You may also like
Al cuore si comanda torrent reviews
Silvie M (br) wrote: A very entertaining and enlightening film. Beware the claustrophobic camera direction however, which will have you gazing up nostrils and directly at the tiniest of skin blemishes in nearly every frame.
Brian S (fr) wrote: In search of Lovecraft? Don't look here. You'll find only a yawning gulf of unnameable horrors stretching out before you for a no-budget, no-talent hour and a half that will leave you wanting to plunge shoggoths into your eyes."In Search of Lovecraft" has a suitably Lovecraftian premise: a very green TV news reporter is researching HP Lovecraft for a Halloween story. She stumbles into an occult expert who tells her that the whole thing is real and leads her straight to the cult of Nyarlathotep... but anyone who knows that the cult exists becomes its target. The expert, the reporter, her cameraman and a witch team up to save their own lives and to find the black stone trapezohedron that the cultists will use to open the gate and let Nyarlathotep in on November 6. Which doesn't make much sense, since they've already made a big deal about Nyarlathotep being the only outer god who dwells among humans. Wouldn't seem like he'd have much use for a gate if he's already here, and if this was the flick's worst problem, we could let it pass.The thing is, this one goes wrong in more ways than there are tentacles on Cthulhu's face. The acting is uniformly wooden, horrible enough to drive anyone who sees it insane. The writing is terrible, too. Characters do things that simply don't make any sense, and the whole thing revolves around the notion that San Francisco's Coit Tower is secretly a landing pad for the malevolent Lovecraftian gods. Throw in some terrible CG (wait until you see the dimensional hound!) and puppetry (a tentacle clearly attached to nothing at one point), a mish-mash of New Age, Solomonic and Thelemic ritual magic performed by a willowy blond with no acting ability and a nasal voice -- hearing her chanting is *such* a treat -- and you've got something much, much worse than anything found in the Necronomicon.I'm a major fan of Lovecraft and will see any movie even remotely based on his work, and I tend to be more lenient in my estimation of Lovecraftiana than other sorts of horror films because I love the idea of someone trying to film one of HPL's notoriously difficult-to-film stories. "In Search of Lovecraft" does little more than borrow names from Lovecraft's works, though. It isn't really based on anything he wrote and the baddies here could have been anything at all; there's nothing particularly Lovecraftian about them, or the story, or anything other than throwing a bunch of hard-to-pronounce words at the viewer.If the makers of this atrocious insult to the memory of the great horror author ever did find Lovecraft, he'd probably slap them for making this thing.
Kyle M (fr) wrote: The young cast of the main characters performed well together as a team in this funny family holiday film with a good heart. (B+)(Full review coming soon)
Senor C (mx) wrote: Not for the casual viewer this documentary looks @ the US hardcore punk movement from the late 70s until its death in the early 80s & some of the bands involved. Some are shamefully missing like the Dead Kennedys. I probably would have dug this docs 20 years ago since I used to listen to some of these bands like Black Flagg, DRI & Minor Threat but old age has made me soft & Im not as angry or as rebellious. Now I find a lot of it to be just noise. I think it's impossible to stay hardcore forever. It's a nice look @ what once was & the influence that it had but I still find the English counter part to be better & more interesting
Jason D (kr) wrote: very dull movie that breaks a ton of screenwriting rules. opening is not compelling in the least, huge act 2 lull after the midpoint, daniels is pointless and doesn't show up until act 2. characters introduced have 2 scenes and die in ten minutes. dialogue is on the nose and characters frequently go into oration of scripture or Shakespeare. Stephen Lang did a good job as stonewall, duvall was fine as Lee. technically middling. basically an unbearably dull 4 hr movie with a terrible script. the civil war movie I wrote is much better even to someone besides me. this was written by a total novice. no redeeming visuals but some good acting to keep it from my worst ever lists.
Daniel P (gb) wrote: One of James Mangold's earlier films, Cop Land displays a highly watchable raggedness (call it kitchen-sink realism, or call it spotty) that seems rather realistic but incorporates every "bad cop" movie cliche you can think of; tells a compelling story but paces it strangely; often over-explains but sometimes leaves you filling in blanks yourself, too; stands the test of time but still looks SO 90s; shows a plausible slice of life in which you root for the little guy, but anchors it to a lead character (Stallone) almost implausibly inert, rendering him hard to truly get behind. The camera work is bad, and the dialogue is by times worse, but there's a feeling to this movie that can't be discounted--a pain in Stallone's character that somehow shines through. It's not a great movie, but it's not awful either. Interesting early work from the director of Walk the Line and Girl, Interrupted--but also of Knight and Day--and one that I liked just a little bit more than I disliked.
Rick V (ru) wrote: Video games uses hypnosis to create horror experience. Watched on Google TV's Crackle Movie web site for free.
Kristin B (kr) wrote: the first one was better
Paul B (br) wrote: One of the best Sherlock Holmes movies ever, yet with one of the most incorrect portrayals of the great detective ever. Moody and wonderfully atmospheric, this 'Sherlock Holmes meets Jack the Ripper' tale is thick with Imperial Government conspiracy and boogedy-boogedy Masonic skulking about. A terrific cast -- David Hemmings, Donald Sutherland, Genevieve Bujold, Anthony Quayle, John Gielgud -- brings gravitas to the fanciful script, and creates interesting characters for Christopher Plummer & James Mason to interact with. Bob Clark -- yeah, the "Porky's" Bob Clark -- directs the shadowy goings-on with a sure hand and an eye for suspense and intrigue. James Mason makes a wonderfully stalwart, if a bit aged, Dr. Watson; one of the better cinematic portraits of the old soldier and renowned ladie's man. Christopher Plummer plays Holmes was a bit more warmth and humor than what Conan Doyle probably had in mind, but his steely intensity and righteous fury at the evil being committed grounds in a likably heroic mode. One false note, and an irritating one: Throughout the film, we see Plummer's Holmes in stereotypical 'Sherlock Holmes' costume, i.e. deerstalker cap, Inverness cape coat, and bent pipe. Even at the opera! In Victorian London, dressing in country wear like that would be like wearing a down vest and baseball cap in modern times, while conducting one's business (or pursuing one's pleasure) in the city. It's as if the filmmakers wanted us to know that, frame-by-frame, this is a SHERLOCK HOLMES MOVIE. An irritating gaffe -- actually, an amateurish one -- that robs the picture of an extra degree of greatness.
Jonathan J (es) wrote: Another great film by Louis Malle, there is not much to the film itself because the story relies solely on the actors to tell the story. A great performance by Pierre Blaise, who plays Lucien. A great film though it drags a little in some areas.
Robin E (jp) wrote: Back in the 60s, this was liking throwing a lit match into a room filled with petrol, an account of Algeria's struggle to free itself from under the command of France. But instead of doing a normal telling of the story, Pontecorvo broke all the rules and told it as if it was a living, breathing, vibrant documentary. The result is extraordinary, an unflinching study of terrorism and - more importantly - what breeds it.
Tony E (ru) wrote: A great idea but badly executed with a story that made little sense. Using the city of Jerusalem for a film was refreshing and I enjoyed seeing various city locations - this film could have worked (it had a slight flavour of Cloverfield to it). One interesting feature was the use of a technological device to carry the narrative i.e. the techno glasses being worn instead of a hand-held camera being held that normally gives viewers that constantly annoying wobbly factor - the glasses prevented this and worked for this reason. (I doubt any sane person would hold a camera in the way portrayed in similar horror films - fragmented shots would be interesting). The glasses though are something that's now available on the market and its technology is being developed so this film gave me food for thought in relation to its use. The lead character was annoying - I felt sorry for the soldiers who were trying to get people to a safe location and were bullied by the lead character (she was annoying). There was a moment in the film when a Muslim family were arguing with Jewish soldiers and I wondered if this was trying to touch on a level of reality - this could have been a main part of the narrative where differences are set aside for a greater purpose - but it didn't and I thought it was a lost opportunity. Without wanting to give the plot away some things didn't make sense - like the girls' brother, for example. The end of days scenario fascinates and frightens us at the same time but this film didn't provide fascination or fear.