Wonder Man

Wonder Man

Boisterous nightclub entertainer Buzzy Bellew was the witness to a murder committed by gangster Ten Grand Jackson. One night, two of Jackson's thugs kill Buzzy and dump his body in the lake at Prospect Park in Brooklyn. Buzzy comes back as a ghost and summons his bookworm twin, Edwin Dingle, to Prospect Park so that he can help the police nail Jackson.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:98 minutes
  • Release:1945
  • Language:English,French
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:dance,   sneeze,   murder,  

Boisterous nightclub entertainer Buzzy Bellew was the witness to a murder committed by gangster Ten Grand Jackson. One night, two of Jackson's thugs kill Buzzy and dump his body in the lake... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Wonder Man torrent reviews

Mike M (it) wrote: Where "Huge" collapses is in its mishandling of the central relationship, subject as it is to slight yet fatal miscasting. Clarke burrows down in a part styled suspiciously like Richard Ayoade, but the actor just doesn't have funny bones in the way a Seth Rogen or Jonah Hill (or, indeed, an Ayoade) undoubtedly does, which immediately reduces the film's potential for laughs by 50%. And Harris, an exemplary dramatic actor ("London to Brighton", "This is England '86") has the unfortunate tendency of making Jerry Sadowitz look relaxed, stomping all over his share of the jokes - which, and I'm not sure "Huge" itself really knows, may or may not be the point. With its bitparts and walk-ons for circuit veterans and most of the current Avalon roster, its unexpectedly classy Thandie Newton cameo, it does well to disguise the fact it's another low-budget Britpic, but Miller can't hide the poor pacing, a general sense of skimpiness (it's all over, sadly undeveloped, at 75 minutes) or a feeling that this is another work in which successful entertainers tell us how terrible success is.

Brandon E (ca) wrote: A little overboard on the penis jokes

Karyn S (mx) wrote: Did the film-makers not read the Anne series before they wrote this prequel/sequel?

Robert L (jp) wrote: This is a little less funny than the other two. But, the end is worth it.

Gavin M (ru) wrote: Brilliant, even better than Selling of a Serial Killer, bringing up a lot of new interesting theories and more interview footage with Aileen.

Brad S (ag) wrote: A truly fantastic political procedural/thriller about an important historical event that could've led to World War III. But thankfully cooler heads prevailed. Costner, Greenwood and Culp give outstanding performances that made me completely believe that they inhabited the characters they were playing without physically looking like those characters. Over the past decade, scenes from this film have continually wandered in and out of my mind and pulled me back to this great film.

Ben L (es) wrote: I personally didn't know the plot device used in Run Lola Run so if the story construction will be a spoiler to you, then I guess beware because I have to talk about it. I tend to really enjoy movies that explore the whole butterfly effect idea, and this movie does it by showing the same events with only slight changes and then presents how dramatically that affects the path of the characters' lives. What's really interesting is they also show quick flashes of how the different interactions Lola has with bystanders also changes their lives. One of my big complaints, though, is that there isn't any consistency to who gets these flash-forwards on each run through. I generally prefer (in films of this style) for everything to be the same except for subtle differences, however in this film there are people that Lola doesn't even come in contact with from one time to the next. I also am a bit confused, because I'm not sure whether Lola is aware that she is reliving the 20 minutes or not. It seems there are some snippets of information she is carrying over from one time to the next, but it's just not clear. I guess I would simply like a more defined set of rules to the strange supernatural way the story is being told.The acting is not at all consistent in Run Lola Run. Some actors are really great, and impress me with an emotionally nuanced performance, while others are flat and feel like they shouldn't even be acting in commercials. One example would be Franka Potente, because she has certain moments that impact me emotionally, and then later she's entirely too whiny in tone and lacks the confidence that I think they're trying to present in her character. However, despite the flaws I do find the story of the film engaging. I like that they present the entire thing in 3 distinct arcs, and some of the creative visuals they utilize are excellent. It's particularly interesting that each time they reset we are presented with a poorly drawn cartoon of the beginning of the run. I also like some of the split-screen techniques that increase the tension as time is quickly ticking away. Overall, the style of Run Lola Run kind of trumps the story-telling of the movie. I think they have a kernel of a great idea, but it never fully forms into a great film. It almost feels like there should be a director's cut somewhere that I'd enjoy more. A cut of the film which connects some of the side characters' stories we see in the first run-through but are left without on round 2 or 3. As it stands I'd watch Run Lola Run again, but it's not one that I feel warrants a recommend from me.

Ray P (ru) wrote: [size=3][color=darkred]A Must see movie for anybody who loves the towers[/color][/size]

Marilyn M (mx) wrote: I absolutely love this movie. It is a must see!

kenie r (fr) wrote: Pretty Woman is such a classic. Its one of those movies that whether you've seen it or not you've heard about it and generally have an idea what its about. Of course the quick summary of this movie makes it sound ridiculous. A hooker and a businessman fall in love. But once you watch it and see the characters unfold and all their sarcastic little jokes between one another really is so cute and gives everyone hope to find love.

Nick W (us) wrote: The plot is somewhat inconsequential, and I think that's the point. Tom is simply a cog caught up in the machine, expendable, one of thousands. The integration of the stock footage is beyond brilliant.

Jerico T (au) wrote: The master of building tension movies, Quentin Tarantino.