Disclaimer: This site does not store any files on its server.

Watch 7500

7500 is a movie starring Omid Memar, Passar Hariky, and Hicham Sebiai. A pilot's aircraft is hijacked by terrorists.

Drama, Thriller
Patrick Vollrath
Hicham Sebiai, Paul Wollin, Omid Memar, Passar Hariky

All Systems Operational

Product details

Genres Drama, Thriller
Director Patrick Vollrath
Writer Patrick Vollrath, Senad Halilbasic
Stars Hicham Sebiai, Paul Wollin, Omid Memar, Passar Hariky
Country USA, Germany, Austria
Runtime 1 h 32 min
Audio Português  English  Deutsch  Italiano  Español  Français  Gaeilge  Svenska  Nederlands
Subtitles Português  日本語  Čeština  Australia  한국어  Filipino  Tiếng Việt  हिन्दी 
Quality 480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Description A pilot's aircraft is hijacked by terrorists.

Top reviews

Tuesday, 04 Aug 2020 08:59

This movie is very disturbing and rather grotesque in it's content, especially in it's portrayal of violence towards women. Some of the scenes are reminiscent of the film "Psycho" where a woman goes mad and kills some of her family members. However, the story of this film is completely different and not on par with the Psycho movies. This film is about the girl, Kira, who begins to feel her breasts start to grow, as well as her breasts getting bigger, and finally her breasts growing even larger than before. She also begins to find a huge new target in her life in the form of a blind woman. This is not a typical "boob-fiesta" film where the women are getting themselves to do everything with a bunch of boobies, which is what this film is like. As you can tell from the title, this is a far more realistic film about a woman going mad than "Psycho". Some of the other differences between this film and "Psycho" are: - The director is NOT Hitchcock. This is not a Hitchcock film and is quite different. - The dialogue is much more adult than usual, although it's not like you'd want to see it in a school play. - There's a lot more violence than usual. - There's a lot more sexual content, some of it explicit. - It's more darker than typical American films. - It's not just a bunch of women getting tortured by some evil criminal. There are some women who are murdered, which is very unusual. - Some of the other characters are very well developed and well acted. - There are more sequences of gore and more of violence than usual. - Some of the acting is very good. However, this film is definitely not a comedy, not even an "adult comedy". - There's not a lot of humor, either, although it's hard to say what the director was trying to achieve with this film. As a result, it could be a better adaptation of a hard-to-fit-into-your-head "comedic" character film. It's definitely more of a tragedy film than a comedy. It's not one of my favorite movies but it's an interesting one that deserves to be seen. It's rated "R" for some sexual material and disturbing material.
Saturday, 18 Jul 2020 05:35

Arrival is a gripping thriller/horror with a lot of moral ambiguity. It involves a future in which all is well and the government has created a 'war room' to warn the world, based on a belief that the Earth has been overpopulated and is ailing. The most important thing to remember is that it's not the Earth that is coming to an end, but mankind itself. An Agent named Louise Banks (Amy Adams) is sent to infiltrate a government facility to find out why a bunch of Earthlings are mysteriously dying. She gets put into the new command post (think Apollo 13) where she is told she has the right of refusal but she will not have that right because the President (Bryan Cranston) and Vice President (Jeremy Renner) want control of the entire Earth. So, she's basically an intellectual walk-through. The movie does a fine job at building tension throughout the story. Not to mention the all-star cast, mostly supporting roles. Amy Adams gives a very strong performance. She is obviously very talented but you don't see a lot of her in the film. She does a good job of coming to terms with her past, learning to cope with the loss and understanding how she's handling life now. That's what director Denis Villeneuve does and is worthy of the Oscar for best director. It is a very intense story and the movie works very well. There are some characters that are very under-developed, especially the main character. But there is no reason to keep an out-of-shape Amy Adams at all times. It's not just her, it's a very well-written film with some incredibly beautiful sets and scenes. It is, however, somewhat slow-paced. There are plenty of flashbacks that go nowhere. But that does not matter, because the story is worth paying attention to. It's intense, violent, sad and still has a lot to say about humanity. It has a lot to say about government, war, gender roles and corporate greed. All in all, this is one of the best movies I've seen in 2017. It deserves better than 6.2, but it certainly deserves to be much higher.
Wednesday, 10 Jun 2020 17:42

Of course the theme is revenge and I wouldn't be surprised if it's some of the few films this year that has them prominently present. And that's really the problem with this movie. The theme is nothing but revenge but there are only a handful of threads to work with, and a couple of characters in the film that are extremely unlikely for revenge to come into play. None of the revenge that is discussed or the more brutal methods the survivors use are taken seriously. The first thing you notice is the filmmaker's failure to establish a real, cohesive story. The subplot of the survivor who spends his last few days on earth trying to protect the world he knows from this massacre in Nepal is too similar to his introduction to the survivor on the plane, who is more or less "terrified" at the prospect of becoming a guinea pig. That seems like the same element in their "relationship" and we don't know what that's supposed to mean, or why it's relevant to this movie. The survivor who wants to help others is way too weak and the people he tries to help are far too young. The original survivor we meet on the plane is a very skilled thief, a very impressive tool for the viewer to play with. His character is a bit underdeveloped and instead of feeling his strength we just see him using the weakness of the film to his advantage. The film's main antagonist is clearly supposed to be in league with him. Which means the film plays the psychological mind game that "Guillermo del Toro" intends to play, since he was so successful with films like "Pan's Labyrinth" where the antagonist is really in league with the hero and the hero is in league with the villain. The movie works fine as a thriller but is much more interesting if it had been entirely focused on the tale of the survivors in Nepal. The journey they take through the movie is where we get to know them, we get to feel what their pain is and how they're hurt and how they fight to survive the circumstances that forced them to take action in the first place. The one thing that unites the whole movie is the filmmaking. The location of Nepal is brilliantly filmed with a lot of detail that feels real. It really comes across as a detailed and accurate representation of the landscape. The cinematography is also amazing, the shots are used to capture the overall mood of the scenes. I don't know if this is just one of the most beautiful cinematography I've ever seen but it feels like it could be. Everything feels right and you can feel the actors' impact. But the plot? It doesn't really matter what it is, because we are just supposed to be entertained by it. We don't care about anything in the movie and it's more for the viewers to figure out what it is, whether it's good or bad. But the plot in itself is not the problem here, the problem is the terrible exposition that the filmmaker uses to introduce the characters and the set up. So instead of doing a direct story about the survivors trying to survive, he chooses to tell us what's going on in the characters' heads, or at least what the characters think and want. In other words, he says something to the audience that is easily comprehensible and that he's going to explain later. So while we're waiting for that something to happen, we're getting nothing in the meantime. And in the end it's just a bit more of what we already know from the beginning of the movie that gets explained more than anything else. So, there's a lot of not-so-clever camera tricks, way too many close-ups and a good deal of jumping from one character to another, but it's all for the sake of making you understand something about the characters or the characters themselves, not for the sake of being clever. And to summarize, "The Day After Tomorrow" is a very badly made movie that seems to be more focused on the filmmaking than on a well-made story. There is nothing good about it and there's nothing bad about it. It's just a bad movie. It was nominated for Best Foreign Language film and Best Foreign Film. It's also up for the Golden Globe for Best Foreign Film. It's not at all a bad movie

Write a review