Sammy Raes, a nice, naive law-freshman from a simple family, dies in a form of hazing known as the 'flying carpet'. The father of the arrogant fraternity president Guy Bogaerts who ordered this reckless procedure abuses his connections to prevent a judicial homicide conviction, while the college authorities prefer to avoid a scandal in the press. However Sammy's freshmen friends Tom Smits and Denn
- Stars:Tom Van Landuyt, Mathias Sercu, Tom Van Bauwel, Sven De Ridder, Tania Poppe, Margot van Doorn, Axel Daeseleire, Gert Lahousse, Jan Bijvoet, Peter Fol, Victor Zaidi, Joep Onderdelinden, Stefan Perceval, Tuur De Weert, Senne Rouffaer,
- Director:Erik Van Looy,
- Writer:Mark Punt
College initiation rites on one Belgian campus end in tragic death of one freshman. His friends are determined to see the justice done. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Ad Fundum torrent reviews
(br) wrote: nah. this movie was too weird for me. I didn't shut it off in the middle, so it's got that going for it.
(jp) wrote: An interesting sequel trying to add some serious substance to the story. Added enough to make it interesting, but left so much unexplained that it kept the 'reasons' from being stupid; right in the middle. The kills and gore seemed to have been toned down greatly, though there are still some pretty crazy ones in there. Still keeping the indie feeling although the budget seems to have increased dramatically. Good flick!
(kr) wrote: All that can be said is that this is literally one of the worst films ever made.
(ru) wrote: Decided to finally watch this to get it out of the way. However, I was really pleasantly surprised. Its a formula thats been used before (couple on holiday meet murderers in the wilderness) but its deftly done and has enough twists and turns to keep you interested. It keeps you guessing right till the end, which is definitely credit to the scriptwriter and indeed the director. It is very well cast, playing with your preconceptions and forcing you to reconsider previous type casted opinions. Worth repeated veiwings, if only to pick up all the clues you missed.
(ag) wrote: Boring, not scary and completely muddled, White Noise fails on nearly every level.
(ca) wrote: Not the best, but it's certainly not the worst
(kr) wrote: It's a bit more aimed at kids this one with a plethora of Batman characters making an appearance, a more simplified storyline and some cheesey moments. It's still a fun watch though.
(es) wrote: The Day The Earth Stood StillStand By MeItThe Alien seriesThe Species seriesTake a little bit of each of those films and you have Dreamcatcher. A film classified as a horror is more of a Sci-Fi psychological thriller about a group of 4 friends who save a boy from physical bullying and they receive telepathic powers. 20 years later, an alien race is taking over earth and implanting their seeds, you'll generally know who's infected by a scar on their face. Not everybody dies and produces an alien child, some recover and return back to normal. While, the film isn't original on its own. It has a lot of concept from 5 or more different films all chalked together. It's a departure from the general drama that plagues Steven King films, but it's got that coming-of-age element. Very little with some back scenes throughout the film is spent on the past sequences. The military in the film makes it feel action oriented.
(jp) wrote: Could be worth watching. Will find and devour with my eyes!
(mx) wrote: We are compelled to look on while Kaufman, like a naughty little boy, drags Shakespeare through the streets of his grotesque world. The widely accepted modern notion that Shakespeare is sacred could leave viewers shouting "Sacrilege!" but is more likely to add to their delight, lured in by the taboo of this psychotic nightmare. Crude, cheesy, stereotypical, gory, and infinitely offensive, Kaufman makes Baz Luhrmann's modern punk adaptation, Romeo + Juliet, look like the Mother Theresa of Romeo & Juliet film adaptations. In less than fifteen minutes Kaufman manages to squeeze in explicit sex, transvestites, gang bangs, meth, incest, nut crunching, breast piercing, finger dismemberment, farting and animal maiming-an exhausting but impressive feat in itself. Romeo masturbates to a program called "Shakespeare Sex Interactive" that includes selections like "The Merchant of Penis," "As You Lick It," and "Much Ado About Humping." Instead of a nurse, Juliet's gets a badass lesbian cook and a steamy sex scene. The friar is a priest who is also a pedophile. Juliet's father forcefully dresses her in a scanty costume meant for "dirty girls" as he shackles her limbs inside of the plexiglass time out room and makes her refer to herself as "daddy's little Crenshaw melon." It is just icing on the cake that the lovers find out that they are actually brother and sister but decide to continue their incestual relationship and breed mutant children.Steve Gibbons gives an outrageously entertaining performance as London, portrayed in this film as a masochistic butcher. If Kaufman wished to exacerbate the overdramatic recklessness of the Romeo and Juliet dynamic then he certainly hit his mark. In the words of Cappy Capulet, the lovers are really just a couple of "miserable fucking monkeys in heat." Their dialogue is way over the top with Romeo declaring "My Juliet, let me bathe in your breath and your skin." Romeo declares "What light from yonder plexiglass breaks?" when he meets Juliet in the time out room, they make wedding plans over the phone while Tromeo has diarrhea on the toilet, and after the wedding they have sex against a wall in the street and get matching tattoos.Morbid to say the least, Tromeo and Juliet kill her father with a scorching curling iron to the face, bobby pins through the ears, backstabbing with a nail file, a running blow dryer in the mouth, tampons up the nasal cavity, and computer smashed over his head. Comedic relief to a tragedy or a tragedy in itself, there is something tantalizing about the suspense created when the modern sacred notion of Shakespeare is contrasted with kitsch and chaos.
(gb) wrote: Down the Postmodern Yellow Brick Road"Wild at Heart" is not one of the most famous films by David Lynch, but I think it is as worthy as his best ones. Perhaps its unique genre has been preventing a wider appreciation of the movie. The plot is deliberately simple. There are two sweethearts, Lula Fortune and Sailor Ripley. Sailor goes to prison for killing a gangster who tried to kill him. Lula's mother hates Sailor and wants her daughter to break up with him, but Lula waits for him. As soon as Sailor gets out of prison, he breaks parole and takes his love on a road-trip adventure. Wild at Heart has multiple allusions to the Wizard of Oz, with the wicked witch (Lula's mother) and the adventure and troubles of a little girl (Lula). Some of these references are even direct, like in the scene where Lula is clicking her ruby slippers. Of course, in modern times you don't walk down the yellow brick road - you drive. The lovers encounter numerous dangers on their way.PULP FICTION: Wild at Heart looks to me like a precursor to Pulp Fiction which was made by Quentin Tarantino four years later. Both movies are loaded with pop-culture references, which are a favorite fodder of postmodern directors (Wizard of Oz, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis, gangster novels). Both have a simple comic book-like plot. Even the names Sailor Ripley and Lula Fortune sound like they came from a comic book or a paperback novel. However, this simplicity is intentional - in the postmodern art the plot is usually no more than a loose guidance, a necessity used by the director to express his art. It's the same idea as when a jazz band takes a simple tune and transforms it into a completely new and fascinating art piece. There are many other similarities between the two movies. For example, the mobster's name Marcelo Santos resonates with Pulp Fiction's gangster Marcellus Wallace. Uma Thurman identifies Travolta as an Elvis man as opposed to a Beatles man - well, Lynch clearly casts Sailor as an Elvis man in his movie. But the main similarity between Wild at Heart and Pulp Fiction is the fact that in both cases we are watching an absolutely low-brow material - which normally we would skip - but are enjoying it as true art. We genuinely yearn to be around the characters, in the midst of an action, forgetting the fact that this marvelous artwork is actually built out of pulp. Tarantino will develop the same method even further with Kill Bill, but for David Lynch this is the only movie of such kind. One difference of the way Pulp Fiction is made is that the episodes in it are not sequential, even though you can mentally restore the timeline. Lynch will use the same approach later in Mulholland Drive, which is even harder to reconstruct than Pulp Fiction (although possible). The point is to take the viewer's attention away from the linear plot, from the comfort of knowing what's next, and instead focus on each episode or character alone. LYNCH'S AESTHETICS: There is a plethora of weird episodic characters in the movie, which is typical for Lynch. He always handpicks collections of bizarre and freaky creatures in his films, which are often unnecessary for the plot but create an intense mood. The pigeon-squawking man, the maniacal woman with orthopedic leg, the three fat "porn models", Mr. Reindeer (another typical comic book-like character) - the list can go on and on. This alluring ensemble of freaks and weirdos circles around our lovers on the yellow brick road. Some of them are just confusing, while others are menacing. Very few are amicable, like the old black gas station attendant who is tapping joyfully to Lula's dancing, his legs sticking out of short work overalls trousers as thin as the legs of the chair he is sitting on.ROAD HAZARDS: It feels like Lula and Sailor are the only sane people, devoid of evil tendencies, surrounded by hostile and mad reality - or perhaps they have accidentally landed in a scary fairy tale. Their journey to happiness hits snag after snag along the yellow brick road. The radio in the car keeps talking about horrible crimes and accidents on every frequency, and the atmosphere of distress is trying to put them down. They stop the car, jump out and start kissing. This may be their only way to escape, even if futile. Our heroes are alone in their adventure, and all they can hold onto is their love and the foolish snakeskin jacket, proclaimed to be a "symbol of individuality and personal freedom". But the clouds are darkening over them.The ending is a bit trivial - the Good Witch descends upon Sailor and makes all the troubles go away. The happy end contradicts the overall ominous trend of the movie. However, if we subscribe to the genre of a fairy tale, then isn't it supposed to end well?ACTING: I must admit I've never been a fan of Nicholas Cage, especially when he plays a smart or compassionate person. But he really excels as a simple-minded straight-talking wild-at-heart character like Sailor. It often takes a great director to make actors achieve their best.Willem Dafoe puts up an excellent performance as a remarkably despicable mobster Bobby Peru. He is repellent and attractive at the same time, and even Lula almost surrenders to him (remember her bent outward fingers - her "tell"?).Lula's mother displays a harmonious combination of murderous and humane sides, lying and trusting at the same time. Painting the face red before betraying and dooming her former lover is a fascinating scene reminiscent of the ancient theatre. She is evil and vengeful, yet so feminine and vulnerable.GENRE: So is Wild at Heart a road-trip movie? A love story? A fairy tale? A gangster movie? Neither, even though it freely plays with the elements of all these genres. In order to understand it, one should drop the perception constraints of any specific genre and start enjoying the movie as a unique creation. Then the movie will open up, scene by scene, like a good wine which reveals the depth of taste as you sip it. And even if characters or events follow a familiar pattern, don't get bound by it: the postmodern paradigm does not expect the viewers to take anything they see at face value. A good example of this is the ending of Fellini's film "And the Ship Sails On" where the camera shows - as if by accident - that the ship on which the action has been taking place is just a prop in the studio. (I have actually met somebody once who complained that the movie is cheaply made because of that scene...) Overall, Wild at Heart is a remarkable postmodern feature, unique in its kind for Lynch yet in the same league as Mulholland Drive and Eraserhead.
(au) wrote: As usual anything Swaize's in is good.
(fr) wrote: A bit too long but the film has the quality of those big productions of the 60ies (vibrant colours, nice location, solid actors and artistic direction).
(it) wrote: Another wonderful melodrama by Mr. Ophuls.
(ag) wrote: What if Brian DePalma directed Phone Booth inside a concert hall? That's what the film feels like. Pretty taut and gripping, for the most part.
(gb) wrote: Qu tal si Deliverance y Straw Dogs fuesen ms violentas? sera este filme, que si bien est plagado de violencia y un humor negro bastante retorcido, no existe una historia con crtica hacia la diferencia de clases; Pero el filme nunca busca esta crtica, est hecho para entretenerse y las escenas gore son muy divertidas y en ocasiones creativas, solo no esperes encontrar desarrollo de personajes con ritmo y decisiones inteligentes.
(it) wrote: wow psycho thriller in candy coated colors doesn't make it any less disturbing