. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Swarnam torrent reviews

rabanne m (it) wrote: very good and action-packed

Luke B (mx) wrote: If there's one thing that truly terrifies me it's wasps. I hate the buggers, so I was hoping this B-Movie would actually give me a few chills. I was left unsatisfied. It's still your average B-Movie with fairly decent special effects, but there's nothing to set it apart. The wasps even start controlling humans. Eventually is spirals into a government cover-up weapons program thing. Englund is a bit too slimy and Kruegerish to really connect with the audience or blend into the film like he did in Red. Good for a few chuckles but rests back on it's B-Movie spine, rather than trying to be anything more.

Darryll H (au) wrote: decent bit of cheese

I dont know w (mx) wrote: When is it gonna stop?

kelly (de) wrote: The primary problem with this film is that the director imposes far too much of himself which is irrelevant to the film's purpose. While it is important to understand his relationship with this book, it is not necessary to watch several minutes of montage with voice-over of the director talking about his personal life, e.g. his schedule, his career, his family, things which in his perspective may have affected his making of the film, but are really just without impact or purpose. For being an avid reader, this obviously green doc director does not seem to understand much of the publishing industry, constantly questioning "How could this book slip through?" and yet never researching (reading up on) the publishing industry. His interviews are awkward; he doesn't always ask the right questions, but often his interviewee is intelligent enough to supplement these answers anyway. As a fiction writer, some moments tug at me emotionally, especially the agent's reaction to certain books and authors that are mentioned. This is really a movie for writers, not giving much informative insight into artistic process or the publishing industry, but more mere self-indulgence than anything.

John B (ru) wrote: I thought this was a funny and enjoyable story despite the ratings. Nice ending

Rise M (es) wrote: this fim was really good.this is most definatley one of my favourite movies,which has a wicked story line, this is a film you could watch over again.

Eric H (jp) wrote: Overall this film introduces us to the different worlds in the 60's. It shows us that even if our lives are completely different it doesn't mean that we ourselves are different as James Fox's and Mick Jagger's characters show when they become one.Sure, the 60's stylings of the film have dated horribly, but go beyond the (admittedly stunning) visual style and you will find something challenging and unique, although after recently seeing "Persona" for the first time, I might dispute that last claim. Still, over thirty years later, "Performance" has the sweating, cloying, oozing, in-your-face quality that few films of its time can match.Absolutely one of my favorite films, the philosophical complexity of this rara avis has rarely been seen elsewhere in the history of the cinema. (Kieslowski comes to mind.) "Performance" explores the idea of the beholder becoming the beheld, an idea brought to the fore by the film's short opening sequence: you see the jet, you become the jet. (This, of course, doesn't mean anything until this idea is explored within the story -- then it's, "Oh, THAT'S what that opening bit was!") On top of this, there's a great story, some nice acting, a decent amount of pretense (the film's one big flaw), and a few stunning moments. In particular, a musical number -- and this film is NOT a musical) -- is one of the most staggeringly-original and (to me) wonderful moments in the history of motion pictures. A magnificent work of art, a work of art in the true sense of the word, a must-see even for those who might not enjoy it.

Daniel Y (ag) wrote: Die Hard: With a Vengeance is the third entry in the Die Hard series and it shows that the series is not going to die hard (until It's a Good Day to Die Hard). Reason Being is that though the second one was ok and was a bit to over the top, campy and clichd at some points, this one is never that but rather a more successful and better sequel that actually ties into the first one, I won't spoil how but it definately works. The films main protagonists are Bruce Willis as John McClain, as always, and Samuel L. Jackson as Zeus and they both bring terrific performanes and both have great chemistry and wirk off one another beautifully and the same goes for the villain Peter played by Jeremy Irons. Another thing in this movie that is terrific is the action and tension, because, unlike it's predecessor's,John Mclain is everywhere and not solidified in one location which makes way for tons of great ideas and plenty of room for stellar action. The one flaw that I had with this movie, much like everyone else, is the ending (Now they're are going to be SPOILERS coming up so if you haven't seen it yet go see it than come back and finish reading). The film decides to go one direction which is the bad guy gets away and the heores lose which would've worked, because it's a new take on a Die Hard movie that we haven't seen before and I would've been all in for it, but unfortunately the film immediately changes the idea and has an asprin bottle tell him where they are hiding out at and when they're is only like 10 to 8 minutes left in the movie him and the NYPD go and destroy Peter and his entire army in a short amount of time and then the film ends making it feel rushed and leaving you to wonder "Why didn't they just keep the ending where they lost because it would've been better. But, in the end, Die Hard: With a Vengeance is a great sequel that surpasses it's predecessor and is a great time.

Andy R (jp) wrote: Anyone who casts Tara Reid should be fired.