A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge
A teenage boy is haunted in his dreams by Freddy Krueger who is out to possess him in order to continue his murder spree in the real world.
You may also like
A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge torrent reviews
Lane S (ag) wrote: A very creative premise that is offset by a rather unimpressive storyline. Had the film actually resolved all the viewers questions at the end and not make the antagonists so fiction-like, it very well could have been one of the best found footage, maybe even horror flicks of the last 20 years.
Jordon J (br) wrote: With fine and affecting performances all round, this is an enjoyably old-fashioned ensemble piece and a solid start to a career behind the camera. I say SEE IT!!!
Al M (jp) wrote: I found this to be a rather poor follow-up to the original--it lacked the memorable special effects and brutality. While I still appreciated the on-location shooting in Romania and the addition of the bloodstone mythology, the film never quite came together as well as its predecessor.
Irvin C (us) wrote: This is a rather sweet (pun intended) film. A wonderful ensemble of actors (aren't Mike Leigh films inhabited by great ensembles?) bring to life a tale of a working-class family who have their own unique problems. There are funny moments, sad moments and sometimes funny-sad moments but they're endlessly fascinating. Not my favorite Mike Leigh film though.
Sean B (ag) wrote: The very movie that inspired none other than The Dukes of Hazzard. Love it or hate it Moonrunners has everything going in just right the direction as long as it's the direction you happen to favor. Fast cars, hard drinkin', and light hearted tom foolery. What else could one ask for? Action...yeah, yeah that's in there. It's a ride just make sure you buy the ticket because it's a stub you'll wanna double stick to your ceiling.
Matthew H (es) wrote: Murder on the Orient Express is an Agatha Christie classic, and is just as suspenseful and entertaining as the average Hitchcock flick. The characters, the story and the details all fit together like pieces of a puzzle here.
Don S (ca) wrote: For me the trouble with iconic movies, in this case the quintessential mountain man, is that they rarely live up to my expectations based on what I've heard. This is a decent movie with beautiful cinematography and better than average acting. It is not nearly the best western I've ever seen (doesn't even make the top 10). The story is slow and overlong. However, the characters grow and are mostly people you can care about.
Edgar C (au) wrote: Classy, joyous; Bergman playing with a full-star cast , spot-on, polished, comedic dialogues, and the madness of love with some touches of early Max phuls in German territory. Comedy at its best, since it provides the laughs and smiles from the authenticity of the characters and the previously planned screenplay. One of the greatest romantic comedies of the decade, several times referenced in the future specially by Woody Allen. 99/100
Caitlin L (ru) wrote: As the movie went the ending became very apparent.
Allan C (gb) wrote: Dumb 80s action flick is only of note because it stars Tommy Lee Jones in a role that seemed more befitting of Chuck Norris or Lorenzo Lamas. However, the script is based on a story from John Carpenter (I'm curious what his original version was like) and the film features a stronger cast than t his lame brain production deserved, which includes Linda Hamilton, Robert Vaughn, Richard Jaeckel, Lee Ving, Bubba Smith, William Sanderson, Keenan Wynn and Nick Cassavetes. There's also a Lalo Schifrin score. Unfortunately, the lame story about a car thief Jones working with the FBI to recover some random McGuffin is no better than your average Andy Sidaris script.
Steve H (ca) wrote: I spent 25p on this dvd second hand.....i was robbed!
Joseph L (ag) wrote: The books are so much better.
Calum B (br) wrote: All comedy stems from tragedy. Comedy cannot exist with a dramatic premise because drama forms the situations of reality from which a narrative can exist and develop. What is said within these situations becomes the punchline. The stronger the situations and the more involving the drama of the story, the funnier the film should be. Modern comedies though often fail to acknowledge the dramatic value of a situation, hoping the jokes will support themselves. I Give it a Year didn't draw a single laugh from me. It forgoes the crucial rule of humour: comedy must exist in reality. This is an anomaly for the British studio Working Title Films whose films, including Love Actually and Notting Hill, have grounded themselves in both quiet observation and dry wit. With a script by first time director Dan Mazer, the plot and the characters here are both underdeveloped and the jokes misfire from unrealistic situations and dialogue. Mazer is a long-time collaborator of Sacha Baron Cohen. He wrote and produced all three of Cohen's feature films, including Borat, which were American-UK productions. Similarly, this film is crassly written as though Working Title Films had a broader demographic in mind, to whom the subject of sex might still seem like the high point of comedy. The concept is not as subversive as Mazer claims it is either. Josh (Rafe Spall) and Nat (Rose Byrne) are a couple who have decided to marry after seven months. None of their friends, including Nat's sister (Minnie Driver), believe that they will last. Two months later and they are already in counselling. Josh has written one book but has failed to grasp the second. Nat is working in an office and frustrated by Josh's complacency and his annoying best friend Danny (Stephen Merchant). Josh becomes reacquainted with his ex-girlfriend Chloe (Anna Faris) and Nat is attracted to the smooth talking and successful Guy (Simon Baker), an American client who likes her but doesn't know that she is married. The familiar premise of two people already spoken for attaches itself to a gimmick where we are meant to realise that Josh and Nat don't belong to each other and are better suited to other partners. The film postures as being about the aftermath of commitment, including the consequences of rushing into a marriage. However, this concept is not treated with any dramatic weight or seriousness for the situations to hold any trace of drama or tragedy. Instead, we're reminded frequently of why the couple is unsuited but the point is obvious and laboured: we're meant to laugh at a failing relationship that was never promising to begin with.Mazer also diminishes the comedy by reducing scenes into disconnected skits, determined to embarrass characters, even the ones that we're meant to be rooting for. The characters are so thinly drawn that it disperses the likelihood of seeing them growing and having an emotional attachment. Being made a slacker, Josh is the target for a lot of juvenile humiliations including: his in-laws seeing naked photos of him! Or dancing drunkenly like Beyonc at Nat's work function!The potential partners aren't free from this degradation either. Anna Faris has a terribly unfunny scene where she is squashed under a would- be threesome with her partner and another girl. Simon Baker, whose performance overloads on unctuousness, has his romantic credibility strained in a stupid scene where he brings a violinist and doves to a private board meeting with Nat. Would it spoil the gag to mention there is a fan in the room? Stephan Merchant is a hugely talented comedian but his role is singular: to be as obnoxious as possible, reminding us how even Josh's friends repulsive to Nat. He echoes Spike from Notting Hill, but minus anything resembling a character arc. He exists to say unlikely things, like a wedding speech where he talks about having sex with bridesmaids. It's unbearably grating and not funny. Much of the dialogue in I Give it a Year resides in this level of smuttiness to hold the audience's attention in the absence of drama and conflict. But comedy that retains dramatic purpose is always preferable to comedy for comedy's sake. The tragedy that should uphold the dramatic framework of the story must be relative to the characters, not the film itself.
Mark H (it) wrote: Fantastic realization of the novel of the same name about Christopher McCandless, who at age 22 and disillusioned by his parent's deception about his father's polygamy, abandons his comfortable upper-class life immediately upon graduating from college to explore the country largely on foot. He spends the first 2 years moving around the western states, taking various jobs and living off the land for weeks at a time. He travels down the Colorado River by kayak, and, after wandering for nearly 2 years, decides to travel to Alaska to attempt to live off the land for several months. The film is very well made, the performances, especially young Emile Hirsch, are very authentic and affecting. Backed by an incredible soundtrack of original songs by Eddie Vedder, this is a great movie about a somewhat lost soul, but someone most people can relate to at some point in their lives, who is merely searching for what he calls "truth." This film makes me question my own choices and lifestyle, which must say something about the power of this film. The end is tragic, but almost necessarily so. Would we have ever known of McCandless, aka "Alexander Supertramp," had he not perished alone in an abandoned bus in the Alaskan wild? This is a compelling story that is, understandably, quite polarizing. Opinions vary greatly about Alex and his journey. One thing is undeniable - he had the courage and principles which few have at age 22 to walk into the world alone and try to discovery who he was. Sean Penn pays the proper respect to the life of one young man who, right or wrong, chose to live a certain life instead of being told what kind of life to live, particularly by those he no longer trusted or respected.