The film begins when an adolescent lion is accidentally shipped from the New York Zoo to Africa. Now running free, his zoo pals must put aside their differences to help bring him back. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
You may also like
The Wild torrent reviews
James O (jp) wrote: I might struggle to watch a better film all year. A beautiful film with an evocatively positive final few scenes to wash away the brilliantly depicted decadence of the Roman elite. Poignant without laying it on thick, this fully deserved the praise it received and is a real modern classic.
Wes S (mx) wrote: The second entry in the Hobbit trilogy is where things get really lost. The faithfulness to the story gets pushed aside and the story starts to become un-followable, even if still entertaining. This one is darker, perhaps a bit too much so. The best part is ultimately the best act, which may or may not be worth the sit-through.
Anthony H (es) wrote: Read all the comics and see all the cartoons. I grew up with Tintin, this film is a really good attempt by Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg, it portrays the characters pretty well and uses some of the best bits of many different comics. But yet I don't enjoy it as much as I thought I would, not too sure why... Maybe it's beause it's in English and so many names were changed (Snowy/Milou, Thompson and Thomson/ Dupont et Dupond etc...)However I'm sure that those who aren't that familiar with Tintin originally created by Herge should enjoy this thrilling adventure full of loveable characters and funny moments.
Harry T (us) wrote: Cute, but ultimately ineffectual film. Well made, story and acting believable, and God-bless school-girl uniforms, but nothing about the characters' plight made me care--and the film didn't really speak to anything greater than the base story.
Robert M (au) wrote: The ending is ridiculously predictable and you'll get more laughs than scares.
Ahmed J (de) wrote: This is much more epic than the first one. I know this is betrayal to the original's fans, but this one is waaay more deep. Loved it
Daniel F (ru) wrote: Beautiful, slow, poetic. A "telecommunications" so-called "engineer" (aka reporter) tries to connect with this remote village locals in order to capture death along the way, only to realize the disconnect between his modern urban lifestyle and the splendor of simple life.
Brandon R (jp) wrote: I really enjoy watching this film every time I watch it. The only problem is I dont ever feel like watching it!
Andrew M (us) wrote: Visually and mentally chilling, Pi is a haunting and intelligent, if not occassionally scattershot, directorial debut for renowned filmmaker Darren Aronofsky.
ca f (mx) wrote: Mildly amusing, didn't finish it.
Richard D (es) wrote: A young school teacher working deep in the Australian outback attempts to go home for his Christmas holidays and gets stranded along the way due to some poor decisions. He hooks up with some hard-drinking men and his vacation sinks into violence and depravity. This was not a popular film on it's initial release due to it's far from sympathetic portrayal of Australian society (or at least rural Australian society). It was thought to be completely lost, but a single print was found. Thank heavens for that. This really is a lost gem. It's rare that film goes for broke quite as spectacularly as this one does and completely succeeds in the process. Donald Pleasence is remarkable in a key role.
Justin B (us) wrote: Most other reviewers, it seems to me, are treating this movie rather condescendingly, damning it with faint praise, criticizing its "theatricality" or its "woodenness" or what have you, calling it an "interesting document" from a certain place and time, or even suggesting that it lacks mise en scene altogether, etc, etc. I sometimes wonder whether my fellow reviewers have eyes. Of course it's lethargic, of course it's studied--it's a perfect embodiment of the classic "stranger comes to town" plot where EVERY other character in the film is hopelessly in love with the poor bastard, and there's so little of anything else to do but pick and claw at one another until something happens. It's a film about boredom and desperation, of the characters' own making, in a completely artificial environment given to them by history. That's why there's so much silence, that's why so much of the film is gesture-gesture-gesture; the entire film moves on bated breath, like the sick husband, since the war just blasted away all sense of security, and on the other hand there's no indication that the next day or any day following that will bring anything except the same boring walk along the town wall. I mean, it's about tuberculosis; didn't you people ever read The Magic Mountain? Just like in that book, what you get in Fei Mu's movie is a brief period of static "peace" in between deadly conflicts, the time where the fin de siecle turns into the mal de siecle, where all the old madness manifests itself in sickness, lust, and a kind of soul-wrecking sloth, where every action or inaction seems somehow a metaphor for the sorry condition the world is in. (Every time that poor younger sister started talking about her plans for the future, I wanted to give her a hug and say, "Oh, honey, you have NO IDEA what's coming, do you?") Fei Mu's a GREAT director, too, like Ozu trying to direct an early Resnais film--everything has this world-weariness, this sense of utter detachment that makes perfect sense when you realize both how much and how little each character wants to follow his or her heart. (I especially love the way Fei will cut or fade out across the span of several seconds, while within the same scene, as if to simulate someone turning their head away and then turning back). Anyone who calls the film passionless was simply not paying attention; not only can "Spring on a Small Town" stand comfortably beside "Brief Encounter" and "In the Mood for Love," it towers over them, since it understands how even just one word between two people can shift the relationship dynamics among a whole group, so that we're always watching from at least four different perspectives. This is a sophisticated, mature, brilliant work that works quite well on its own terms, and needs neither apology nor leniency.
Kimber C (us) wrote: This movie is silly and witty. It is fun from beginning to end.
Alexander C (ca) wrote: Could be worth a look interesting story there.
Jesse K (gb) wrote: Everything about it is awful and that's why Basket Case is so much fun.
Gabriel A (es) wrote: Um NASCAR-Filme estrelado por Tom Cruise. Days of Thunder mantm alguns momentos de competncia surpreendente, embora no geral um filme inconsistente e ralo.
John C (mx) wrote: Digging deeper than it appears, Friday exposes the best of Ice Cube.
Erik A (es) wrote: With fun action sequences and amusing character interactions, Justice League: War is worth watching for any fan of the DCUA movies, but due to it's weak plot and the lack of complexity it deserved (and time to flesh out that complexity), it's not the movie to watch if you only want to see the occasional DCUA movie.Taking a note from his recent rise in popularity in the comics, Green Lantern takes center stage as the pseudo-leader of the heroes. His hard-light constructs are some of the best we've seen in movies in terms of creativity (until he starts recycling them in the final battle). Jordan's character is perhaps the least interesting, but what the movie does well is his interaction with Batman, where the two clearly don't like each other, but they do respect one another. Much of this film's comedy comes from these interactions. Perhaps the best part about Batman, as with many Justice League stories, is that he's "just some guy in a bat costume" who can hold his own alongside the league's powerhouses.Superman, for once, is a cocky sun-of-a-gun (and was fittingly voiced by Alan Tudyk). I appreciated that his fight sequences were more than just punching things as hard as he could, which seems to be the default for many JL movies. Other than that, there just wasn't a lot going on with Superman (given the limited time and the ensemble cast, that's okay). Wonder Woman, on the other hand, had her own side story. Unfortunately, that story needed more attention than it got, or it would have been better cut. The idea was that Diana represented the full superhero community, but the ridicule that fell on her almost felt that it had more to do with her being a female superhero than just a superhero. Her fight scenes were just darn cool, though, and honestly are enough of a reason to watch any animated movie that features Wonder Woman.Flash was probably my favorite character in this film, despite the fact that he received the least attention. First of all, we saw a (very small) bit of his scientific mind. Second, he actually outran Darkseid's omega beams, which Superman failed to do. Third, he was the only hero to consistently deliver a successful blow to Darkseid (even though those blows didn't do all that much damage).Cyborg and Shazam were the heart of the story, and the connection between the two is fairly unique. There is some great development for Cyborg, and since that's really the best part of the story, I won't spoil it for you.The other dynamics between these characters are a pleasure to watch, but ultimately this film has just what you would expect from a team origin story. The villain is perhaps the most powerful villain in the DC universe, but the audience has little insight into his character, so he serves as nothing more than a reason for the heroes to unite. Other than the Cyborg/Shazam storyline, it really is just about the league forming, so the film is almost a collection of action sequences. It's good stuff, so if that's what you are in the mood for, give this movie a try. However, if you are looking for something deeper, Justice League: War isn't what you're looking for.
Art S (mx) wrote: Solid western -- but not really recognizable as a Fritz Lang film. I suppose you could argue that Randolph Scott's fate is spelled out from the very first scenes and that doom closes in as the team putting the telegraph line up gets farther along and we learn more details about Scott. But it's possible that this is more Zane Grey's doing than Lang's. By the way, Randy Scott is great as usual in a typically morally ambiguous role but he does gain a certain gravitas when he ages into the Budd Boetticher films in the '50s. Robert Young, on the other hand, seems out-of-place in the wild west. Portrayals of Native Americans is generally less than positive. If you're interested in a Fritz Lang western, try Rancho Notorious first.