#FUuumovies | All Systems Operational Normally

Watch The 33

(33976) 6.9 127 min 2015

The 33 is a movie starring Antonio Banderas, Rodrigo Santoro, and Juliette Binoche. Based on the real-life event, when a gold and copper mine collapses, it traps 33 miners underground for 69 days.

Rodrigo Santoro, Antonio Banderas, Juliette Binoche, James Brolin
History, Drama, Biography
Patricia Riggen

Disclaimer: This site does not store any files.

Product details

Audio English  Deutsch  Italiano  Español  Français  Gaeilge  Svenska  Nederlands
Subtitles 日本語  Čeština  Português  Australia  한국어  Filipino  Tiếng Việt  हिन्दी 
Quality 480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Genres History, Drama, Biography
Director Patricia Riggen
Writer Michael Thomas, Hector Tobar, Jose Rivera, Mikko Alanne, Craig Borten
Stars Rodrigo Santoro, Antonio Banderas, Juliette Binoche, James Brolin
Country Colombia, Chile, Spain
Also Known As 33 ψυχές, Maden, 33:重生奇蹟, 33, Les 33, Os 33, Los 33, 69 Tage Hoffnung, Los 33: una historia de esperanza, チリ33人 希望の軌跡, A harminchármak
Runtime 2H 7M
Description Dozens of people from Copiapó, Chile, work in the San José mine. The owner ignores the warnings of the failing stability of the mine, which collapses a short time later. The only path inside the mine is completely blocked, and the thirty-three miners manage to get to the rescue chamber. They discover that the radio is useless, the medical kit is empty, the ventilation shafts lack the required ladders, and there is very little stored food. Mario Sepúlveda becomes the leader of the miners, dividing the foods rations and stopping the outbursts of violence and despair. The mine company does not attempt any rescue, and the relatives of the miners gather around the gates..

Top reviews

Saturday, 11 Apr 2020 17:03

In my mind this film is only a year too late. The events that occurred between 2010 and 2012 took the global financial system and economic system to a whole new level. The movie was clearly being meant for an audience of teenagers. The rating of "PG-13" is only showing that the film was being made by adults and not necessarily aimed at younger viewers. However, this is a personal opinion of mine and I believe it is only fair to not give away anything about the movie before watching. My experience with this movie was somewhat similar to the movie "Rise of the Planet of the Apes". They both had very obvious flaws but they also did a decent job of keeping a close eye on social and political events around the world. For me, this film did not come across as being an accurate portrayal of what actually happened. While I am still not completely convinced that the financial crisis in the United States was a result of fraud, the facts presented in the movie show that the biggest banks were not only behind the crisis but also the use of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to provide home loans to the financial institutions that needed them most. While the movie does a good job of showing the motivations of the bankers behind the financial crisis, I felt that the movie could have done a better job of explaining the role of politicians and the banking industry in the bailout, instead of just focusing on the banking industry. It was almost as if the writers were more interested in showing the politics of the movie rather than the actual situation in the United States. It was a good movie but if you really want to see a story that shows what really happened, you could watch "The Big Short" or "The Big Short." It is very clear that it is not what happened that was important, but what the government did with the financial crisis that was very important. Overall, I enjoyed the movie but I did not feel it was very accurate and I felt it did not portray the crisis in the way I would have liked it to be portrayed.
Saturday, 04 Apr 2020 22:32

In 1985, a mass murderer was executed in the United States for the murders of several people at his trial. That was the year of The Times Square Killer. The media frenzy was huge and the murder was one of the biggest stories in the US. So it was that the general public was trying to learn about the case, so to speak. So, for the next few years, countless documentaries and books were produced, usually focused on the case of the killer, but also on other aspects of the man, such as his abusive childhood, his high school career, his struggles with mental illness, and his later success in a career as a high-profile journalist. It was a great story to tell, and the men behind the story were all impressive. The cases of Robert J. Harris and Jeffrey Dahmer were similar in that they were all high profile and famous. But The New York Times Square Killer was very different. It was really a dark, horrifying story, and it was focused on the murders of the victims, not the perpetrator. And that's why it was such a great story. There were a number of people in the media who knew about the murders, but most of the media wasn't interested in the story. The criminal case, although involving a high-profile murderer, was so obscure that nobody in the mainstream media had a clue as to what the man was doing. So this wasn't a story you'd hear about on TV or in newspapers. It was a story you'd have to read about. And that's why it was so great. The real problem with this story is that it's been told in so many different ways over the years. We have the murders, we have the media hype, and we have the media backlash. Now, I am not against each of those. There have been numerous documentaries about The Times Square Killer. I have a copy of The Times Square Killer: The Murder at the Center of the New York Times. It's just not the same as this documentary. I think it's better than the others, but it's still not the same. The first time I saw this film, it was when I was younger. I had not yet been exposed to the case in the way it was presented in the media. I had never heard of it before that point, and I was still confused. So, I didn't have a great experience of the film. When I heard about it again, I thought I would just watch it again to get my bearings. But that's not the case. The film is still somewhat confused and unclear. I would recommend this film for people who are interested in the story, because it has been told so many different ways. It's not a documentary. It's a different film. And it's not for everyone. I did enjoy it, but I would say it's not the film to watch if
Friday, 03 Apr 2020 10:16

I'm not going to go into detail with what the film is about, but i will say that this film is directed and edited well and has some interesting angles to it. The film has a great visual style to it and works well with the film. The director managed to have a good look at the current Egyptian politics and society. It's not one of those films that is a documentary and a great look at the current politics in Egypt. The film deals with many things, but i think that it's a good example of how a film can be good, and it doesn't take itself too seriously. The actors, although having limited dialog, are well acted. I don't know how they all know Egyptian, but they did well in their roles. There are a few different actors, but they are all good and had some chemistry with the others. Overall, i think the film is good. The visuals and cinematography were nice and the film does have a look about it that is interesting. If you like documentaries, this film is worth a watch. If you want to see a documentary, watch anything from 'Rosewater' to 'Mystery of the Wax Museum' or 'The Circle' or 'Shame' or 'The Sixth Sense' or 'Two Days, One Night' or 'The New World' or 'Florence Foster Jenkins'. If you like non-fiction, check out 'The Act of Killing' or 'Viral' or 'Hidden Figures' or 'Ex Machina' or 'The Death of Stalin' or 'What Happened, Miss Simone?' or 'The Death of Stalin' or 'Citizenfour' or 'The Life and Death of Lee Harvey Oswald' or 'The New World' or 'The Power of Two' or 'Truth or Dare'. I think you'll enjoy this film. It's not the best film I've seen, but it is an interesting and worthwhile watch.
Wednesday, 01 Apr 2020 11:37

In a short period of time, Russell Crowe won best actor at the Oscars and gave us a string of strong performances. Crowe's performance in the role of Russell Crowe was one of his best yet. I have seen a few movies where the performances of a particular actor has made me stop and think about the entire film and how amazing the whole package is. Russell Crowe has the best performances in my opinion and this movie was no different. There are several scenes where the actor's whole body language, facial expression and gestures are absolutely incredible. Crowe does a very good job of making us forget that this is a movie. Russell Crowe was truly a worthy winner for this year's Oscar and I am very proud of him for winning this award. The 33 has a very good story and is quite good, but the script and story-telling is definitely not as strong as other films this year. I really liked the beginning part of the film and the ending, but the rest of the film is very predictable and you know exactly what's going to happen. I found the storyline of the film to be a little weak and I think it should have been stronger. I think it would have made a great addition to a movie that needs to be told in a way that will stand the test of time. A good story is not a weak plot, but it's a good story nonetheless. I will say that I do believe Russell Crowe is one of the most underrated actors. Russell Crowe has such a great performance in this film and it's a very good one. I hope he keeps his amazing performances coming. We can all learn from Russell Crowe's performance. I will say this film is well worth seeing.
Wednesday, 01 Apr 2020 10:11

The 33, directed by Aaron Taylor Johnson, is a film set in the late 1940's to the early 1950's. In this film we meet Johnnie Walker, a cigar-chomping English professor, and his new apprentice, Robin Van Cleef, a poor artist. As the movie begins we meet the previous Walker's two apprentices, George Stevens and Hugo Skinner. Both have a grudge against Johnnie Walker and are desperate to get back at him. So when Johnnie Walker shows up on the scene, the three of them immediately go after him. That is until George Stevens (and his wife) decides to stay away from the proceedings, deciding that the truth about Johnnie Walker is to be kept a secret. The next day, George Stevens and his wife get together with Johnnie Walker and we find out that they both had a thing for Johnnie Walker. And they also love him, despite what George Stevens thinks. The next day the three of them meet again, and both George Stevens and Johnnie Walker have made some serious mistakes in their lives. One of which is Johnnie Walker's wife. And they decide to destroy their love for Johnnie Walker so that they can live the rest of their lives as human beings. But this is a story that you have to read to find out what happens next. I have to admit that I liked this film a lot. It's a beautiful movie. It had a great plot, great characters and a great story. It is also interesting to see that a film like this is based on true events. I think that the biggest problem with the film is that the plot doesn't take too much time to develop. It seems that the film jumps back and forth from a number of events and it does that for a long time. I don't know if it was the director's fault or the story's fault. Maybe the story was so slow that the director couldn't keep up with the story's pace. Either way, the story is very slow and the plot is quite predictable. In my opinion, this movie would have been better if the story had been faster. I did like the fact that this film was made during the times when it was OK to use language and to have sex in movies. I think that there were a lot of good movies during this time period, but this film was not one of them. It is still a good movie, but it was a lot slower than I was hoping it to be. Overall, the film was well made and I think that the plot was a lot better than I expected. It was a good film, but I would have preferred it if the story had been a little faster.

Write a review