The Last Gangster
Edward G. Robinson stars as a crime boss who goes searching for his ex-wife and son after a 10 year prison stint. Robinson's old gang has other plans though, and use the child to try and make him disclose the location of the loot he hid before going to the slammer. A young James Stewart, early in his career, plays a sizable role as a newspaper reporter who marries the gangster's wife.
- Stars:Edward G. Robinson, James Stewart, Rose Stradner, Lionel Stander, Douglas Scott, John Carradine, Sidney Blackmer, Grant Mitchell, Edward Brophy, Alan Baxter, Frank Conroy, Louise Beavers,
- Director:Edward Ludwig,
A organized crime big shot is jailed for ten years after his wife becomes pregnant and becomes bitter when she divorces him and remarries. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
The Last Gangster torrent reviews
(us) wrote: Remake totalement inutile, prtentieux et sans saveur des REVOLTES DE L'AN 2000. Au suivant...
(it) wrote: A stylish animated movie with a simple story. It's well rounded with familiar characters, but makes for a well crafted kids movie.
(us) wrote: so...the movie is pretty basic, predictable script but they did get it right with letting Mellisa and Joe play of each other and that worked
(fr) wrote: ??????TVC???????????
(de) wrote: Even if Asia Argento and Amira Casar r beautiful.
(it) wrote: Me when I saw the trailer: "GAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!"
(kr) wrote: 9/12/2016: A pretty decent movie with a great cast. There's not much laugh out loud comedy though, but the story was decent.
(ru) wrote: Bit gangster era but still pretty good.
(fr) wrote: This movie. I don't even know. They should cover this movie on "How Did This Get Made?"Overacting to the highest level. Also, the chick from the Thriller video is in this.
(mx) wrote: No me termina de llegar. Una lstima....
(ag) wrote: really uncomfortable age gap between there main charators as they are supoosed to be a love interest as zeta jone married michael douglas in real life she probaly didnt notice the creepyness
(ca) wrote: While Steve Carell and Morgan Freeman get a good laugh here and there and some of the special effects look impressive, Evan Almighty sinks in an awkward flood of childish humor and plot structure and a lack of Jim Carrey wit!
(gb) wrote: "Excalibur" is a cautionary case of overreaching. I refer to the film itself, not to the story it tries to tell. It seems to be an attempt to radically condense the whole Arthurian cycle, as transmitted by the 15th-century knight Sir Thomas Malory, into a single film, but that very long, overstuffed, barely-linear, beautiful mess of a text defies adaptation. By the standards of modern taste its dialogue is too baldly moralistic, its action too repetitive and predictable. It is nevertheless an enduring work because the basic theme of the tale-our desire to create a perfect society despite our irrepressible personal imperfections-and the romance and magic of the setting are still appealing. "Excalibur" understands the source text on more than a surface level, and clearly tries to engage with it in an artful way, but it is undone by a lack of conceptual grounding and an execution that is as poor as it is audacious.In trying, haltingly, to center the story on the famous sword, the movie preferences an inanimate object, no more than a McGuffin really, over the human characters. The first act provides characterizations of Uther, Arthur, Lancelot, and others only by proxy, through the tenor of their shouting about the sword and the way they behold it as it glows in an oversaturated green aura. The acting is far below the standards that some of the stars, including Gabriel Byrne, Liam Neeson, and Patrick Stewart, would later set for themselves, which suggests that their spastic line deliveries are intentional. Nicol Williamson as Merlin is the worst offender, even more comically absurd than John Cleese's "Tim" in Monty Python's comparatively sophisticated riff on the legend. The technique of overacting can work to create a sense of heightened reality, but in this case it comes off as a silly affectation. Only Helen Mirren, as Arthur's malevolent sister, turns in a controlled performance of a quality generally recognized as good. As the movie progresses, its focus remains more or less on the sword, which is shoehorned into the romances between Lancelot and Guinevere and Guinevere and Arthur in a way that owes little to the medieval texts. Its trumped-up significance overshadows their scenes without adding to them; by devoting vague words to the subject of Excalibur, opportunities are missed to delve more deeply into the socioreligious significance of Arthur's kingdom and the inner worlds of the people who populate it.The sword, however, has no bearing on the Holy Grail portion of the film, which therefore feels tangential and ultimately irrelevant despite being the most creatively-staged episode in the production. Here the script engages with the ancient legend of the impotent king whose land is barren. The reference and some of the imagery used to underline is is appreciated, but it is little more than a reference, neither scrutinized for its significance nor linked to the rest of the loose script. The macabre trippiness of this part of the Malory text is on vivid display through dream sequences and a grotesque hanging tree. Here if nowhere else in the movie, the special effects that are superimposed in bright, artificial colors on top of washed out sets and landscapes seem appropriate instead of unnecessary and frankly shoddy."Excalibur" is a film for Arthur aficionados who are willing to look past its awkwardness, excesses, and digressions to appreciate its good intentions and kernels of good ideas.
(kr) wrote: Just an all over the place plot....I hate when good actors do this bad of a movie.
(us) wrote: To me it was a rip off of Lion King ... Couldn't really get into it.
(br) wrote: Great addition to the X-Men franchise but also disappointing, X-Men apocalypse fails to live up to it's predacessor which is distracting to fans like myself< making it tough to completely buy into the epic showdown with the antagonist. Serving as one of the three X-Men films to gain mixed reviews, this wasn't< the worse film of the franchise as it to me was personally better than X-Men origins wolverine and X-Men last stand. However it is a shame to have such a strong film "Days of future past" followed up by a film that was inferior, to which is a direct sequel. Now there is alot to like about X.A. Spectacular action, great villan and great story. The problem here was execution in part by actors, direction and over all flow of the movie. I felt like key elements were missing, which would have made the film memorable. Unfortunately this is an X-MEN film that is forgettable in nature and was missing the realistic value. The scenes seemed rushed (lacked attention to detail like an artist who forgotten to do touch ups) and it was trying to do something different, which didn't work, like making it an epic showdown rather than staying realistic with a political formula. This was a huge mistake/let down because part of the reason why the stronger X-Men films worked included the human element and a believable to problem audience members could connect to without having to let go of disbeliefs. X-Men is truly at its best when it's mutants vs. humanity because it becomes more than just a comic book adaptation box-office film. This film lacked the human impact on the plot and it lead to a clunky final battle that seemed messy and saturated. It just played like a big load explosion filled fight with a bunch of cgi effects. Eye candy usually felt less important than a gripping suspenful climax in which choice acted as the resolution effecting the lives of the mutants and humans rather than using their mutant powers to destroy an enemy. The stronger X-Men films left the viewer with something to think about and gave the films abiguity in a way which always proves to be an effective formula because it makes you want to rewatch the movie. Especially in films about social issues of equality and society acceptance. Aside from it not working qite as well as I thought it would, it just looked odd, the battle scene just didn't fit when i already have a predetermined expectation of X-Mens classic theme. Also the casting of the younger versions of characters was also another weak point especially for Jean Grey and Nightcrawlers characters. Aside from the odd deture from my X-Men expectations, It still was entertaining to say the least. I recommend this film but for hardcore X-Men fans you may find yourself feeling that same disappointment when referring back to the other two weaker films. The only difference is with X.A. it's nothing< terrible it's just alittle disappointing because of the irritated feeling that something is missing and you just cant qite point out what exactly it is this needed to live up to it's predacessor.