The Desert Trail

The Desert Trail

Rodeo star John Scott and his gambler friend Kansas Charlie are wrongly accused of armed robbery. They leave town as fast as they can to go looking for their own suspects in Poker City.

Rodeo star John Scott and his gambler friend Kansas Charlie are wrongly accused of armed robbery. They leave town as fast as they can to go looking for their own suspects in Poker City. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

The Desert Trail torrent reviews

Mattias P (nl) wrote: "Of Gods and Men" is a compelling film, based on actual events, about eight monks at a monastery in the mountains of Algeria in the 1990's. One day they find themselves caught in a civil war between Islamic fundaments and the army. They are forced to decide whether they will stay or if they will leave the village. One of my favourite moments in the film was when one of the monks began to doubt himself and how useful he is to the community. One of the villagers responded "we're the birds, and you are the branch". They find themselves constantly asking the question "should we leave" and Christian is the one who fights for them to refuse the help of the corrupt and violent army while staying and helping the people in the village. Too many movies tend to show these characters as someone with perfect morals when the reality of this situation if that anyone would doubt themselves. I believe that showing them doubting themselves only makes them more human. Xavier Beauvois did an excellent job at portraying this people and showing that they are only human. Throughout the movie they are constantly reminded that it would not be cowardly to leave and are always encouraged to leave. The decision splits them however they are reminded that leaving would be the same as dying and that they should not fear death if they are free men. When one of the monks first finds about the death of an imam there is a very powerful scene in which they use low key lighting to illustrate the mood. The monks are all praying in their monastery and there is no music or dialog between the characters. It was just silence in this scene and it fit the movie very well to display what they are going through and the effect it is having on them. I found that low key lighting was often used to create an chiaroscuro effect. They tend to use this effect to illustrate that the monks are the light in the darkness and how they are a symbol of hope for the village. I felt Xavier did a great job at showing the daily life of these monks. There was not really any music in this movie. There were only the chants of these monks and I believe that is very difficult to do well. However, it was done extremely well and the movie did not need any music to set the mood of a scene as it was displayed excellently. The only scene that contained music was the "last supper" scene and it was the most compelling scene in the movie for me. They all sat down for their last meal and knowing what would happen to them they enjoyed their last day. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and would recommend it to anyone who is interested in seeing it.

Shaunak S (de) wrote: This guy is hilarious. A great sense of humour and though it may not show in his writing, every word of his is funny.

Gord C (de) wrote: This should be in all highschools...

Alice (nl) wrote: Dan Mott: Billy's dead and he still has a better chance of getting laid than I do.

Ibraheem M (us) wrote: Though sometimes stupid and only frightens a 10 years old, but it is still worth a shot and features some gags.

Christopher L (br) wrote: [i][b]The Love Letter[/b][/i] - Little more than a predictable love fantasy, this one has a few cute moments and a few hilarious ones from the always-funny Ellen DeGeneres. The film, though, at only 88 minutes, is a bit long. [b]** (out of ****) C[i]Maid in Manhattan[/i][/b] - Silly update of the [i]Cinderella[/i] story with J. Lo as a maid in a Manhattan hotel who falls for a lazy Ralph Fiennes. Boring! [b]*1/2 (out of ****) D+[i]Mambo Italiano[/i][/b] - Silly, cliched gay love story. Paul Sorvino is fun, though. [b]*1/2 (out of ****) C-[i]Miami Rhapsody[/i][/b] - Cliches, cliches, cliches for sure, but there are some really funny moments and some good performances. [b]**1/2 (out of ****) B-[i]My Best Friend's Wedding[/i][/b] - I love this movie. The only reason it's not a 10/10 is because of some of the slapstick humor, which is taken a bit far at times. Otherwise, it's a fabulously acted, wonderfully atypical romance. I fell in love with it. [b]***1/2 (ou tof ****) A-[/b]

Gun (de) wrote: Nah. Too many repeated jokes for my taste.

Jack D (au) wrote: A complete ripoff of one of the greatest horror films of all time, especially since it came out just a year after.

Letcia Saoki L (fr) wrote: A very peculiar movie, and amazingly well executed. I can't tell if I liked it or not, though.

Daniel G (nl) wrote: This movie was really bad. I don't remember what I thought inwas going to see when I recorded it, but whatever it was, is not there. I was going to give it only 1/2 a star but in retrospect it was a pretty good performance by Anne Bancroft. That star represents the fact that she is the only Light that shines in this movie.

Steve S (es) wrote: **1/2 (out of four) The 1950's loved their bible epics and this one is one huge production. In fact it was the years biggest film. But bigger isn't better and the staging is not memorable. Two great actors try and save it. Gregory Oeck stars as David. He is a man of God, but when he gets a looka Bathsheba, played by Susan Hayward, he forgets about his wife and goes after the beauty. Not even Gregory Peck can breathe live into this overlong drivel.

Jarrin R (fr) wrote: Behind the scenes look at the Nazi story. Very thought provoking to see these things that we don't hear about in history class.

Phil H (mx) wrote: Yes that's right kids, that hideous Eddie Murphy movie is actually based on a very famous set of children's novels by Hugh Lofting and before the modern revamp came this far far superior children's movie. This film is actually based on three of the Dolittle novels, all fused together, but you'd never have guessed that.The film feels like its set in stages, first off we meet Matthew Mugg and Tommy Stubbins in the whimsical little English port town of Puddleby-on-the-marsh. Once we the audience are acquainted with this cute couple its off to see the doctor in his typically traditionally beautiful little English cottage on the hill. From there on we watch the trio get stuck in various ordeals involving various animals as they try to raise money to go on a voyage to find the Giant Great Pink Sea-Snail. Eventually the second leg of the movie kicks in as the trio and the obligatory beautiful female set sail into the unknown. The third part of movie would involve the crew getting shipwrecked but finding land, land that conveniently happens to harbour the Pink Sea-Snail.Where to begin?! I was virtually raised with this film (amongst other classics), as a kid I hated it truth be told, probably down to forced repeat viewings but as I have matured I can see what a fantastic picture it really is. The movie didn't perform too well upon release which really amazed me frankly as I personally think this is way better than say...'Mary bloody Poppins'. It didn't help that Disney's 'Jungle Book' came out around the same time of course.The village scenes filmed in Wiltshire, UK are absolutely gorgeous to look at they really are, if ever you wanted to see the perfect little olde worlde English hamlet then voila. Unfortunately they had to use sets eventually down to the locals not liking what was happening to their little home but I don't see the issue really. The fishing port mockup with farm animals, cats and period dressed locals is so quaint and lovely looking, probably lots of droppings everywhere but hey come on! different times they were.There really isn't a scene in the entire movie which isn't bright bold and colourful with excellent detailed props and costumes. The locations were magnificently chosen and really brought the picture to life. You can easily tell the sets of Sea-Star Island compared to the real locations shoots of St Lucia, had it all been sets it clearly would not have been half as spectacular visually. Personally (apart from Puddleby at the start) I think the circus sequences and sets were the most impressive and enjoyable. Being a simple circus tent scenario it wouldn't have been too hard to pull off but you gotta remember everything is period set within the Victorian era. This setting is what makes the movie so attractive to look at with the lavish Victorian decorations sets props costumes etc...Even more so within the circus scenes with classic clowns, strong men, bearded ladies, big butch bald guys...and many with thick waxed moustaches.Its the circus scenes where I think we see the best performance which is from Attenborough as Albert Blossom the ringmaster. His physical appearance was perfect for the role and the added makeup with obligatory fat tash really nailed this character. His cheerful loud brash ringmaster with a northern accent is a sheer joy to behold as he prances around in that classic top hat and red tails attire, along with his funny little tweed looking suit with breast pocket watch. Its also here we come across the most memorable song 'I've never seen anything like it' sung merrily by Attenborough with all his circus folk in their various colourful patchwork clothes. If your kids don't enjoy these sequences then by thunder I'll...errm be surprised.Yes the film is a musical much like many of these old classic family films and admittedly no the songs aren't overly memorable (apart from the one I mentioned), but for their scenes they work. The cast in general are good but do pail in comparison to the epic Rex Harrison. Its not all about Harrison though, Anthony Newley is very enjoyable to watch as Irishman Matthew Mugg, the Irish always fit into olde worlde eras well. Samantha Eggar is extremely beautiful and dreamy despite her character being a spoilt pain in the arse and I also liked Geoff Holder as Willie Shakespeare the Sea-Star Island tribal leader...very well spoken. Finally I can't not mention Peter Bull as the fat rich and highly aristocratic General Bellowes who is still quite the intimidating character even after all these years (used to worry me as a kid).What is also surprising is the amount of practical effects and real animals used (well not really seeing as there was no CGI). They really did have tonnes of various animals all over the place for certain scenes throughout. Many seem to have just been shoved into the scene but obviously some were trained and its quite impressive really. Naturally the larger effects do look hokey as hell nowadays, when I was a kid the Giant Great Pink Sea-Snail always amazed me, now its a bit shitty really. Hey I'm not having a go but its very rigid, it clearly moves awkwardly if at all and it has a weird almost human expression for a face. The Giant Lunar Moth also looks pretty bad these days but the scene hides much of it with darkness so it does work better. Again the overly massive whale that somehow manages to push an entire island looks pretty darn scary in all honesty, its also massively massive...and fake. Despite that they all work in the context of the film, that being a fairytale of wonders...plus it would be so cool if they were real.Honourable mention to the Tibetan Pushmi-pullyu which I always thought was a real animal when I was very young. As I got older I thought it was a real animal with some kind of effect stuck on it, now I realise its two blokes in a suit...isn't it?! Gotta hand it to them...it looks pretty good, quite realistic...apart from when it starts to dance. Hey its a kids fantasy film people! The movie is long and crammed packed with story which is both overwhelming but (I think) acceptable. Even though there is lots going on, various sub plots that must be completed before the main plot kicks in like some kind of videogame and quite a few flashbacks and montages...at no point did I ever get confused. The whole premise is so simple and fun personally I don't notice the run time. It all feels like a more in depth version of Disney's 'Bedknobs and Broomsticks' what with all the fanciful objectives and dialog flying about the place.So if you can ignore the fact that the original novels were supposedly full of racism (take into account when they were written though), and ignore the horrendous 1998 remake and its following direct to DVD sequels (easy to forget this crap trust me), I think this is a great film for all the family. I think Fleischer did a great job directing and Bricusse did a tremendous job of adapting all three novels into the one film. A delightfully charming captivating timeless ride alongside the good doctor and his menagerie of animals.

Chase J (mx) wrote: It actually looks better than the original. Better team (Crank's Neveldine and Taylor) and more action. I'll be looking forward to this one.

Kyle T (jp) wrote: If you like a good philosophy/theology debate you'll need to watch this . Great movie .

Ashleigh S (fr) wrote: Amazing songs, amazing story, amazing Streisand!

Matthew P (ru) wrote: There's a line that you can't cross when making a film like Rollerball. When you come to the point in the production -- and this can be as early as when you first read the script but are being offered a ton of money and therefore are moving ahead on the film anyway -- when you realize that the movie isn't going to be good, you have to at least keep it competent. You can't just give up and make the film both silly, stupid and incomprehensible. Unfortunately, Rollerball is all three of those things, although it's played so straight that there isn't a single laugh given by any of the actors within it. We begin somewhere in America, watching a street race involving people lying down on skateboards and racing through traffic without being able to see where they're going. It's like the luge, except with a much greater chance of death. The police are aware of this, as they show up with an entire squadron in order to stop two daredevils willing to risk their lives for a bit of fun. One of them crashes, while the other, Jonathan (Chris Klein), is picked up by his friend, Marcus (LL Cool J), just narrowly avoiding the seemingly endless number of cops who dedicate their time to stopping this travesty. Marcus informs Jonathan that over in Europe and parts of Asia, there's a mysterious game called "Rollerball," which pays big money for Americans to come over to play. Jonathan, a wannabe NHLer, wants to stay in America to pursue his dream, but after being dropped off and finding out that the cops are still pursuing him, he decides to board a plane and join Marcus' team. At least, I assume that's what happened, as the film lets us jump to our own conclusions. I swear this is true: The very next scene has Jonathan on a team, and as the main star, presumably after one incredible game, as he still goes around referring to himself as the "new player." At this point, I was trying to remember if Jonathan was the name of the guy we met earlier, or if he was going to be rival of the new player. Nope, they're the same person, and we have no idea how he got to this position. He's not even that good once the Rollerball games begin. Sure, he's talented, but so is everyone else. Not even the Rollerball parts of Rollerball make sense. That is the single thing that the filmmakers needed to get right. I could forgive terrible plotting, acting, editing -- even the lighting frequently got in the way of my enjoyment -- but if the titular sport is done poorly, I'm sorry, but we're pretty much done here. The rules are explained to us by a television broadcaster played by Paul Heyman, although they never factor in. All I could understand was that there is a figure-eight track, and you need to throw a metallic ball into a goal to score. Apart from that, the rules are unclear. They're thrown out during the final game anyway, which made me wonder what the purpose was to include them. "So that the stakes can be raised at the end," the film would argue, although that purpose is fulfilled by the girl being captured and needing rescue. The Rollerball scenes are pieced together without a coherent thought, images are interspersed that do not connect, there's no logic to anything that happens, and we frequently cut away to see Jean Reno as the businessman make funny quips in a faux Russian accent. Oh, and there are motorcycles on each team, even though most people are wearing roller blades on their feet. Why? Yes, there ends up being a plot involve Reno's character, television ratings and a cable deal, not to mention a rebellion because -- I don't really know. This is about as incoherent as a film can get. I know that there were characters but why they cared about each other or would risk their lives so that others don't die gets ignored. I know that Jonathan and Aurora (Rebecca Romijyn-Stamos) fall in love, although the "why" is once again not brought up. I guess it doesn't matter; she's there to become Princess Peach anyway. I should mention that there was a film in the 70s that was also titled "Rollerball." It was similar to this one, except that it made sense. Surprisingly, it was actually set more in the future than this 2002 installment is, taking place in 2018 as opposed to 2005. I don't know if this film would have been improved if it was set more than 40 years after its release, but it would have at least helped with the dystopic idea that tried to be utilized. Yeah, there are poor people in the world. Jonathan and Curtis get paid -- as one character says -- 100x as well as the people working in mines. There's definitely a class disparity at work here, and this was kind of a big point in the original. So that's missing, even though there are portions of the film when I thought it was going to be brought up and focused on. That doesn't happen, and instead, we focus on a non-important plot or -- and I wish I was kidding here -- a fifteen minute sequence shot in "night vision," despite none of the characters wearing night vision goggles. Rollerball is ridiculous. I don't think it could be something different. But it takes itself too seriously, which is a problem when your material is this bad, is handled poorly, and doesn't make sense. Nothing in this film works. Go watch the original if you want to see basically the same film, but slightly better. Otherwise, you're better watching any sport on cable. Even watching basketball, which I consider to be the most boring sport you can see, would be more enjoyable. This is a terrible film on all possible levels, and you're better off using your time for pretty much anything else.