The film follows the life of Hollywood screenwriter Dalton Trumbo from being a Hollywood's top screenwriter to being jailed and blacklisted for his outspoken support for organized labor, and his membership in the Communist Party of the USA. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
You may also like
Trumbo torrent reviews
Sam S (au) wrote: Total and Utter DISGRACE! Why him?.... Why would you???!
Monarch V (jp) wrote: Since Sholey, this the film which will be remembered because of its villain. (No, Emraan Hashmi, or loving making scenes are not the USP!) Many loose ends in the films. Even tho no of character are less, still they are not well establish. Character of Nirmala Devi, friend of Dheeraj Pandey did not come out well. The opening scene of the film itself is loose. So basically this writing is lazy. Story is single layered. It was very disappointing, the way suspense was unfold. Item song of Yana Gupta did not amuse me. Hashmi did a decent job. Jaqueline had not much to do except for showing her sexy legs. Supporting cast is total win here. Shekher Shukla, Sudhanshu Pandey, Shweta Kawatra, and my personal favrorite was Sandip Sicand. And, last but not least. Here come my man. Prashant Narayan. From Imagine 's soap -Bandini to YSZ to Murder 2. This man has come a long way. And much long way to go. Absolutely Brilliant. His stern face and eyes can kill! I'm glad VIshesh films has recgnized Prashant's potential. I hope more 'mainstream' production house will cast him. So...Overall good watch. Typical Vishesh Film saga.
mike h (br) wrote: I am usually not the biggest fan of Canadian cinema, but I fell in love with the film instantly, it made me actually wanna go and visit Toronto and wish I was in this cool crime art scene, and hangout with some of these characters. This a rare gem you just stumble across and can't get out of your head, I wish I had another film I could watch that was the same, but alas there is not, this is a one of a kind movie just like a rare art piece you see in an art gallery. Something about this film just resonated with me like when you fall in love with a piece, in a gallery. MOVIE DICK OVER AND OUT
Private U (us) wrote: In the end, the right decisions are made. But the journey to get there was pretty painful. With puns abound, you're sure to laugh (or at least groan) once or twice.Kid safe.
Reba G (es) wrote: I liked this movie. I rented it when it first came out and never got around to watching it, but a few days ago, I decided to check it out again. It sort of had a bittersweet tone for me. The characters are strange, but likable for the most part and the storylines are interesting. I'd recommend it pretty highly.
Tonia P (br) wrote: I love this movie because even though they messed up the first go around, after they got themselves together it all came in place. It just goes to show you that you can't fight the love bug or Hot Sex (lol). I can watch this movie all the time.
Tim S (mx) wrote: Strange Invaders is a more modern nod (1983 modern, that is) to classic sci-fi films like Invasion of the Body Snatchers from director Michael Laughlin, who also directed the film Strange Behavior. It was to be the second part of a trilogy of "Strange" films, but only two were ever made. The film itself is technically good, but fails in pace and story. The performances aren't much better either, specifically from Paul Le Mat and Diana Scarwid, the former of which is a total flatline and the latter is just terrible with her delivery. Louise Fletcher does her job pretty well and Nancy Allen is, well, Nancy Allen, like she is in everything, but not bad. It's an admirable attempt, and sort of succeeds, but it's mostly boring. The special effects are pretty good, and it's shot pretty well, but sadly not as exciting as I'd hope it would be. Good effort though.
Blake P (it) wrote: My sister and I grew up on classic television. Sure, we liked "Spongebob Squarepants" and "Hannah Montana," but we preferred"Get Smart," "What's New, Scooby Doo?, and "The Avengers." It wasn't so much that we sought them all out as much as our father wanted us to taste the television-based joys he did during his own childhood. I remember fussing about his notions of generational consumerism sometime after he made our family sit down and watch the first few episodes of "The Brady Bunch" one sleepy Sunday night. But not long after did I start to fall for the dopiness of vintage TV. With technology at our fingertips, unlike his four-channel, 1970s upbringing, we could seek out the best of the best on Netflix, where we (and sometimes still) would order individual discs that comprised a given season of a given series. As we had a designated television watching time (from 8-9 pm on school nights), we would, most of the time, wait until Friday for bingeing, as it was a day in which we could stay up late and do our viewing in the company of pizza, pop, and little disturbance. Some of my greatest childhood memories revolve around watching TV of the yesteryear - call me crazy, but I was more inclined to keep up with Pamela Sue Martin's "Nancy Drew Mysteries" than go out and do reckless things. Granted, I was in elementary school, and the most reckless thing I was capable of doing was sneaking a cookie before dessert. But if only I, now in college, weren't still that way. I have no doubt that my sister can relate to the same nostalgia I'm so unabashedly spewing out, which is why, a year or so ago, we began watching "Charlie's Angels," which was an act of spontaneity that also represented an attempt to harken back to the days of our childhood. I suppose she loves '70s junk more than I do - she's a ninth grader drawing a "The Partridge Family" era Susan Dey for crying out loud - but most of our after school free time during my senior year was spent with Farrah Fawcett, Jaclyn Smith, and Kate Jackson, and, when Farrah left, Cheryl Ladd. We stopped around the time Shelley Hack came around, but the show was a terrific one for our relationship; as we were both old enough to recognize its many ridiculous instances of acting, dialogue, and plot points, laughs would abound between us like some sort of riled up sitcom audience. In everyday conversation, we still reference an episode in which Jaclyn got shot in the head and woke up the next day only with a minor bandage, her makeup, hair, and mental state, intact. So maybe that's why I like 2000's "Charlie's Angels," a love-it-or-hate-it action movie, with such vigor. It captures the sheer buffooneries and implausibilities of the TV series and modernizes them, with golden era MTV swank, a giddy sense of humor, and enough kung-fu style battles to make it worthy of praise and not just a couple of giggles. For some, its hyperactive energy and resembling of a music video might cause it to come across as shallow filmmaking suffering from the ever familiar disorder of liking style over substance. But its director, McG (if you can believe it), is able to bridge the gap between extreme style (think Baz Luhrmann Meets "Miami Vice") and a bubbly personality - the film is so in love with itself and its goofiness that we're taken aback how much we come to like it, too. Because who can resist a film in which its ensemble appears to be having the time of their lives, in which farce is let so loose? Its titular Angels are Dylan (Drew Barrymore), Natalie (Cameron Diaz), and Alex (Lucy Liu), who, if you don't already know by now, are crimefighters that work for an anonymous millionaire named Charlie (voiced by John Forsythe), who remains unseen by them and us but serves as the coordinator of their investigations. With his assistant Bosley (Bill Murray) prepared to work with them in times of crisis, the girls are free-spirited but efficient detectives able to utilize their versatile talents and merge them when danger arises. Their latest assignment involves Eric Knox (Sam Rockwell), a software mastermind who has recently been kidnapped by ominous figures. The creator of a potentially globe shattering technological creation that employs an impressive voice-activation system, his disappearance could spell disaster for his company and the population as a whole. Who knows what his work could be capable of when thrown into the wrong hands? With brains to match their beauty, it doesn't take the Angels long to get to the bottom of the case and figure out what's really going on, which is, expectedly, a hell of a lot more elaborate than what they're first presented with. But fear not; intrigue is their middle name, and Dylan, Natalie, and Alex aren't ace investigators at the top of their respective pay scales for nothing. Whether "Charlie's Angels" is a satire of its source material, though, is a proclamation I'm not so certain of. It, really, seems to make a mockery of anything Hollywood: it's a mockery of the chick flick, the action movie, the kung-fu razzler dazzler, the romantic drama, the buddy cop comedy, the arthouse thriller your friend dragged you to and you only vaguely enjoyed (I'm looking at you "Run Lola Run"). And, being wrapped in its breathy package of candy colors and illimitable vibrations, I'm disposed to consider it to be something better than your average escapist fantasy, something of the time, and something I could watch repeatedly (which I have) and still like as much as my first viewing. Because "Charlie's Angels," like the TV show, doesn't make for anything necessarily nutritious or even that great - it, plain and simply, is a blockbuster so high in its artistic ambition, performative likability (Barrymore, Diaz, and Liu are all kick-ass hoots), and overall stamina that defying its cheery fun is akin to eating a bowl of ice cream and then asking your server for a refund for supposed bad taste. If you know you liked it, there's no shame in consuming cinematic junk food once in a while. "Charlie's Angels" just happens to be particularly tasty.
Keenan W (ag) wrote: Another great giant bug movie.