Set in the near future, a robot-hunting cop whose job is to capture malfunctioning robots discovers a sinister plot of a sicko high-tech wizard, who wants to produce killer robots. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
In the near future, a police officer specializes in malfunctioning robots. When a robot turns out to have been programmed to kill, he begins to uncover a homicidal plot to create killer robots... and his son becomes a target.
You may also like
Runaway torrent reviews
Philip W (jp) wrote: The ring tone was enough to give you the creeps.
Zahid C (ca) wrote: Day: ThursdayDate: 3 Jul 2014Time: 10.30 pmWith: NooneOn: HDTV
Adam R (gb) wrote: I only got through the first 15 minutes of it. the acting was terrible and the direction left lots of dialog breaks that were extremely annoying. As bad as Fast and Furious was it was still enjoyable. This one was just rubbish. Not even worth watching it on TV.
Jacob T (es) wrote: This movie is also known as Godzilla and Mothra and the battle for the earth. This is the 19th Godzilla movie. It is also the 7th Mothra movie. All the Mothra movies made before this one are better. Most of the Godzilla movies made before this one are better. This is better then the 18th Godzilla movie Godzilla vs King Ghildrah. The 12th Godzilla movie is also the 6th Mothra movie. That would be Godzilla vs Gigan. And that one is better then this one. Still this is a great movie. All the Mothra movies are great films. See this movie. It is very scary.
Edith N (fr) wrote: As It Was Then This and [i]How to Survive a Plague[/i] would make good companion pieces to one another. When this movie was made, it was shocking enough that it features repeated shots of two male characters kissing. It also seemed apparent that these men were going to go to bed together. The movie is rated R despite having no violence, no nudity, no graphic sex, and little swearing. Just having a movie about the lives of gay men has generally been enough for the MPAA, as we've discussed before. However, shocking or not, this movie portrays fictional men living during the same events as the historical figures of [i]How to Survive a Plague[/i]. There are references to some of the same organizations, but while one is the story of the political campaign and the overarching group of patients and those afraid of becoming patients, the other is the story of a group of individuals and how the disease affected them personally. The story starts on 3 July 1981, the day the first article about AIDS, then without a name, appeared in [i]The New York Times[/i]. A group of gay men read the article, but not all of them are concerned. Then, it is 30 April, almost a year later, and John (Dermot Mulroney) is in the hospital with pneumocystis pneumonia. Within days, he is dead. On 17 June, a little over a year after that, the character Howard (Patrick Cassidy) plays on the soap opera for which Sean (Mark Lamos) writes comes out, and Sean might be getting six. Another year, on 7 September, and Paul (John Dossett), Howard's lover, has toxoplasmosis. Six months, on 22 March, and Sean has dementia. Almost nine months, 4 January, and Sean is dead. Slightly over a year, 16 May, and Sean's "longtime companion," David (Bruce Davison), is dead. 10 September, more than a year later, and Paul is dead. 19 July 1989, and the only ones left are Willy (Campbell Scott), Fuzzy (Stephen Caffrey), and Lisa (Mary-Louise Parker), dreaming of what was. So spoilers, okay. But really, how can a movie about AIDS from 1990 end, except in the deaths of pretty much any character with the disease? Early in the movie, Sean and David talk about how they've been together since 1980, and neither has slept with anyone else in all that time, and surely four years together means they're safe. How awful to think that, by the time they even knew the disease existed, it was too late and they were already infected. The disease is believed to have reached the US in 1968; the first probable US death was in 1969. There's been speculation that the disease spread with the Bicentennial celebrations, with people traveling to New York and so forth for the festivities. It's just that, given the incubation period, there weren't enough cases to recognize the epidemic until 1981. This is another of the sad truths of HIV; for many people, by the time they knew there was a reason to change their behaviour, it was too late. It sounds as though the story ought to be too complicated, but it really isn't. I'll admit I couldn't always keep track of who characters were from one bit to another, but I kept the important ones in mind. The chronology isn't always believable; Howard learns that his character is to be gay over a year before the character actually comes out. However, I did believe the idea that characters would vary in how their illness progressed. Sean goes from "might be sick" to dead in about two and a half years, and there is no hint that David has the virus when Sean dies, but he is himself dead about fifteen months later. The disease actually does work that way, odd though it may seem. Most diseases work in similar ways, though faster--some people just get sick faster than others, progress through the disease faster than others. That's true if the disease runs its course in days or years; it just becomes more noticeable in diseases where the whole thing takes longer. Some of the issues these characters confront remain in place. Howard doesn't want his character to come out as gay on the soap, because as soon as an actor plays a gay character, they're typecast as always playing gay characters. The actor who plays his lover on the soap is probably gay. He lives in Lisa's building, and she is certain he lives with a lover. But he won't admit it, probably because he worries about his career. There are plenty of people willing to make money on the gullible; Michael loads Sean up with things he swears will cure him. He gives him self-help books and swears that no one who really loves himself and wants to be well can die of the disease. His doctor, he says, asks his body what Sean's body needs, and he gives him the right herbs and so forth. Michael says it's more scientific than it sounds, of course, but no one believes him. All these issues and more still rise. All these issues and more linger. It's easier to come out than it was, but there are still career consequences. And, of course, the epidemic continues.
Eric B (de) wrote: "The Wild Child" is an engaging film, but it's hard to guess why director Francois Truffaut felt compelled to tell this simple story. The premise (a patient 18th-century teacher, played by Truffaut himself, eases a feral pre-teen into civilization) is quite straightforward, and the boy doesn't advance enough to fully please an audience (you may be surprised when the film abruptly ends). And there aren't any notable directing choices beyond a few nostalgic iris shots. Perhaps this tale should be loosely filed with "Small Change" and "The 400 Blows" as just another look at children finding their way in the world.Jean-Pierre Cargol is impressive in the title role. He only says one word, but is put through quite a physical test.
Courtney C (it) wrote: This movie is by far the best movie I have ever seen and I would highly recommend it.
Alexa H (ag) wrote: Paul newman is so awesome!
Bheema D (mx) wrote: Excelling in character dynamics and message, lacking in pace and production values, and swaying back on forth in dialogue, For Whom the Bell Tolls will still leave you emotionally drained at the end, and has lasted longer than many would say it has any right to.
John W (kr) wrote: Sydney Pollack's visually breathtaking recreation of early twentieth century Nairobi is enhanced by a sublime performance by Meryl Streep and the typically welcome presence of Robert Redford. The cinematography is ravishing. The film loses points for its unfocused screenplay and sluggish pacing.