Run All Night

Run All Night

Brooklyn mobster and prolific hit man Jimmy Conlon has seen better days. Longtime best friend of a mob boss, Jimmy is haunted by the sins of his past—as well as a dogged police detective who’s been one step behind Jimmy for 30 years. But when Jimmy’s estranged son becomes a target, Jimmy must make a choice between the crime family he chose and the real family he abandoned long ago. Now, with nowhere safe to turn, Jimmy has just one night to figure out exactly where his loyalties lie and to see if he can finally make things right.

has one night to figure out where his loyalties lie: with his estranged son, Mike, whose life is in danger, or his longtime best friend, the mob boss, who wants Mike to pay for the death of his own son. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Run All Night torrent reviews

Olivier A (jp) wrote: Not too bad but low budget fx.

Christa D (fr) wrote: Liked it!! Of course Luke Goss & Ed Quinn are hot as well =P

Edith N (fr) wrote: High in the "Not for Everyone" Category The Bible makes it quite clear that not everyone can live a life of praising God in the same way. Some are called in very different ways. Very, very few are called in this way--the total silence would drive me crazy, for one!--and so it seems entirely appropriate that a film of it would not appeal to everyone, either. It is true that this is a very long film. It's over two and a half hours, in fact. And, for the most part, it is silent or close to it. The only sounds are the natural sounds of the monastery--mostly the sounds of nature and the monks' sounds of praising God. There is no voiceover. There is no soundtrack. There is one scene in which the monks appear to be chatting almost casually, and indeed online references are contradictory about the existence of an actual vow of silence required by the order. Certainly these are men (there are some Carthusian nuns, but none at Grande Chartreuse) who do not speak lightly; even the chat they have is really about monastical issues--and, proving people are the same in many important ways, being snide that the Trappists aren't as strict as they themselves are. Really, there is no story here. What we have here is Philip Grning, a German filmmaker, traveling to perhaps the most famous monastery in the world, the monastery of Grande Chartreuse (yes, there's a colour called chartreuse, yes, it's named after an alcoholic beverage, and yes, the monks are the ones who make it; the special features include a one hour documentary on the subject I didn't bother to watch), taking with him only a camera. He spent months living there with the monks, presumably himself abiding by their rules of silence. (Be it vow or tradition.) Indeed, he is essentially the only outsider to enter the monastery grounds in a very long time; they used to accept visitors and now no longer do. As such, there is no story here. There is no structure to the documentary as we think of it. It is almost a string of images, bereft of context, which just take in what it is like in this place, so distant from the modern world--though one monk does talk of traveling to Seoul. Obviously, we never learn anything of these men. A few of them talk a little; there is that brief discussion of hand-washing and how the Trappists are hopelessly decadent in their six-basin monastery. There is, of course, prayer, hymns, and the Bible. All of these men are there for a reason, not least the filmmaker, but without dialogue, without voiceover, we do not and cannot know any of the stories. We see a pair of novices come to the monastery, but their eventual fate is not told. They are just now part of the population of silence and prayer. Oh, of course we see the men working, as they have worked for the nearly 950 years the monastery has been there, high and alone in the French Alps. There are still gardens to tend, after all. In order to glorify God, they must eat at least enough to survive--and there is the occasional ritual communal meal so that they remember that coming together is also praise for the Lord. It probably helps, going in, to know something of at least the history of monasticism, if not the Carthusians in particular. The idea of monks living together for the greater glory of God goes back perhaps 1700 years, perhaps longer. This is especially true because a hermit is considered a type of monk. Arguably, this makes John the Baptist the first Christian monk. The Carthusian order in particular is essentially intended to be a group of hermits living in community, if that makes any sense. It's one of the reasons for the silence, actually. Alone in the wilderness, a hermit would only speak to God because there is only God to speak to. Not all monks observe this, of course; I knew a jolly Franciscan friar who occasionally preached at the 8:00 AM Sunday mass at St. Elizabeth's church (just barely) in Altadena, California. The Franciscans glorify God by working among the people; Blessed Frey Junipero Serra was a Franciscan. The Jesuits often run schools. But the Carthusians devote themselves to God and only benefit the common person by praying for humanity; the value of that, of course, depends on your worldview. I will not decry your intelligence for not liking this film. I will not tell you to instead go watch Michael Bay movies. There are perfectly valid reasons that this film is simply not for everyone, and there's nothing wrong with that. It is very long, and there is no real plot. Some people wish there were, which I think is missing the point of the film. The point, as I see it, is not to tell us a story but to show us a world. Where it gets confusing is that we aren't looking at an ecosystem, which is where we normally expect this kind of thing. We are looking at humans, and humans have stories. Except, of course, that even stories about ecosystems tend to have narration. However, there is a reason for silence here. In order to grasp the realities of these men, there must be silence. Philip Grning seems to me to be saying that, if you want to know the history of Carthusians or what have you, you should go look it up. If you want to know what it's like to be a Carthusian, 169 minutes of stillness is a good start. [i]Die groe Stille[/i] is not for everyone; not everyone wants to dwell in that stillness even for that length of time. However, it is a very soothing film--even if it puts you to sleep, that's soothing of a kind.

Shannon N (au) wrote: The most adorable Upper West Side love story you'll see.

Greg G (br) wrote: Wasn't sure about renting this one, but it turned out MUCH better than anticipated! Definitely worth watching.

Adam S (es) wrote: Not really a lee film and some awful bits of post work. Really only made as goldern harvest wanted to make more money off the back of game of death, as it did not do as well as they hoped.

David H (gb) wrote: Interesting period piece. It has a lot of wartime propaganda. It disparages the quality and courage of the Japanese pilots. You can really feel the anger over Pearl Harbor. Somethings bothered me like the plot line about Japanese in Hawaii aiding and abetting the attack on Pearl Harbor. However, I like the cast and their relationships. I was rooting for them to make a difference. Not the happiest story with them both at Pearl and then moving on to the Philippines.

Kurt M (br) wrote: Classic horror from Hammer Films. It may be cheese, but it's good cheese!

Ryan B (it) wrote: Depp is the only saving grace of this misfire. I wouldnt ever call El Mariachi or Desperado high art, but they at least were cohesive on a visual level and knew what they were going for. This one is all over the place. Banderas is hardly in the movie, the plot has no tension as we really dont care for the characters. And the action was poorly paced this time around. One of the road fight scenes felt like it took years, even though it was supposed to be very quick. And Salma Hayek was really not even in the movie. Just predictable flashback scenes. If your gonna direct an epic in scope movie about politics, CIA, and cartels. At least spend some money and make it look like a Hollywood film. No, explosions and slow mo dont do that automatically. The visuals had no weight/ It felt cheap and rushed. I know thats Rodriguez's thing, but it didn't work here. Pass this one unless your a diehard Rodriguez fan.

Harry W (fr) wrote: Rio Bravo was a film I only picked up on when upon reading that it was John Wayne's response to High Noon, and when I came to the realisation that it was an influence over such quality action films as the John Carpenter classic Assault on Precinct 13 and the Arnold Schwarzenegger comeback The Last Stand I just had to see it for myself.But really I was let down in certain areas. I found that for a film with a similar concept to High Noon which got its message across in 85 minutes which had finished its buildup of serious drama with a coup de grace of the one and only shootout in the film which made it awesome and memorable, whereas Rio Bravo took 141 long minutes, sub-intense drama, two short boring shootouts and the stereotypical slow pace. For a film with such a high-concept plot, really the key plot line1 sounds Better than it was actually executed since it's buried beneath a load of boring drama, western traditions and hilarious moments with Walter Brennan. Rio Bravo has an important story to tell and some interesting subplots, but it has way too many of them which prevents audiences from being easily able to connect with them or take interest in what is really going on with them.For a film with such a high concept dramatic plot, I just found Rio Bravo to be a little too childish at the intro due to the way its musical score made so many moments into being cartoonish slapstick jokes, moments such as when people are getting injured or killed. It just isn't gritty, and grit is what John Wayne westerns are all about. I mean, one of his most famous is called True Grit, and there isn't much true grit in Rio Bravo. It falls under the more somewhat comedic category of his poor quality film Rooster Cogburn, and that's what it foreshadows the film to be. That's not what Rio Bravo turns out to be about, but even then that's a misleading intro. There are comedic elementsThe drama of the story really surrounds the final shootout, but it fails to live up to all the buildup and hype that the characters put on it and frankly it's just dull and generic. It isn't intense, and really by that point with all the colours and humour it's been brought down to a family friendly level that it's more reminiscent of a cartoon with Road Runner and Elmer Fudd than a legitimate western. I mean elements of it are serious and some are fun, but director Howard Hawks fails find a balance between these or to balance the themes or pacing well, and so Rio Bravo is left as a film that you really have to save time to watch.But visually, Rio Bravo is great because it's well lit and well shot with strong cinematography, and it's very colourful since the visual quality of the camera captures everything in each ground of the screen, and it breathes a good amount of colour into elements such as the tones of wood on the fence and the life in the grass of the background. It prevents Rio Bravo from falling into a visually dull quality that many other westerns before it have. Plus it's sufficiently scripted by ______ and _______, and so the drama the characters experience is explained well by them or to them, and therefore to the viewer.And John Wayne does make a powerful lead again. At 51 he never stops the heroism on screen and gives a strong performance which ties the scenes together. His natural western charisma is one of the best strengths of Rio Bravo.But Walter Brennan gives the standout performance, one which is so comedically befitting that either the Academy Awards or Golden Globes should have been willing to recognise it. His stereotypical hillbilly character Stumpy is both strong and even more importantly, hilarious. For the man with 3 Academy Awards for Best Supporting actor, he again reminds us what makes him an excellent man of the supporting role by keeping the charms of Rio Bravo alive with a performance which is so goddamned funny that he saves Rio Bravo from being a generic western and makes it a comedic romp with hilarious voice articulation and line delivery. He is a man worth a million laughs, because half the time it's not what he says, it's how he says it. And sometimes it's even the fact that he is saying it. He alone is what makes Rio Bravo a positive quality film in my eyes, and he should have gotten a lot more screen time. Stumpy is an iconic western character thanks to Rio Bravo.Angie Dickinson was also a good mix of seductive and swift in her sexual appeal and line delivery respectively, and even though she was inconsistent at times and her character had some poorly written lines.Dean Martin and Ricky Nelson were also good, Ricky Nelson in particular.So Rio Bravo is overrated and overlong, but it's well acted and largely benefits from the comedic efforts of Walter Brennan, as well as being a very influential film.