The Typewriter, the Rifle & the Movie Camera

The Typewriter, the Rifle & the Movie Camera

In a documentary about Samuel Fuller, the spectator gets different impressions about the Hollywood director and his films. The film is divided into the three sections: The Typewriter, the Rifle and the Movie Camera. The first segment covers Fuller's past as a newsman where he began as a copy boy and ended as a reporter. Part two describes Fuller's experiences in World War II, in which he participated as a soldier. The last section focuses on Fuller as director. Tim Robbins interviews Samuel Fuller revealing the director's own memories and impressions. Beside the interview, Jim Jarmusch, Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino accompany the documentary with their comments.

In a documentary about Samuel Fuller, the spectator gets different impressions about the Hollywood director and his films. The film is divided into the three sections: The Typewriter, the ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

The Typewriter, the Rifle & the Movie Camera torrent reviews

Ryan B (de) wrote: Bad Johnson, so much potential and yet it didn't quite make the cut. The acting isn't great, the lead, Cam Gigandet, didn't sound or look like he even cared for this role. I'm pretty sure any other guy actor could've played the same role. The comedy is there for a few scenes but mostly isn't there. There's a smidgen of action but it's only for literally one scene, there's even more romance than comedy. It's a very low budget movie with a...kind of a bad plot which is a womanizer wishes his penis would leave him alone and of course his wish comes true and then spends most of the film living without his manhood and getting his kind-hearted side out. Overall it's not a great movie and it's not a horrible movie either so I guess I can't really unrecommend it or recommend it. I guess it's a take it or leave it kind of film. I'll just leave it at that

Pierre M (jp) wrote: Bon, dans le genre HYPER bateau on ne fait pas pire... et pourtant j'ai un petit coup coeur pour les musiques de ce film 0,5 :)

Javier T (jp) wrote: so sad to see that just because she danced in national tv, a female singer is outcast. yet another instance that religion is the opium of peoples....

FilmGrinder S (ca) wrote: 69%"Kill them all."-Nick Cherenko (dolph Lundgren)What you'd expect from a Lundgren film. Nice Mexicain standoff.Never trust a Russian mechanik, as told to me by a Russian."Crazy fucking Russian."-William Burton (Ben Cross)

Richard P (gb) wrote: Three hour long movie that follows the life of Hitler from a boy to his rise to Chancellor of Germany. Some times shows a human side to the monster, but mainly shows what a scum bag he was. Carlyle is perfect in the role of Hilter.

Thomas W (jp) wrote: Marion Bridge is a movie that won't really interest a whole lot of people. It is a dramatic character study ("dramatic" could have been fully capitalized) about the interactions between three very different sisters who've come together after many years apart because of the rapidly-declining health of their mother . The performances are all good (led by Deadwood's Molly Parker) and the story isn't overly-slow; but it isn't one that'll jump out and beg to be watched. The girls grew up in a small town in Nova Scotia, Canada and Agnes (Parker) "escaped" to the big city of Toronto as soon as she came of age. The three sisters have difficulty coming back together as a unit as one of Agnes's sisters has grown bitter and jaded because of a nasty divorce while the other has become a reclusive introvert. Marion Bridge is quiet and understated, complex and yet simple... and there is nothing wrong with any of that. The film's biggest fault could be that it is a tad-bit too realistic which means Marion Bridge won't have much of an audience as one doesn't want to "escape" -- as movies ARE an escape-of-sorts -- into some drama that could be playing-out under their own roof behind their own closed front door.

WS W (us) wrote: Quite a lame TV movie production of which prevailing in the '90s.

Terri M (jp) wrote: Unique, funny, bizarre, and downright fascinating. The images in this film will not soon leave you. It will definitely challenge the senses of some. I seen this as part of Crispin Glover's Big Slide show. The book reading before the film was a real trip! An extraordinary treat for anyone who seeks something a little different in their entertainment.

Tim M (us) wrote: Brutal/Demonic: Banquet of the Beasts sounds like it would be be a pretty cool movie. The first half-hour is mostly a bore, introducing the beasts.. A gang boss is locked up and his girlfriend is running the show while he is away. She goes mad with power, things start to get interesting when the boss commits hari-kari. Each banquet/enkai is more brutal than the last, with the finale being a gory spectacle. The last scene is appropriately titled "Final Madness". Often annoying and poorly shot, this nihilistic movie has some redeeming parts for fans of gore and sex.

Trenton R (mx) wrote: Watching it again, there's surprisingly a lot of entertainment with it. The animation and songs are forgettable. But I still loved seeing these characters again, and seeing Jafar with Genie powers is very fun to see.

TheScarlatescu R (ag) wrote: nice interpretation of the orig. group NWA

Stephanie R (mx) wrote: More than thirty years after this movie was created, I actually enjoyed stumbling on this in the middle of the night when I couldn't sleep. I can see why Mel Gibson became such a star, I couldn't look away from the screen.

John M (de) wrote: Tom Cruise at his best!

Kenneth L (ag) wrote: To be honest, this movie would join The Birds at the bottom of my list of Hitchcock films - though still interesting in many ways, it's one of his least engaging and entertaining movies. It deals with the sort of subject matter he had dealt with before, murder and general nastiness, but this time in much more graphic detail and much less suspense and with far less appealing characters. It's not that the performances are bad per se - they're good for what they're meant to be, but Jon Finch is simply no Jimmy Stewart, and Barry Foster is simply no Anthony Perkins. The movie-star charm is gone, for better or worse. Well, Perkins wasn't a star exactly, but he was a terrifically weird and yet charming presence as Norman Bates in Psycho. The movie is arguably doing something different than Hitchcock's earlier films - Tania Modelski, for example, provides an interesting reading, and Adam Lowenstein a strong defense - but speaking as an audience member rather than a scholar for a moment, this one just isn't as satisfying as most of his other films.

Cosmin I (us) wrote: I had fun but the plot is ridiculous to the point of pulling you out of the movie

Alex A (jp) wrote: Run-of-the-mill heist thriller that isn't at all thrilling, but is decently acted with sharp cinematography. Takers isn't bad, but it's not really good either. The casting ensemble is awkward, the action sequences are well directed but not impressive, it's overlong and it's riddled with cliched elements we've seen before in better heist flicks like Heat or The Town. All in all, Takers keeps your attention on a low-pulse due to all the action and the pace never really bogging down, but the atmosphere is too stale to be engaged.

Sean C (gb) wrote: If you don't love this movie, you're wrong.

William M (ag) wrote: The arcade, the giant walkman, the rat tail. So classic!

Tags and Keywords