The unemployed trombone player Glenn Miller is always broken, chasing his sound to form his band and hocking his instrument in the pawn house to survive. When his friend Chummy MacGregor is hired to play in the band of Ben Pollack, the band-leader listens to one Glenn's composition and invites him to join his band. While traveling to New York, Glenn visits his former girlfriend Helen Berger, in Boulder, Colorado, and asks her to wait for him. Two years later he quits the band and proposes Helen that moves to New York to marry him. After the success of "Moonlight Serenade", Glenn Miller's band becomes worldwide known and Glenn and Helen and their two children have a very comfortable life. Duting the World War II, Glenn enlists in the army and travels to Europe to increase the moral of the allied troops. In the Christmas of 1944, he travels from London to Paris for a concert to be broadcast; however his plane is never found in the tragic flight. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
|Download||The Glenn Miller Story||720p||57||27||813.67 MB|
|Download||The Glenn Miller Story||1080p||44||27||1.64 GB|
You may also like
The Glenn Miller Story torrent reviews
Tim S (ag) wrote: A long-forgotten film reviewer described this movie as "a perfectly told joke" and I couldn't agree more. Ghostbusters has always been, in my estimation at least, one of the funniest and most engaging movies ever made. There are several reasons for this, but they all start with the stellar direction from Ivan Reitman, who never really gets enough credit for his contributions to the movie that the cast does. Credit is also due to the wonderful and brilliant writing from Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis in a truly remarkable happy accident of ingenuity. The ensemble cast is quite remarkable too, including Bill Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis, Sigourney Weaver, Rick Moranis, Annie Potts, Ernie Hudson and William Atherton. Bill Murray steals the show, for the most part, but there are lots of great moments for the rest of the cast and each of them have their moment to shine. Combining gothic elements, art deco, and a gritty New York sensibility, the actual look of the film really stands out and makes it one of the best-looking comedies, probably ever produced. Due to the popularity (and rightly so) of the film's theme song, Elmer Bernstein has never been given quite enough credit for the delightful incidental music. At times it can be whimsical and upbeat, but it also manages to capture the fun of the film's more sinister moments and even its romantic side. Industrial Light And Magic also really out-did themselves and enhanced the story's possibilities with the great special effects on display. The ghosts look great and scary, the proton wand shooting and trapping shots look incredible, and the final showdown of the movie is nothing more than pure spectacle. Hardly any film has ever combined horror and comedy so well, and still remained so accessible to so many viewers. If it goes down in history as the funniest comedy of all time, I would happily smile and agree in response.
Zach M (gb) wrote: For a Barbie animated movie geared for children, it wasn't that bad of a movie.Barbie and a friend get sucked into the ballet world and actually interact in those worlds.The ballet dancing is enjoyable and the kid loved it start to finish.
Griffin H (gb) wrote: She's quirky, and funny, this will be good.
Lady C (us) wrote: This is a good dvd to own tells you all about the man from the dark side!!!!!
david l (jp) wrote: I remember those days.
Alexander C (gb) wrote: Sexy as hell, nice period film with passionate resounance. With bedroom eyes and the mischievous smirk of an insatiable rou, Geoffrey Rush is a perfect choice to play the Marquis de Sade in Quills, directed by Philip Kaufman and adapted by Doug Wright from his own stage play.
pacificoduck (es) wrote: Sooooo fucking weird....but strangely kept my interest lol
John Y (kr) wrote: The worst thing about this film is that half the actor's think it's a drama and half think it's a comedy. The ending is awful too.
Tim H (mx) wrote: I don't know what it was about Italians and these Viking epics, but they sure are silly. I'm just glad that this movie isn't called Hercules and the Knives of the Avenger. Well, this is Bava's first foray away from the horrific kind of movie and it kindof isn't the worst movie ever. I won't even say it is good, but I've seen a lot of these trashy movies under the Mystery Science Theater 3000 or The Film Crew label. These kinds of movies suck. They one-star suck. This movie isn't the worst and you can kind of follow it, so I have to give it three stars. (By the way, get ready for me to start turning on Bava in the near future about this kind of stuff. His movies go from really clean and cool to just absolutely convoluted when it comes to storyline. This one is at least making a little bit of sense.) If you were to classify this movie into any genre, I would have to put it into the action epic category. The most absurd idea behind Knives of the Avenger is that, like it sounds, the main character uses knives as weapons. That's not to say that he uses knives like a knifefighter, slashing and ducking. No. He's awesome at throwing them. Now, that can be cool if executed once or twice, but a billion times. I mean, there's not much action going on with this movie. It's just that the main character runs into problems with oodles of henchmen and he dispaches them all with an unlimited supply of throwing knives. Where the hell does he get all those knives? There's no way that he would be carrying that many knives on him at any one point that he could just dispose of knives like bullets. But the worst thing is that you don't really see the knives fly and hit their targets. It's just people miming that they are being hit by knives and falling out of sh*t. There's a guy in a tree. The viking throws a knife (because he sees him in the tree) and he falls out. Replace tree with high walls or gates or stairs. First of all, in an era without guns, what is everyone doing in trees. Shouldn't they be weilding some bows and arrows or something? I mean, the guy throws knives. You'd think after you found most of your forces dead from knife and fall wounds, you'd want to change up your approach, but these guys don't listen. Stupid Vikings. The main story is more like "eh." You want to see the guy kick the old husband's ass because he's being a puss. Yes, there's always matters of honor and dignity and boning another man's wife, but the guy spared him time and time again. Does he honestly think that he won that fist fight? It was obvious that he didn't fight back. Okay, this wasn't so much of a review as it was a rant. This is another good drunk movie, but don't expect a lot out of it. It doesn't have that much going for it besides the fact that it is a halfway decent Italian Viking movie. The biggest issue I have with the movie is that you just don't care about the main story. After a few movies, Bava really got involved with how important the story is to justify all this action. This movie has a ton of action. Too much action. Hell, if people aren't throwing knives at one another, then they are teaching children how to throw knives and laughing it off. All I can tell you is that the "teaching to throw knives sequence" isn't as powerful as Shane teaching the kid about how to shoot a gun. But there's all kinds of backstory. I mean, there's the backstory of the princess on the run. Then there's betrayal and people hate each other. It's very unneccessary to follow the details. All you have to know is that someone wants to be king through marriage. I'm sure that if he cut off enough heads, things would work out fine, but then there'd be no one to root for. This is silliness and I'm amazed that I've devoted this much bandwith to this movie.
Joetaeb D (au) wrote: It seems like a wacky idea of a possessed killer car (a lot of Stephen King stories have unusual premises)as well as a meh script, But thanks to a solid cast and direction by John carpenter, Christine drives by well.
Jayakrishnan R (nl) wrote: 81%Saw this on 11/10/15Bicycle Thieves is well shot and acted, but it's plot is too thin and I did not enjoy it as much as many other recent classics that I have seen. It's ending is however it's best part and it's quite interesting to see that a film of the 40s had such an ending.
rick p (ag) wrote: again Reagan in really small part overshadows Pat O'Brian and cast by his brief but believable role.
Andrew L (de) wrote: Opening 30/40 minutes are messy, directionless and sprawling. It gets better with some good performances carrying the tension and drama, yet it lacks Ridley Scott's visual flair opting for a 'documentary' fly-on-wall approach which is rather hit & miss at times. When compared with Scott's past work this doesn't stand-out as a classic. However it is bearable once it finds it's feet & it's direction
Jennifer V (de) wrote: Love this movie! To me and my family it ranks right up there with Mary Poppins and other whimsy movies.
Michael M (mx) wrote: this is my favorite movies