You may also like
Secretul lui Nemesis torrent reviews
Lenny R (us) wrote: Snipes and Banderas bring a welcome touch of personality to the mix, but Banderas is intentionally annoying and Snipes isn't around enough. Nor are Statham, Lundgren or Crews. Jet Li does zero martial arts, and we get yet another crack about his height, due to him being the only one shorter than Sly. Rousey is great, but the three young guys are interchangeable. Action superstar Kelsey Grammer is shrugworthy. Arnie is fine, but little more than a quotebot for his past movies. Ford is a better G-man than Bruce Willis. Gibson is good, but his manic persona, while well performed, needed some better dialogue to work with (I liked him more as the villain in Machete Kills). Hughes is not as good a director as Simon West (or maybe just less experienced at huge action movies), but is better than Stallone. And Sly needs to realise that these movies aren't all about him; Barney is arguably the least interesting Expendable, but he's the only one there for the whole duration. Overall, this is still slightly better than the first one, but less fun than the second. The heinously underused Snipes is the best thing about it.
Bill R (mx) wrote: This movie is hard to place in any one genre. it jumps the genres like crazy but does it well to where it doesn't feel like a mess of a film. it is really well acted by the lead and when things start to take hold, it's hard to tell what is really going on. normally that would pass me off but it was done well enough to keep me interested and wonder all the way through. It's title is interesting because there are definite moments of uncomfortable-ness. A slower watch and not for everyone but good none the less.
Rob P (ca) wrote: A silly little horror that is actually better than expected and with completely unknown but pretty good actors with real Irish accents.
Nancy S (es) wrote: Sweet and saucy movie about Canadians in India and their cook. Don McKeller plays his usual naive and insecure self who trys to befriend Stella and get her to teach him how to cook Indain food. But Stella has been cooking up more then just the meals! Great story, characters and backdrop
Camille L (ru) wrote: Bean est l'exemple typique de la catastrophe industrielle du film qui n'aurait jamais du existe. Pourtant ecrit par les createurs de la serie (dont le souvent impeccable Richard Curtis), le film est trop long malgre ses 90 minutes, jamais drole et tout le temps irritant. Rowan Atkinson fait ce qu'il doit faire, Peter MacNicol semble sympathique mais les autres acteurs font le minimum syndical dans un film d'une laideur infame. Tres agacant.
Jens L (us) wrote: Oh my...this one didn't aged very well...with all this overdrawn, papercutlike characters it's hard to bear the longer it goes...it's like one of these staged tourists shows...mh
Bryon M (ag) wrote: Not a bad 80's TV movie. Has some nice script work and atmosphere but not very scary, though the lynching like scene does bring an amount of suspense with it. The acting is good with Charles Durnning a joy to watch as a closeted pediphile who basically goes [email protected]$t.
Velmina C (ag) wrote: My mum told me she got my name from this movie... thought I'd check it out. It was not bad...
Brad G (br) wrote: Isaac Hayes wields a mighty big gun as Matt ??Truck?? Turner, a foul mouthed, brutish bounty hunter who does battle with an army of killer pimps after he obliterates one of his bounties. Thumping along to a badass Isaac Hayes soundtrack, this flick is littered with shoot outs, punch outs, and black outs. And there also happens to be a wonderfully destructive car chase that descends into a ten man bar room brawl. How can that happen? Check it out for yourself. Sure, Hayes is a little wooden, but he??s supported by a fine cast of character actors. Yaphet Kotto??s pimp kingpin is Super Cool TNT and Star Trek??s Nichelle Nichols is frighteningly Turrets-like with her Madame??s tongue (kinda disturbing for this Trekkie). Plus, you get some tiny bits with Dick Miller and Stan Shaw. VF.
Shawn R (ru) wrote: Nice little gory movie... and my first into into Paul Naschy
Byron B (mx) wrote: I remember watching all of these with my parents when I was younger. This is the second in the series. Now I find it totally awful! The only reason I gave it a star more than the worst rating possible is because of Buddy Hackett, Luciana to a lesser extent, and Little Stevie Wonder. Most of the characters, especially Don Rickles, were beyond annoying. At the opening of the movie Buddy Hackett appears to be a rich business magnate, but with his voice I just couldn't accept that. Then we find out he's an assistant to Luciana as a rich Italian Contessa, and that I can believe. I really think Buddy was the best thing about this movie! Actually I don't know why Frankie didn't go away with the Contessa instead of staying with Annette (Dee Dee). It was obvious Annette had heavy effects on her voice when she sang to make her voice bigger than it is, the audio was horribly dubbed for most of the group songs, and the Del Tones are lame. Little Stevie Wonder gives a great performance, but the camera isn't on him enough. So I recommend just watching the closing credits where Stevie performs again with early signs of his multi-instrumentalist talent, and Candy (the girl with magical powers in her hips) shakes away to the appropriate shattering conclusion.
Tristenn P (mx) wrote: Yeah, even though Ben Stiller and Jennifer don't make a believable couple, I thought that it was a good feel-good movie. A nice movie to watch just for humor and positivity.
fero H (es) wrote: James Bond is back and he is alive and well. Any questions about Daniel Craig's worthiness are thrown out almost immediately as we are handed a film filled to the brim with exquisite action and explosive emotion. I squirmed in my seat with delight as I have not done since I was a child. What "Batman Begins" did for that franchise, "Casino Royale" does, and more, for Bond. For a while it seemed that he might not be able to well exist outside the confines of the cold war, but here we are given an entirely modern Bond with enough nods to the original that we can't be too upset. Maybe it's because this is the last novel yet to be filmed in the traditional Bond manner and it is Ian Fleming who has stolen our hearts not this incarnation of the super spy. However I like to think that someone actually just got their act together and concentrated on the film itself as opposed to who they could get the most product placement money out of. Congratulations. James Bond will live on for at least one more generation, and maybe forever. Great set pieces and one of the best chase sequences not involving cars ever put on screen, blended with beautiful locations and even more lovely women add up to the perfect cocktail with the twisting story line acting as the lemon peel in the martini, holding it all together. Many will come out saying that this is the best Bond film ever and I can not rightly say they are wrong at this point. Only time will tell that tale. However every fan can be assured that this ranks amongst the very upper crust of Bond movies, and Craig is no Lazenby. He lends a harsh wit and a thuggish charm to the character and by the end he's no longer the new guy, he is Bond, James Bond. A masterpiece of popular film-making and the movie we have been waiting for all year.
Rick S (it) wrote: Not As bad as I thought it would be.
Lia Z (nl) wrote: A thinly disguised white supremacist movie; token actors and a lack of Doc Martens don't do much to hide the theme; "England should be for English men. Black boys are cowardly monsters." Look at the poster. Ugh.