Star Wars: Revelations

Star Wars: Revelations

Seers once shaped the path of the Jedi Order. But their visions grew unreliable and the Jedi came to distrust those with the ability. Seers hid their visions or left the Order forever In the wake of the temple's destruction, a power struggle has emerged between Darth Vader, the dark Lord of the Sith, and Zhanna, the Emperor's Hand. Each seeks to eliminate the last of the Jedi and gain The Emperor's favor. Caught between them is one woman who cannot deny the truth of her visions as all race to possess an ancient 'Jedi secret…

The last Jedi fight to survive when they are hunted by the Empire. Taking place between Episodes III and Episode IV . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Star Wars: Revelations torrent reviews

Kenneth P (jp) wrote: Although Jean Reno is great actor

Toshihiko H (es) wrote: Fat Tong looks funny.

Tobias L (ca) wrote: They tried to rehash an old idea with a great cast and a poor script. They thought they were crafting a genre classic. They thought they could make me laugh. THEY WERE WRONG.

Justine D (ag) wrote: A top notch Canadain thriller. Shows what can happen wioth future relations with the US. Great acting by Leslie Hop and Paul Gross

Arslan K (jp) wrote: This is a very very low budget version of alice in the wonderland, I have never watched a movie where afterwards I wanted to throw up seriously no joke well there are few others to but this takes the first spot. The art was somewhat cool and that it. The acting sucked, the story was written by a person who recently sniffed a lot of drugs an the music was just awful and so were the animation. The voice acting by the creature sucked. This is quite possibly the biggest waste of my life and waste of electricity. The people who made this film should be asked to never make a film ever again or take part on any films. They focused way to much on the visual and forgot that a movie needs more than visual....it needs a story. Overall this was a godawful movie and I know this review was harsh but watch the movie and then compare this to the movie I would not recommend this to any one but the military cause if needed this could be a very useful tool for torture.

Olli J (it) wrote: just another "narc-drama".

Timothy S (it) wrote: Steven Seagal isn't the only action movie star to continue making movies long after his prime. The difference is that the rest of them are still pretty charismatic in the twilight of their career. and Seagal has never been that. His early movies were fun because of his fighting skill, and now that that has passed him by, there's not much left. "Black Dawn" is one of the worst of his newer efforts, a ridiculous and boring thriller with grandiose ambitions on a miniscule budget. Seagal does better with smaller scale projects, and this lofty premise bout terrorists trying to blow up Los Angeles, is just too much for him to pull off. There are too many characters, so much so that their motivations and goals begin to get cloudy and confused. There's a lot going on and none of it is worth following. Seagal continues to embarrass himself by the obvious use of a stunt double who looks nothing like him in most scenes. The one brief fight scene he has looks like it was filmed while he was in the other room eating a bagel. The horrible CGI used in the finale is appallingly bad when the nuclear device is detonated over the ocean, but the strange thing is that computer effects are used in key scenes to presumably keep the budget down and the aging star safe. Look at the scene on the back of a truck or the helicopter at the end, and it's all phony. "Black Dawn" is budget filmmaking at its worse, an attempt to create a product because there might be demand for it overseas. It's slow-moving, cheap-looking and will entertain absolutely no one. If you've stuck with Seagal for this long, you deserve better.

WS W (ru) wrote: I dunno. Perhaps I would love it more if I had watched it 30, or even 20 years ago (although I think I had watched it some times ago when it was on TV before).

luwanda k (br) wrote: funny, but sad at the end

Kenny N (kr) wrote: A remarkable achievement. See this, whoever you are.

Allan C (nl) wrote: This weak sequel really makes you appreciate how well made the original film was done. I remember this film being inferior to the first, but I didn't remember it being this bad. Steven Spielberg was a writer and producer on the original film and also an unofficial co-director (some claim he really did direct a majority of the film). He is completely absent from the credits in this sequel and it really shows. The family warmth and little moments that Spielberg does so well (the pet bird funeral, the counting between the thumder and lighting, or the banter with the neighbors) is all absent in this film and what is there feels forced and not at all natural. The sequel has no build up and starts with the supernatural right away. Julian Beck is effectively creepy as the ghostly preacher (borrowing liberally from "Night of the Hunter") chasing after little Carol Ann. JoBeth Williams and Craig T. Nelson are both good again as the family patriarchs. The story is essentially that the family moves in with Williams' mom when the poltergeist activity begins again in a series of set pieces that could have been dropped in any number of horror films, which don't serve to forward the story at all, as they did in the original film. The tequila worm scene always stuck in my mind, but it really seems more like something out of a Troma movie and not a smart haunted house story like the original film. The original film is probably one of the best horror films of all time. This film seems akin to a poorly made direct-to-video sequel. I remember thinking this films as worth watching for the special effects, but by today's standards they don't hold up, which leave little to offer besides a good cast who are better than the film deserves. Weak!

Skyla B (jp) wrote: I've seen the movie a million times its lovely