Sentimentalnoye puteshestviye na kartoshku

Sentimentalnoye puteshestviye na kartoshku

N/A

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:83 minutes
  • Release:1986
  • Language:Russian
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:potato,   food in title,  

. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Sentimentalnoye puteshestviye na kartoshku torrent reviews

Rudy G (gb) wrote: Not really that good of a horror film.....the only good things about it are the jersey shore crew are in it and the sharks look awesome!

Mariha L (kr) wrote: At times it reads a little like a poor reenactment and at times fails to portray the complexity that was McCandless. However, Holbrook's performance is a hidden gem and tonally, as a whole, the film comes hits similar notes to Krauker's essay. Once you get past the awkward extended close ups on Stewart and Hirsch. Hal Holbrook

Kevin A (mx) wrote: 4 stars - This was Hilarious when I was 15ish and less funny when I saw it a couple years ago, but it's nostalgic and goofy fun.

Daniel C (nl) wrote: Requiem for a Dream holds the psychological depth expected of an Aronofsky work, but unlike other films I've seen of his, this one feels empathetic and hopeful. During the Summer chapter of the movie, we truly believe that the characters may have a future, but come Winter, all hope is lost in one of the most effectively depressing and sobering scenes in all of cinema. Requiem, while not the most adult movie I've seen, is certainly inappropriate for younger audiences--yet, that is not the reason I might hesitate to recommend it. The ending is truly unsettling and saddening, and left me in a state of introspection and loneliness.

Phil H (us) wrote: So judging by the films cover you could be fooled into thinking this film was set in the 'Twitty Twister' and that Danny Trejo was a large part of the story. Alas this couldn't be further from the truth, this isn't necessarily a bad thing of course but they are clearly trying to hook your attention.The plots follows a group of criminals who are planning a bank heist. The group are to meet in a seedy motel somewhere in Mexico but through various circumstances are attacked and turned into vampires one by one. During the heist the main protagonist discovers his mates are vamps and must fend them off along with the police force which turn up. In the end the film merely becomes a vampire vs police escapade with the lone surviving criminal teaming up with the Texas Ranger that was on his tail.This second splatter fest starts off really slow and quite dull if you ask me, we merely follow Robert Patrick as he recruits the old gang for the heist. The group itself are a mixed bag and you can see they have tried to create that iconic team of hardass oddballs we've seen many times before. You've got a fat guy with a ponytail and goatee (the homosexual sadistic porn shop owner from 'Pulp Fiction'), an aging cowboy, a young innocent looking guy (Woody Harrelson's brother) and the stereotypical tough guy played by Raymond Cruz who kinda feels like a male version of 'Vasquez' from 'Aliens'.Once things get going on the road trip it still takes its time and feels slow. There is a pointless cameo for the 'Titty Twister' merely so they can shove in Danny Trejo with an aimless subplot and so the crooks can start getting bitten. I still have absolutely no clue how Trejo's character is suppose to have survived the first film after being reduced to mush. This also tends to bring up the continuity issue of where are all the other characters from the first film? If Trejo's 'Razor Eddie' is still alive then surely all the other main vampires and fallen bikers are still alive and well too (or undead and well). Plus the vampire bar is clearly a bad small set and doesn't really look like the original films set. This was a real let down for the film seeing as the bar is the main money shot of the franchise, where it all happens so to speak.The film really picks up when all the cops turn up to stop the bank heist and the undead crooks all go berserk. The whole story takes a U-turn and goes from dark vampire splatter horror to an over the top action bonanza with the four baddie vamps gunning down hordes of policemen and S.W.A.T. teams amidst exploding police cars. Remember when Arnie takes down all the cops and cop cars with his minigun in 'T2'? well this is pretty much identical to that accept there is lots of blood and body parts flying around. I can't lie, I really did enjoy this part of the movie as it really changes the pace of the film upping it drastically. The action isn't the best choreographed action you've seen but it does the job and its pretty neat watching these invincible vampires leaping around and taking down various armed police.Like much of the film the effects are all hands-on real time effects using fake blood, prosthetics, heavy makeup, puppets etc...and like the original film it works giving a much grittier 80's feel to the proceedings. There is a touch of CGI for the melting vamp shots which is a bit hokey looking but again like the original film it doesn't detract from the nicely handled gore.I did like this film once things started to actually get going with the vampires, but boy does it take time for that. Much of the run time is a bit dull in all honesty...until the excellent shoot out with the cops. It is a bit frustrating at times too as some shots are badly edited, the sets are pokey, location work is visually unexciting and overall it does look very cheap and cheerful. I can overlook that but geez! here and there it really looks poor. There is a small Bruce Campbell cameo at the start which really feels like its there just to gain more interest with horror fans as again it pointless. Basically most of this film is very average but the violent finale makes up for most of it. The final bit of dialog between Patrick's criminal character and Hopkins' Texas Ranger was hinting to set up a vampire hunting team possibly for the third film, I thought...guess not.Cute bit of info, the character of 'Deputy Edgar McGraw' in this film is the son of 'Sheriff Earl McGraw' from the original film. In the original film Sheriff McGraw is played by Michael Parks who is the real life father of James Parks who plays Deputy McGraw in this sequel.

Caleb B (de) wrote: The greatest bad movie ever made HANDS DOWN

Jeff S (gb) wrote: Heard/read so many good things about this. Joan Rivers co-wrote it. What a let-down.

Marilee A (fr) wrote: The Marijuana Brownie scene with the relatives is a must see

rosemarie s (au) wrote: good about spies & real patriotism... don't take money from the enemy of your country... Richard Widmark was fantastic... cool scene & great attitude & performance from Thelma Ritter's final scene which was fantastic...

James H (nl) wrote: A brilliant silent film, Harold Lloyd is magnificent. Very enjoyable and entertaining. Funny, touching and a fantastically paced movie. Good writing and direction.

David S (ca) wrote: Yes! Charley Varrick, a perfect movie, is a smart clockwork-tight thriller and a forebearer of other perfect movies. Walter Mathau plays a retired stunt pilot turned crop duster (The Last of the Independents) who decides robbing banks would be more exciting than spraying yams. He gets on the wrong side of the mob, who sends evil badass Joe Don Baker to reclaim money that Varrick has stolen. That sounds routine, but talent here molds the routine into something rich and exciting. This is a great movie that commands your attention to the smallest details and rewards that attention. This is Charley Varrick.

Ahmed B (br) wrote: A welcome restart to the "Mission Impossible" movie series.

Jesse O (jp) wrote: This might not even be a horror movie, though it has some hints of suspenseful elements and what not, and Joe Dante has been known for his more offbeat efforts, but much like a lot of 80s horror films, there's a certain charm about it that makes this film an absolute blast to watch. I honestly have no idea what it was, but I just had a lot of fun watching this film. Perhaps it's the more nostalgic approach to filmmaking or how it embraced its sillier aspects. It could also be the fact that the film is actually, in spite of its critical reception on here, really damn good and entertaining. I just think the film does a good job at embracing the zanier aspects and satirizing suburbanites' sometimes intrusiveness upon the lives of others because, somehow, they're bored with their own. Of course, this being satire, it's done in a more exaggerated fashion, where the neighborhood, or most of it, think that the Klopeks, the strange new family, are involved in some pretty weird shit that the Ray, Art and Mark are determined to find out. I do like that the film exists in a plane of reality where almost anything is possible. Not that just anything/everything WILL happen, just the knowledge that it could. It just feels for surreal, yet at the end of the film reality pretty much comes crashing down on this little suburb and it's like a completely different movie for just a few minutes. I thought that was cool, because you think it's all fun and games with these three, but there's very real consequences to their actions. Well, there's very real consequences for like, maybe, 5 minutes. And this is the only part of the film that I didn't really like. The film spends its entire narrative suspecting the Klopeks of bloody murder, Ray, after getting himself almost killed due to being dragged into Art's paranoia, realizes that the Klopeks weren't the monsters, the neighborhood was. He goes on this impassioned speech explaining how everything they did was wrong and how the Klopeks just want to live their life their own way. After this, it turns out that the Klopeks pretty much did everything that was suspected of them, perhaps with the exception of the satanism. I just think it's a film that definitely preys on peoples' views of others different than them or who lead a different life to their own. It was surreal, then it was very real, when it felt like there were gonna be consequences, then it was back to surreal again. It's not like it's a big complaint, but it is one. It's just something that didn't really benefit the film in one way or another. With that said, I still enjoyed the hell out of the film. It is greatly cast. Tom Hanks is a really good comedic actor. This guy is great at everything he does, honestly. But Bruce Dern, Carrie Fisher and Rick Ducommun are all really good here. It's also a very funny film, perhaps not hilarious or anything, but there are some bits that were really good. It's definitely very well-written as well. Some minor complaints aside, I had a blast watching this film. It's just so much fun to watch. It's a film that I wish I had seen sooner. I'd definitely recommend it, it's pretty damn good.

Brad W (mx) wrote: Great Aussie flick about a great part of Aussie history. Able to give a deep insight on what it felt like. Good cast and well made.