The Road to El Dorado

The Road to El Dorado

After a failed swindle, two con-men end up with a map to El Dorado, the fabled "city of gold," and an unintended trip to the New World. Much to their surprise, the map does lead the pair to the mythical city, where the startled inhabitants promptly begin to worship them as gods. The only question is, do they take the worshipful natives for all they're worth, or is there a bit more to El Dorado than riches?

The movie begins in 16th-century Seville, Spain, and tells of two-bit con men named Tulio and Miguel who believe they have found their path to fortune and glory when they win a map to El Dorado, the legendary City of Gold, only to end up as stowaways on Hernán Cortés' fleet to conquer Mexico. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


The Road to El Dorado torrent reviews

Gary B (nl) wrote: Considering the time this was filmed (1995), for anyone who has read Jobs autobiography this is a fascinating piece of tv.

Drew D (br) wrote: Evil Bong 3D is pretty terrible. Maybe I wasn't in the right state of mind but the first two were decent but this one feels like a quick cash in. the 3d is good though and its the first movie featuring an evil alien bong to appear in 3d. fun if youre looking for something stupid to watch

Justin A (de) wrote: The kind of movie I love. Pretty much an 80s cult hit in the vein of They Live and Night of the Comet. A movie from my childhood that I still enjoy to this day. However, I must say the ending is a bit anticlimactic. Why couldn't they end it with Michael Nouri using the flamethrower and getting shot down and then Kyle MacLachlan using the zapper gun thing to kill the alien? Would have made more sense than the quick ending they went with. Either way, still enjoy this movie a lot.

mary w (br) wrote: kinda funny. loved the argument at the funeral. hahahaha. no real plot to it..

Zack B (ag) wrote: The general frustration with films like this one is that while 90% of the film is cloaked in laughable hamminess and over-reaching flourishes in style, the other 10% is characterized by a passionate attention to atmosphere. The problem must occur when a director finds a handful of scenes he or she is particularly excited about manifesting on film in a unique way, only for them to lose sight of the bigger picture and thus sacrifice the effectiveness of those scenes for an overall mess. The opening flashback sequence is one of the highlights of the film. It is shot in sepia filter and with tight close-ups which emphasize facelessness of a fanatic rabble congregating on an unfortunate painter they have deemed a "warlock". It was terrifying in a way. But the rest of the movie failed to live up to its craft. And unfortunate too because I could see so clearly the talent evident in Fulci's direction. I just think he was a little too obsessed with creating new special effects for inventive ways of killing off characters.

Jeffery T (br) wrote: more dogs playing sports I guess... and they say art is dead in film.

Paul D (gb) wrote: A decent nautical monster flick that I remembered liking a lot more the ten or so times I watched it in junior high. It is still pretty fun though, even though the lame "Now what" catchphrase/running gag is already old after the second time it's uttered.

Logan M (us) wrote: Although its balance between comedy and drama is shakey at times, it's a bitter-sweet little movie with a lot of heart.

Harry W (ru) wrote: A critically acclaimed thriller classic, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three sounded like a very interesting film.Like many of the thrillers of the age, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is a slow moving thriller. With its hostages trapped in a train underground, they have nowhere to go and all the importance comes from the negotiations between Lt. Zachary "Z" Garber and Bernard Ryder. But the negotiations aren't as intense as they could be, and the simple fact that almost nothing goes on inside the titular train Pelham One Two Three leaves it feeling a little dull. Clearly, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is a dated film and the battle of age is a hard thing for it to win. I guess it doesn't necessarily win the battle, but it does survive it. But then again, a lot of viewers may be thrown off by its length and the fact that it is all very slow.The intensity in the film could have been a lot better if director Joseph Sargent capitalised on its musical score a lot more. As Donald A. Guarisco writes, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three "one of the best and most inventive thriller scores of the 1970s", but you would hardly recognise that today because the music is used too little for it to be of any serious benefit. While the music is terrifically composed and iconic of the time that the film was produced in, it really is not used enough to lay much of a serious effect down. A lot of the scenes in The Taking of Pelham One Two Three seem extensively long and dull without much atmosphere or tension whatsoever, and it is those scenes which are particularly boring and negative in how they affect the film as a whole. Viewers have to be prepared for a long and slowly burning thriller with The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, and though fans of classical films may rejoice at the sight of such an influential and original film, a lot of modern viewers may deem it to be too slow to satisfy them. But overall, it is easily to see what makes it an enjoyable film.The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is one of the earliest examples of a thriller which maintains interest by displaying the terrorists, the hostages, and the negotiators all evenly over the course of its story. Although it doesn't have as much depth in focusing on the passengers as it could, it does manage to focus on the terrorists and police officers well, as well as capturing the large scale of how the events affect the city. The Taking of Pelham One Two Three makes a good effort to truly and honestly captured the spectacle of its events and the exterior effect of them, and it does that well. And admittedly, it is easy to see how viewers would feel the thrills in The Taking of Pelham One Two Three because it has such a gritty edge with its subject matter and the fact that it is not afraid to explore such rough edged material. It is violent without being excessive, and it finds just the right line.The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is a fine visual spectacle because being shot on location ensures that it is thoroughly convincing as a thriller. Capitalising on the scenery of the subway and such, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three feels genuine and ensures that the effect of the film is greater. While it isn't perfect, it is captured all with a lot of fine cinematography and edited at a great pace to ensure that it moves along nicely.And on top of it all, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three stays very true to its source material by maintaining the nature of its story as well as a lot of intelligent dialogue which ends up ensureing that the cast have a lot of material to work with.Walter Matthau gives a terrific lead performance. Putting a lean strength into his line delivery which is full of emotional tension, Walter Matthau capitalises on the most key element to his character as a negotiator in a complicated hostage situation. By maintaining the appropriate heroic sophistication the entire time, Walter Matthau gives the character Lt. Zachary "Z" Garber the ideal persona and maintains it the entire time throughout the film without slipping up for a second. Walter Matthau's lead performance in The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is an immensely strong one and it increases his credibility as an actor through simple means which come to him without being challenging at all as clearly demonstrated by his charisma.Robert Shaw also makes a fine cast member in The Taking of Pelham One Two Three. Tackling the role of the main antagonist, Robert Shaw is fearless to step into the role of Bernard Ryder because he does it without problem. He incorporates a lot of natural grit into his line delivery and so he creates a realistic figure for the story, and the unflinching sense of relentless killer instincts in him is what makes him such a villain. You can tell that Robert Shaw has no problem in the role because he gives a dramatic edge to the film which adds to its streak of success in touching upon edgy material, and he is consistently strong with his dark natured line delivery and intense stare. His chemistry with Walter Matthau is also great even though it is challenging to have chemistry with another actor when interacting over a microphone, but the two talented actors have no problems with doing it in The Taking of Pelham One Two Three.The performances of Martin Balsam and Jerry Stiller are also terrific.So although The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is a very dated thriller film, it is visually stylish, original and well acted enough to transcend most of the issues that come with being a slow thriller that has existed for 40 years.

Frederic C (br) wrote: Terrible. "Nuff said.

Matthew L (gb) wrote: A half hearted effort by everyone involved. "Please don't hurt the natives and stuff..."

Robert B (nl) wrote: Wild Strawberries is a pensive film, and has a rustic charm to it, but is never overly sentimental. The film is bittersweet, but is not the bitter melancholy of other films such as Winter Light. As with other Bergman films, Wild Strawberries features very good acting and gorgeous black-and-white. It is a film that is easy to recommend.

Petros T (nl) wrote: "The Trouble with Harry" is a deliciously wicked black comedy. The protagonistic quartet is lovely (including sweetheart Shirley MacLaine in her acting debut) and the movie ranges from macabre farce to suspenseful mystery. Not the definitive Hitchcock film but a pretty good one for sure.

Jurgita I (nl) wrote: One of the best movies with creature of night...