Speed & Angels

Speed & Angels

Inspired by the passion of two young Navy officers, director Peyton Wilson captures Jay and Meagan as they pursue their childhood dream of becoming naval aviators flying the F-14 Tomcat. Shot in epic Hi Definition, the aerial footage and stunning cockpit photography provide a dramatic backdrop for the more universal story of what it’s like to fight for your dreams. From dogfights in the Nevada desert, to night landings on aircraft carriers in the Atlantic what begins as a story of realizing a childhood dream turns into a story of fighting for one's life.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:95 minutes
  • Release:2008
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:angel,   army,   navy,  

Young Navy Officers, Jay and Meagan, have dreamt of becoming naval aviators flying the F-14 Tomcat since their childhoods. The film follows their two-and-a-half year journey as it takes ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Speed & Angels torrent reviews

Jim L (us) wrote: This is one of the worst movies of 2013! Not funny and not creative. A must miss film!

Kandis A (es) wrote: Lovely storyline. Great movie as well. I love how in the credits they showed the movie the kids were making to be submitted in the Super 8 film contest!!!

Steve D (es) wrote: Incredibly underrated and impeccably cast. A fascinating look at the everyday struggles of the presidency.

Tim R (mx) wrote: A darkly clever failure...Yes, I get it, life as a mere corporate cog is soul-sucking. Watch Brazil instead.

David K (fr) wrote: (warning don't read the full flixster description of the film since it has spoilers) what begins as a subdued film becomes an emotional journey full of surprises. a unique film in which the protagonist perspective isn't always the same person.

jm s (mx) wrote: so much drama it is a flop for srk concept is good but presentation kill the test

Ken C (gb) wrote: Funny characters performed by talented actors and backed up by a good script. This is a very entertaining political satire that keeps you invested all the way through and never loses it's grip.

Private U (ca) wrote: Excellent acting from all ends! Splendid!

Terri H (de) wrote: No thankyou - Not interested.

Harry W (kr) wrote: An Alfred Hitchcock film led by Paul Newman and Julie Andrews, Torn Curtain sounded like an excellent line up of talent.Torn Curtain is clearly one of Alfred Hitchcock's much larger scale productions. Despite maintaining a small budget, Torn Curtain covers a lot of ground with its complex cold war subject matter as it explores its setting of Copenhagen and beyond. The scenery for the film is beautiful. As with all Alfred Hitchcock films, the cinematography does a great job of establishing the atmosphere of each scene, and it also helps to ensure that the eyes of viewers catch the sight of the beautiful scenery all over the place. The production design for the film also looks good. Various visual elements of the film are much like his preceding film Marnie in that they have a seemingly intentionally artificial look to them, but they work as part of the German Expressionism style of some of his works. He is able to pull it off, so Torn Curtain works as a visual experience.It is just unfortunate that it does not succeed in many other areas.The atmosphere for the film is not as thrilling as in many of Alfred Hitchcock's better films because the tense themes lie in the subtext of the tale. The problem is that in contrast with many of his superior efforts, the film moves too slow for much of an atmosphere to build. The musical score is used sporadically in the film at a quantity too insufficient to truly make the atmosphere all that great. The cinematography of the film does its part, but as a whole there is too much talking stretched out over the film and too little tense situations for it to really establish any sense of strength. The feature just ends up and overly long and slow film which is nothing short of tedious to sit through. And despite having the best intentions and some good moments, the entire feature fails to feel solid. There is no consistency in Torn Curtain because it has some moments which move along at a decent pace such as much of the latter part of the film, but the entire experience is mainly worn down by those which are little more than extensive periods of dull dialogue which take too long to get to the point and do not add enough to the situations.The general premise in the film as well as a lot of its situations and concepts seem reminiscent of the 1964 psychological thriller novel The Two Faces of January which was adapted into a film in 2014 that was praised for being in the style of an Alfred Hitchcock film. I know that considering there is a 48 year difference between the films comparing them must take a lot of elements into account, but the simple fact is that it feels like The Two Faces of January was the film that Torn Curtain wanted to be. But one of the main problems with Torn Curtain is that the film doesn't feel personal enough. If it wasn't promoted as such an Alfred Hitchcock feature then there would be little in the film to actually identify that as despite some of the visual elements of the tale being common among his works, the film is not focused enough on characters to work. Alfred Hitchcock is known for his twisted films which are very character focused, while Torn Curtain seems to be directed a lot more at the bigger picture. The bigger picture is somewhat simplistic with the smaller elements being rather dull, so it is not one of his better films. All in all, Torn Curtain is a spy thriller, but it favours being a spectacle over being a character driven film. Unfortunately, the larger spectacle becomes a lot more about style than about a good story and in the process gets caught up with a slow pace and more length than it knows what to do with. It does not feel like a real Alfred Hitchcock film because it is boring and uninvolving without much focus on the little details of the feature.But I will admit that Torn Curtain is scripted with potential. It has some interesting subtext in its themes and a lot of strong dialogue to it which gives the actors chances to prove themselves, even if only to a limited extent.The material in Torn Curtain requires Paul Newman to be very subtle which unfortunately stands in the way of him performing his finest dramatic talents. But his natural charm is still there. He delivers all of his lines with a sense of determined sophistication and involvement, even if it is not the most obvious. He makes a charming presence as the lead in Torn Curtain simply because he transfers a natural level of charisma to the part, so Paul Newman contributes his part.Julie Andrews is also a fine presence. The Academy Award winning actress takes on a much more vulnerable character in Torn Curtain where one of the most defining aspects is the relationship that she shares with Paul Newman in character. But unsurprisingly, the chemistry the two actors share is great. When it comes to standing alone, Julie Andrews does a good job bringing a sense of dramatic spirit into her role and conveying the emotional stress of being dragged through all kinds of turmoils and conflicts. She maintains a sense of consistency, delivering all the confusion and fear as the story progresses through different settings and plot dynamics. Julie Andrews remains adamant the entire time and delivers a performance which is sophisticated and develops well over the course of the story, starting out strong and only getting better from then on.But despite its strong visual elements and decent efforts from its cast, Torn Curtain ends up a decidedly lesser effort from Alfred Hitchcock which lacks a personal touch from him, leaving it as a dull and overlong film derivative of The Two Faces of January.

Mariano P (us) wrote: Pelcula tpica, lenta, previsible, pero ms que nada (ms que todo) ABURRIDAAAA... Me imagino que hay que tener en cuenta el contexto, tal vez en el ao 1970 puede haber sido interesante, pero no creo que tampoco mucho, por eso no termino de entender tan altos puntajes en las crticas... INSOPORTABLE.

Niels S (kr) wrote: Intenst. om end lovlig usandsynligt gidseldrama.

Winston H (au) wrote: I think the studio decided to go without a director for this movie. All the elements of a fun film, and somehow it ended up being a chore to watch. Seems as if they were afraid the plot would be too difficult to understand, so they dumbed-down the role of the 3 main kids to the level of annoying stupidity. I wonder if the sequel is still on.

Daniel B (nl) wrote: Some Scorcese's influence but creates an atmosphere of its own. Has a few twists and great acting.

Andrew W (de) wrote: Some genuinely funny moments save this from being a total disaster. The film has way too many long dead dull spots that the viewer has to endure to get to those funny moments, however. At least it doesn't try to be scary.