Touch of Evil

Touch of Evil

Stark, perverse story of murder, kidnapping, and police corruption in Mexican border town.

A stark, perverse story of murder, kidnapping, and police corruption in a Mexican border town. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Touch of Evil torrent reviews

Prashita C (ag) wrote: Soo good! I lovee Emraan <3

Yusuf S (de) wrote: A brilliant, well-made film. The direction was very good, the screenplay was definitely outstanding and moving. I was amazed by the performances; usually I don't think much of Ranbir Kapoor but he played that lazy, slobbish, spoilt brat character to a T. Although, I did feel that it was an easy role for him to do but he still did good. Anupam Kher didn't have much of a role yet he acted with excellence as usual. I loved the songs. The story was well-crafted and was original and had meaning behind it unlike most Bollywood films which are coming up these days.

Ted H (ca) wrote: a mix of beautiful and boring things.

Jacob P (es) wrote: Not what I expected, but still a pretty good flick. It had a great story and good acting.

Eduardo G (au) wrote: Ehh ps es como una nueva versin de "S (C) lo que hicieron el verano pasado", pero ligeramente ms sdica XDde wevaaaa

Private U (au) wrote: Awesome movie, loved it. excellent presentation and screenplay. Probably one of those rare movie made in bollywood which you can watch again and again.

Private U (au) wrote: One of the lesser Universal horror classics. Lugosi was originally supposed to play the scientist and Karloff the professor who receives the gangster brain, but Karloff decided he wanted to play the scientist - so Bela was reassigned the small, pointless part of a gangster. Just another example of Universal screwing over Bela Lugosi.

Jake M (es) wrote: Now I know why Jackie Chan tells his Chinese fans to not watch his American movies. He was the only reason why I kept watching it. The kids . . . don't even get me started! They're more annoying and bratty than the Baker kids from Cheaper by the Dozen! And there's only three of them! Other than that, this movie is as predictable as they come. Action spy man watches over kids. Kids don't like him but grow to like him. They become a family and live happily ever after. Jackie Chan, I still love you, even though you were in this stress case of a movie.

Trev B (ag) wrote: As Shane Meadows admits, it's not one of his best, largely thanks to the studio/producers who were trying to push him into making a rom-com (hence some poor musical choices). Having said that, it's still rather good with some nice performances, particularly from young Finn Atkins. Meadows has recently spoken of his desire to make a director's cut, something closer to his original vision. I would like to see that.

laurie e (au) wrote: it?s a good movie about rogue CIA and FBI agents battling. and the poor local cop caught in the middle.

Lovro H (ru) wrote: From Beyond is based on a short story by H. P. Lovecraft and is actually one of the better Lovecraft adaptations. Whenever I see a movie based on a Lovecraft story, I always have to watch it. So, the story follows two doctors who made this machine which lets you see what you're not able to see in the world. It starts to extend your pineal gland and you can see these creatures moving in what you would think is an empty space. It's not too well explained, nothing really is explained in any of Lovecraft's stories, so this is no exception. And one of the doctors crosses over to the other side and goes evil. The other doctor destroys the machine and is sent to the asylum because noone believes him. A psychiatrist there decides to give him a chance and they go and rebuild the machine to prove him sane. The story is quite intriguing, but what shines the most about this movie are the effects! Yes, the CGI is horrible, no doubt, but there's barely any in this movie. The effects I'm talking about are the practical ones. The main monster looks breathtaking! It reminds of Grant from Slither, but this one is more moveable and brutal. This movie is insane! It contains so much gore, blood and great monster design that I couldn't help but cringe at moments because of how disgusting it was. Trully unnerving movie. The acting was good, especially Jeffrey Combs as Crawford. The ending was great. I loved how hopeless and bleak it was. It was as disturbing as the rest of the movie. All in all, this is a great adaptation of the short story by Lovecraft, and even though it can't really be explained, it's well worth the watch for its amazing makeup and practical effects, as well as the story.

Sepp V (jp) wrote: Decent war movie considering it was made '43. Join the Army, they say...

Arthur P (jp) wrote: Really good 1930's sex comedy about a menage a trois relationship (although not said very obviously applied) great performances by Fredic March and Miriam Hopkins and a suprisingly good comedic one by Gary Cooper. The only qualm is it feels rather stagey even for a film for the thirties but the lines are so funny and droll it really dosen't effect things too much although it ends like you'd think it would, but still an excellent comedy far superior to current ones that don't understand how to combine emotion and humor without making them into essentially melodramas.

Pamela G (ru) wrote: I don't know why this movie was panned so badly. I'm a big-time horror buff so i've seen a lot of them - and this one was by far not the worst. I thought it was quite original, interesting, and scary. And the cinematography is as gorgeous as the main characters.

gross m (jp) wrote: This movie is as rotten as five year old eggs. It's nothing like the book