobs. Royce decides not to join them, instead deciding to thwart their attempts to exact revenge on the senator.
- Stars:James Belushi, Miguel Ferrer, Peter Boyle, Chelsea Field, Anthony Head, Marie-Françoise Theodore, Paris Jefferson, James McKenna, Michael Shannon, Susan Denaker, Christopher Fairbank, William Marsh, Ralph Ineson, Daniel Kash, Michael Halsey,
- Country:USA, UK
- Director:Rod Holcomb,
- Writer:Paul Bernbaum
Royce is a member of the ultra-secret service "Black Hole", working for the US Government on top-secret missions. When the senator responsible for forming Black Hole disbands the ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Royce torrent reviews
(br) wrote: The return to the world of "Monsters, Inc." is pleasantly entertaining in this colorful prequel that was fashioned in a similar style of a prequel in the storyline's exploration to being better than the original as this is Pixar's unique classic in that form, as well being one of the best of the college flicks. (A)(Full review coming soon)
(jp) wrote: Nowhere Boy (2009): Aaron Johnson is stunning as the mischievous John Lennon, with Kristin Scott Thomas and Anne-Marie Duff in fine form as his mother and guardian/aunt respectively. This beautifully performed biopic of Lennon's adolescence and his relationship with the two most important women in his young life is both competently produced and more than watchable without being completely compelling; the film is an overall satisfying portrait of someone who went on to become one of the twentieth century's most important figures.
(au) wrote: Billed as a comedy when it came out, they kept saying, "From the Makers of Superbad", watched it, not a comedy, a boring love triangle romance story, dumb.
(au) wrote: La trama piena di clich e personaggi approssimativi non aiuta di certo un film che fa una enorme fatica a trasmettere emozioni. Oltre ad essere pessimo per quanto riguarda la sceneggiatura, Sanctum presenta anche degli effetti speciali piuttosto scadenti con ambientazioni e luci irrealistiche. Viste le premesse il risultato poteva essere decisamente pi interessante, ma cos come stanno le cose sar certamente un film che mi dimenticher molto in fretta.
(ca) wrote: Man, the first entire half of this movie was amazing. I laughed my ass off and was really getting into the characters. Unfortunately, the movie takes a dramatic turn towards too serious after that. Suffers from, what I like to call, the "Jack Syndrome". Remember that movie with Robin Williams where he was a kid who aged rapidly and it was all cute and funny, but then his disease takes hold of him and the rest of the movie's supposed to be one tearjerk after another. Lame. Regardless, Cheadle is the shit and the movie's still worth checking out.
(mx) wrote: This proves hat not all good movies need sequels, remakes, or in this case a prequel. You probably don't even need common sense to know why the origional cast wasn't near this "thing".
(jp) wrote: A few good concepts are stifled by the length and direction.
(fr) wrote: Not as good as the first but it's still pretty good and packs some laughs.
(ca) wrote: This movie was fun. A great break from the typical romantic comedy the US produces.
(gb) wrote: Very interesting adaptation of Dracula here. Some elements are removed (Renfield is completely gone!) and some completely revised (some of the main characters die unexpectedly) and some interesting plot revelations (A reason for Dracula going to London is fully laid out here), but I appreciated the work. There seems to be some plot holes evident (or footage taken out) but this version of Dracula, starring Britsh actors I know nothing about, held my interest. Check 'er out!
(jp) wrote: I LOVE this movie.FUNNY!!! 1 of Mel Brooks best
(de) wrote: Wish they had made a part II...loved the film
(us) wrote: One of River Phoenix's best performances, and his only Academy Award nominated turn. Running On Empty is a heartfelt character study on the impact of Arthur & Annie's youthful idealism on their lives and the lives of their sons 15 years later.
(it) wrote: VERY LONG! But some excellent scenes and fantastic story!
(gb) wrote: I loved it; it was so funny and cute! Isla Fisher is one of the best comedy actresses! :D Fashion stores are dangerous. Seriously. xD I want to read the book :D
(ru) wrote: Very underappreciated - a very enjoyable sci fi.
(it) wrote: The second part of Sergio Leone's "Dollar" trilogy (beginning with 1964's "A Fistful of Dollars" and closing with 1968's "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly"), 1965's "For a Few Dollars More" is a wonderfully grimy spaghetti western that improves upon the brazen badassery of its predecessor. Throw Clint Eastwood back into the ring and you have yourself an anti-hero more parched for the sweat of a knife fight than John Wayne; add the beady-eyed Lee Van Cleef into the mix as his right-hand man and you have yourself an anti-hero more famished for the blood of a gun battle than Clint Eastwood. The film is a never-ending sphere of poetic carnage, incessant perspiration, and pseudo-virility - the exquisite restraint of Leone's direction, along with the near-silent machismo of its leading players, makes "For a Few Dollars More" an irresistible product of subgenre ecstasy. Eastwood and Van Cleef co-headline as The Man With No Name and Col. Douglas Mortimer, two rival bounty hunters who decide to join forces in hopes of capturing sadistic bandit El Indio (Gian Maria Volont). The plot, as simple as I've just described it, is stronger than that of "A Fistful of Dollars" - The Man With No Name is now no longer a cunning criminal but a sorta-kinda good guy wanting to make right in the West and for himself; style is still the most pertinent force in every frame, but this time around there's a story strong enough to give all the dust-and-tumbleweeds swagger cinematic weight. The new assurance is so tenacious, in no doubt, because of Leone, who is confident enough to work from his own material rather than someone else's ("A Fistful of Dollars" was adapted from Akira Kurosawa's "Yojimbo", the screenplay penned by five other co-writers); "For a Few Dollars More" takes what was great about its predecessor and ups nearly every detail. It's more bold in its close-ups, moody pauses, and portrayals. And while Eastwood is still the same indestructible force of machismo he was in the previous film, it's Van Cleef that steals the show. With his dragon eyes, beak nose, and abiding glare, he's an anti-hero that looks the part of the villain - Mortimer is a man of few words, yet Van Cleef is able to speak volumes through his gallant body language. He and Eastwood have the kind of chemistry only assassins can mirror, pairing not out of friendship but out of necessity. Maybe they don't like each other, but they sure do know how to work well together. "For a Few Dollars More" is probably the weakest of the trilogy ("A Fistful of Dollars" felt so new, so vital, "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" a blending of the strongest elements of the spaghetti western), but it's the weakest of one of the most perfectly made trilogies of all-time. Leone is never one to take it easy, and neither is Eastwood.
(br) wrote: It was boring as hell.