Superman II

Superman II

Three escaped criminals from the planet Krypton test the Man of Steel's mettle. Led by Gen. Zod, the Kryptonians take control of the White House and partner with Lex Luthor to destroy Superman and rule the world. But Superman, who attempts to make himself human in order to get closer to Lois, realizes he has a responsibility to save the planet.

Superman agrees to sacrifice his powers to marry Lois, unaware that three Kryptonian criminals he inadvertently released are conquering Earth. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Superman II torrent reviews

WS W (it) wrote: Like THE TWILIGHT ZONE.

Elvira L (br) wrote: Cute movie, but way too childishly made.

Eric D (mx) wrote: Possibly the worst movie I've ever seen

Nichole C (ru) wrote: bad war movie...even worst zombie movie

Jevro W (ag) wrote: So trippy .... Love it

Rhea G (it) wrote: much better when watching with the hubby!

Jeffrey C (au) wrote: Typical Shunji which have impressed me with the unorthodox narration. A pathetic journey on redemption for a group of lost souls.

Jason S (ag) wrote: sounds mega awesome. By that I mean total shit

Charlie M (au) wrote: Woody Allen's first foray into serious drama is inspired by his favorite director, Swedish legend Ingmar Bergman. Quiet and subdued with natural lighting and minimal music this is a living room drama where operatic emotions contained within modern manners.There's a certain beauty to the stillness and restraint shown in this movie. We see the ocean at their beach house only with large tempestuous waves crashing at a pristine, beige beach. However, all these privileged artists can be a strain to watch as they writhe around in their joylessness. I'm used to Woody's tortured artists with their lithium abuse, but it's easier to bear when humor is involved. The warmth in this comes from Maureen Stapleton as their father's new lover. She upsets them all at first, but she lives life with such gusto and kindness that she wins them over. This is a sharp contrast to their icy, grey mother who flies off the handle at every turn, and is a burden to behold.What little joy exists in this movie cannot overwhelm the downer of a family paralyzed by intellectualism & fear of death. Interiors is very well-made movie, but very hard to enjoy watching.

Grayson D (jp) wrote: With this cast i would have expected this to be much better. It's not bad at all but could have been a classic.

Amasa G (nl) wrote: This movie is killer. It capitalizes on its absurdist feel and it's one of the greats when it comes to super formalism. It is almost impossible to tire of this film.

Simon D (ca) wrote: An indie film with a grumpy, synical outcast girl in doctor Martins (how did Ellen Page not get this role?). Surprisingly, this is more funny than it would at first appear and turns out to be a pretty good film.

Ethan P (kr) wrote: Groundhog Day is an exploration of an intriguing idea. It isn't an aesthetic experiment or a thrilling adventure. It actually looks fairly average and hum drum. Bill is stuck in small, dinky town on an overcast day and the cast is fairly average looking. The brilliance of the film is rooted in its original story, that the narcissistic weatherman Phil Connors is stuck living the same day over and over again with no foreseeable end. It is fascinating to watch as Phil slowly discovers his predicament, indulges in debauchery, descends into desperation and in the end, learns to be a better man and care about other people. It is even cooler that it's Bill Murray. This is a fantastic display of his dramatic range and deadpan comedic talent. It's a sweet story, but it isn't wholesome. There's drinking, sex, swearing, off color comments and some awkward exchanges. Groundhog isn't perfect, but it also succeeds on the fact that it was consistently engaging and the film was edited brilliantly. The "same-day" concept was understood, but not tedious. It is a modest, but entirely interesting exploration of human nature and humor.

ScubaSteve Walter M (ag) wrote: The last good film from Cage before he went sour. It's a one of a kind story. But somehow, whenever I watch this, there's a depressing feeling about it.

Jan v (fr) wrote: In short: Well-made semi-documentary about Milgram's famous obedience experiments. This semi-documentary about Milgram's famous obedience experiments succeeds very well in its prime purpose to show the average layman what these experiments were all about and how they were actually performed. We see it all happening with our own eyes, in a clean laboratory-like environment with tape recorders all around, and witnesses (sometimes behind glass, other times in plain view) who record everything noteworthy as inherent part of the proceedings. When behind glass they proved very useful to throw some comments in our direction. On average, a consistent 65% of volunteers went to the end with lethal voltages administered, in spite of cries of pain and other alarming noises from the receiving side. These experiments are repeated with hundreds of volunteers of various backgrounds, races and sexes. Actual numbers may vary, but the 65% rule of thumb remains unchallenged. As a side benefit, Milgram's family life is included too. We see how he met his wife, and we see two children appear later on. The role of his wife is to add some elements potentially considered by the ideal viewer, like how women would behave in these experiments. After this suggestion is honored we see that it really makes no difference in the statistical outcome. The participation of his wife may attract people who avoid boring documentaries as a rule, and I think that it was a good idea to give her a visible role in the script to make it acceptable for a broader audience. Also adding a bit to the context where the above happened, is that we see fragments of Eichmann's trial shown on TV, that being a contemporary issue at the time (1961). We see and hear part of Eichmann's statement where he explicitly says that he was only following orders, and that everything he did was backed by his superiors. The link is obvious, and it may explain a lot of the hoopla around the publication of Milgram's experiments. Main protagonists in the experiment in the form of a role play are a "pupil" and a "teacher", the latter asking questions and punishing each wrong answer with electric shocks of increasing strength. Unnoticed by the teacher is that the pupil role is in fact played by a tape recorder, producing the actual cries of pain and requests for help. We also see that teacher and pupil shake hands afterwards, demonstrating that no one was actually severely wounded in the proceedings. The teacher assumes that the real purpose of the experiment lies in studying the pupil who has to learn under duress. But we know that the teacher actually has the main role in the play, while finding out how far someone will go in administering pain to the pupil on every wrong answer. The real pressure is actually coming from the laboratory-coated authority figure behind the teacher's back, who states to assume all responsibility and insists that the experiment is completed in full. At first I was wondering about the many scenes where Milgram speaks directly to us, the viewers, even during a social visit to a colleague (with respective wives), where he detaches himself from the conversation every now and then to make a point directly to us. It took some time to get used to this approach. In hindsight I prefer it very much above the traditional wise-crack voice-over that has become a nuisance in almost any documentary. There were two instances where Milgram was followed by an elephant while he spoke to us, peculiarly unnoticed by the others who walked around. I assume it refers to the proverbial "while elephant in the room", something that will be missed by viewers who are not well versed in the English language. Anyway, we get ample chance to hear Milgram explain that he himself was surprised by the results. The dramatized semi-documentary format serves its purpose, and succeeds very well in providing an overview of all arguments pro and con about these experiments, especially the controversial and thought provoking ones. Precisely this aspect is very important in my opinion, as it prevents our own objections from becoming manifest, most of these caused by lack of knowledge about the real circumstances and the real objectives of Milgram's experiments. As an illustration, we see other psychological experiments carried out, like people within a crowd staring above while we observe most bystanders following the example in spite of nothing interesting to see. We see another experiment in an elevator, where people feel uneasy when all others look in an opposite direction, and we see them inventing excuses to change their position to comply with the rest. On the other hand, some of the experiments failed in spite of their good intentions. As mentioned by Milgram himself on one occasion "Not all my ideas are brilliant". Nevertheless, the other experiments shown were all very interesting and new to me, but none was world shaking and none would ever arouse the level of controversy that his famous obedience experiments did.