4 the Fans: Michael Jackson

4 the Fans: Michael Jackson

A compilation of very rare and exclusive private moments with Michael Jackson. Interviews, back-stage pillow fighting, Michael introducing his pet llama Louie - a must see!

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:87 minutes
  • Release:2010
  • Language:
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:4 the Fans: Michael Jackson 2010 full movies, 4 the Fans: Michael Jackson torrents movie

A compilation of very rare and exclusive private moments with Michael Jackson. Interviews, back-stage pillow fighting, Michael introducing his pet llama Louie - a must see! . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


4 the Fans: Michael Jackson torrent reviews

Alonso A (kr) wrote: Well, it is pretty established already that David Fincher has an eye for turning compelling psychological crime thrillers into successful movies with an author touch. With Gone Girl, we can pretty much say he's done it again.The movie is moody, and well paced, it doesn't drag for a moment dispite its 145 minute running time, and that's mainly due to great screenwriting. The characters are richly developed and every twist is placed in the right moment, just as you were beginning to feel you could figure out the story. It is true that the final 15 minutes feel a little bit anti-climatic, but it's all forgotten quickly as the dumbfounding last scene fades into the credits. In technical aspects, we get what we've come to expect from Fincher. A cold color palette, with beautifully frivolous shots and a mastery in detail make the photography an important part of the story, one that complements the tone of it. Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross are by now pretty much a handcuff for a compelling score, and they don't let us down. The tense tone and the intrigue is reflected on the ambient and subtle electronic music.In acting, Ben Affleck is surprisingly good, and Rosamund Pike pretty much embraces her character to the fullest, making it unforgettable, a safe bet for an Oscar nod. Although, there are some bizarre cast decisions that leave us disconcerted, like Tyler Perry, Neil Patrick Harris and Emily Ratajkowski, but in the end, and surprisingly so, none of them manage to spoil the tone of the film (Tyler Perry is even somewhat convincing as a manipulative lawyer!). Overall, Gone Girl is another solid entry into David Fincher's stellar filmography, contrasting intrigue, drama, suspense and dark humor in a way that shows expertise, and even thought it doesn't reach the level of some of his highly acclaimed classics, it still delivers everything we could ask in a movie with his name on the poster.

Trey B (au) wrote: Draft Day is a very enjoyable sports flick!

Ryan V (ru) wrote: Very effective sequel to one of the better horror films of the last decade. I preferred the first for it's mounting tension and discovery of the situation the main characters were facing. But on the plus side, the spooky events occur more often and are bigger than in the previous film. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing where this series continues to go.

Ponderflix P (es) wrote: John Travolta plays the role of Vengeful Ex-Soldier who was shot during the Bosnian War in a war crime by some bad Americans shooting bad Serbian war criminals. Specifically it's suggested he may have been shot by Robert De Niro who plays Colonel Benjamin Something. Now 18 years later, Vengeful Ex-Soldier has bought some American military personnel files off a bloke in a pub. One of the files is on Colonel Benjamin Something. "I have been waiting 18 years to do a revenge film with De Niro" says Vengeful Ex-Soldier to the bloke in the pub, who seems to be losing interest.Imagine if you will, John Travolta attempting a Serbian accent. Imagine what that would be like for 90 minutes. Yep, it's as bad as you just imagined. Travolta's awful accent competes for ridiculousness with his 'hair' which at times appears to be a specially designed swimming cap and at others a bald head that has been very neatly coloured in with very black permanent marker.This is so rubbish in so many ways, it seems so little effort has gone into the enterprise, that it has an active contempt for the viewer. It openly defies you to bother summoning the will to dislike it. Or sit all the way through it. I managed it in three chunks. Both actors seem to be putting in the bare minimum effort; the extended dialogue scene between the two in Colonel Something's cabin looks like a half-arsed script read through/failed improvisation that got left in by mistake....The action is limp, the script is nothing, the performances are shambolic.I expect this kind of nonsense from Travolta, but the disappointing thing is I have come to expect it from De Niro. It's sad and perplexing to watch him drive nails into the coffin of a once brilliant career that already has more nails in it than it could ever possibly need. Nothing is getting out of that coffin Bobby, why are you doing this?Full review at ponderflix on wordpress.

Adrian B (au) wrote: Forgettable excuse for a movie that uses the name of the original but never delivers.

John A (ca) wrote: Hellseeker is the sixth instalment of the Hellraiser franchise and the first bad sequel. Hellseeker follows the husband of the recently deceased Kristy (Ashley Laurence, Hellraiser 1&2), as he battles with nightmares and reality after a car accident which killed Kristy. A detective believes him when he talks about the accident but with Kristy's body missing it makes him look bad. Like Hellraiser: Inferno (2000) before it, "Hellseeker" was originally a non-Hellraiser related horror script owned by Dimension. To save money on writing a completely original Hellraiser story, the script was quickly edited to insert the Cenobites and references to Kirsty's past with them. A scene written specifically to try and bring the largely unrelated plot in line with the canon of the first two Hellraiser films was subsequently cut. The writing, production, cast performances and direction is terrible but somehow watchable. The plot is a bit of a mess to start with but does become clearer as the film moves on, but although a watchable sequel just avoid it, not unless theirs nothing left to view. It's a bit camp & is sold on Ashley Laurence's return to the series, but sadly It's in a smaller role but still an important one.

David S (us) wrote: Beautiful, subtle horror from first time director Bill Paxton. The story of a father who believes God has chosen him to kill demons, and his unlucky children, who "help" him. Set in 1979, and in the present where the youngest child Adam, seems to be on a killing spree of his own...this is intelligent independent film making at its best, the cast is first rate, the story darkly beautiful. When you're looking for something to watch this Halloween, give Freddy or Michael Myers a night off and enjoy this terrific film.

Ola G (br) wrote: A prophecy states that a female child with a special birthmark will herald the downfall of the evil sorceress Queen Bavmorda (Jean Marsh). Bavmorda imprisons all pregnant women in her realm to prevent fulfilment of the prophecy. When the prophesied child is born, the mother begs the midwife to take her to safety. The midwife reluctantly accepts and leaves Nockmaar castle unnoticed. The mother is executed and the midwife is eventually found. Knowing she cannot escape, she sets the baby on a makeshift raft of grass and sends her down the river hoping for fate to run its course. The midwife is then killed by Nockmaar hounds. Bavmorda sends her daughter Sorsha (Joanne Whalley) and General Kael to find the baby. The baby drifts downriver to a Nelwyn village. She comes into the care of Willow Ufgood (Warwick Davis), a kind farmer and conjurer who hopes to become a sorcerer; his wife Kiaya and his children fall in love with the baby immediately, and Willow too soon grows to love her as one of his own. During a town festival the village is attacked by a Nockmaar hound which is quickly killed by the village warriors. The High Aldwin, the village sorcerer, learns about the baby and selects Willow, due to his devotion to the child, to accompany a party of volunteers returning the baby to the Daikini (human) people. At a crossroads, they find a human warrior named Madmartigan (Val Kilmer) trapped in a crow's cage. The rest of the party want to give the baby to Madmartigan and go home immediately, but Willow and his friend Meegosh refuse, so the others leave. After spending the night at the crossroads, and meeting an army led by Airk Thaughbaer, an old friend of Madmartigan's, marching against Bavmorda, Willow reluctantly decides to free Madmartigan so that he can take care of the baby for them. Later on, the baby is stolen by a group of brownies. While chasing them, Willow and Meegosh are trapped, but rescued by Cherlindrea, a Fairy Queen, who identifies the baby as Elora Danan, the future princess of Tir Asleen and Bavmorda's bane, and assigns Willow the task of helping the baby fulfil her destiny...Janet Maslin from The New York Times praised Lucas' storytelling, but was critical of Ron Howard's direction. "Howard appears to have had his hands full in simply harnessing the special effects," Maslin said. Desson Thomson writing in The Washington Post, explained "Rob Reiner's similar fairytale adventure The Princess Bride (which the cinematographer Adrian Biddle also shot) managed to evoke volumes more without razzle-dazzle. It's a sad thing to be faulting Lucas, maker of the Star Wars trilogy and Raiders of the Lost Ark, for forgetting the tricks of entertainment." Mike Clark in USA Today wrote that "the rainstorm wrap-up, in which Good edges Evil is like Led Zeppelin Meets The Wild Bunch. The film is probably too much for young children and possibly too much of the same for cynics. But any 6-13-year-old who sees this may be bitten by the "movie bug" for life." I havent seen "Willow" for years and decided it was time to re-watch it. Its quite obvious that "Willow" is modeled on Tolkiens "Lord of the Rings" trilogy as theres many similar touching points in the storyline. It most likely appeals to 10-13 year olds and back in 1988 I reckon this fantasty adventure got its audience for sure. This being a Ron Howard movie, we get something conventional and unsurprising. I personally think that Howard has created too many long scenes that really creates a stretch in the story instead of creating dynamics. The films action set pieces are generally solid, while the special effects are not so solid. The special effects is a big minus in the film in my point of view. Then again in 1988 I did most likely have a different opinion. Unfortunately, director Ron Howard and executive producer George Lucas also seems to have put too much focus on the visual effects and practical issues while the direction and character development suffers from less focus throughout the movie. Most actors give as well an uneven and inconsistent performance. It was however nice to re-see Val Kilmer in his heyday and the same for the oh so lovely Joanne Whalley. "Willow" has its entertaining moments, but theres too much that is unsatisfying for yours truly to feel that this is still special in 2016.

Matthew N (jp) wrote: A solid revenge story, with some great acting and interesting story. Unfortunately the best parts of this movie were the parts without dialogue, which was only the first half-hour. Still, it's different and engaging, and I'll certainly be seeing this one again

Ryan M (nl) wrote: Predictable, corny and cute. Hey I like corny and cute!

Scott R (us) wrote: Another lousy melodramatic Sparks film

BRUNO V (ru) wrote: I realy did like this movie ! Nice Shooting ... Not to much I loved a crazy Joseph Gordon-Levitt .