You may also like
Ay Lav Yu torrent reviews
Simon H (ag) wrote: This movie had me dying! For the first 45 mins anyway. Then they tried to make a movie out of it. Still hilarious overall!
Zahran Z (kr) wrote: Hmmm... ok another wrestler...is this the next ROCK?
Victor T (es) wrote: In the 2010s a new trend was born and exploited to death by Hollywood: Splitting films in half. This blatant cash grab trend was started needlessly in the process of adapting the finale of the adventures of Harry Potter and company and while it goes without saying that this wasn't needed at all, the question remains: is this first half of a movie a satisfying one? After the major events of the last film, Harry and company are chased across both Wizard and Muggle worlds. In this state of desperation, the trio goes rogue in order to avoid Death Eaters and the Ministry (which has been infiltrated by Voldemort) and find the rest of the Horcruxes. But in their quest they will learn not only about the Horcruxes but about the mythical Deathly Hollows. To be honest, the sole existence of this film pisses me off, as it is the ultimate representation of Hollywoods greed and laziness. Warner could have easily mixed all that's important here into "Half Blood Prince" (before people say well that's a different book, Peter Jackson mixed stories of the three LotR books and it worked flawlessly in streamlining things), but putting that feeling aside this film is dull. Considering the fact that the story is Harry and company in a road trip hiding from the rest of the world, this film is extremely limited as we are trapped with the main trio when we have already learn everything about them (we have spent six film with them for Christ sake) and have already explore every character angle possible, the story is insanely stretched, shocking for an unnecessary film, as instead of focusing on chasing down Horcruxes we get a wedding, another teen romance and tons of needless exposition; and it suffers from major pacing issues. To be honest, I thought this would be on par with "Prisoner of Azkaban" as it would be focused on character development but it isn't, it's so focused on exposition that could have been done on previous films and it doesn't tell us anything new about these characters at all, every time they interact we have seen it before: Angry ("Goblet of Fire"), investigating ("Chamber of Secrets"), in love ("Half Blood Prince") and confident (the whole freaking franchise). "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part 1" is a competent greatest hits of the franchise. It is unnecessary, slow, stretched but competent. An attempt at character development that arrived two movies too late.
pave m (ru) wrote: gad i miss brittany murphy. and all those faison-murphy scenes. *sigh* making me emotional you guys.
Jake S (nl) wrote: They don't call Paul Gross the Canadian Tom Cruise for nothing. Probably the best ski movie ever made and top ten movies ever.
Barry T (nl) wrote: Dolly was delightful as always and this was a lovely film
Shantel D (br) wrote: One of the worst I've seen of this kind of movie. It had a couple "haha" moments, but other than that, it spent most of it's time trying to be other horror movies that are far more clever.
Mark S (mx) wrote: A moving film concerning a controversial topic. The lead performance by Dreyfuss and the supporting cast, particulary Lahti, make this a must see. Highly recommended.
Z (ca) wrote: This version of Zorro is probably my favourite. Great cheesy lines and wierd costumes make this bizarre comedy really worth watching! I can't take Zorro seriously anymore!!
Veniea T (us) wrote: All CLASSICS are GOOD
Al M (it) wrote: Drive-In Massacre is sort of proto-slasher film. Some of the basic constituents of the genre are in place, but it never quite feels like a genuine slasher film such as Bob Clarke's Black Christmas or John Carpenter's Halloween. In fact, Drive-In Massacre feels most like a Herschell Gordon Lewis film except without the extended scenes of gore and characters playing with entrails. Still, Drive-In Massacre has the cheap look, terrible script, and abysmal acting of an H.G. Lewis film; however, it also manages to be a relatively fun and entertaining film for horror and exploitation fans. Nothing remotely innovative or brilliant here but an entertaining piece of 70s exploitation garbage nonetheless.
Aiman T (fr) wrote: one of my favorite childhood movies. I must've seen this movie several times, all in the theater as there was no DVD player then. and too bad you can not find this one on DVD. it is a classic and a joy to watch time and time again. Terence Hill is a master of his art and when joined with Bud Spencer, thats a combination you can not beat.
Russell J (us) wrote: The ending in this is great.
R Treybian P (ru) wrote: The first Poltergeist was an awesome horror movie- scary and thrilling. This was... this was.... this movie blows chunks. The retcon of the story, creating this cult was unnecessary. The story made no sense. It was so dumb.