Bad Moon

Bad Moon

One man's struggle to contain the curse he hides within... and his last-ditch attempt to free himself with the love of family. But when it looks as if he is losing his battle, and endangering all he holds most dear, the family dog, Thor, is the last hope for his family's survival... and the end to his Werewolf curse.

An American photojournalist bitten by a fearsome werewolf becomes a werewolf too. And on on moonlit nights, he will kill innocent people. He goes to stay with his sister in hope of her being able to stop him. But she could not. As the body count climbs, she tries to figure out what is wrong, protect her son, and prove that her pet German Shepherd Thor is innocent of the horrendous bloodshed. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Bad Moon torrent reviews

VI V (es) wrote: thank you for the article you created,. very interesting information that may be of benefit to all who read it, .. greetings successfulPulau Island

Private U (jp) wrote: to quote the director : "I wanted to make a film about the war and the only way for me to do that was to use reality."

Allan C (jp) wrote: Andrew Divoff, the evil wish granting genie (or Djinn) of the first film, is again released (by an uncredited Corey Haim who's then girlfriend is the star of the film) and find himself in prison. There he again grants lots of wishes that go horribly wrong for the wisher. Tiny Lister plays one of the prison guards, so that fun. Bokeem Woodbine also shows up in a very small part early in the film. The main plot though revolves around the Dijinn trying to collect enough should to start the apocalypse and the surviving robber, Holly Fields, tries to stop him. The special effects are well done. Director Jack Sholder has some minor genre classics to his credit ("The Hidden" and "Alone in the Dark") and does a solid job here. Overall, this is a competently made horror films that is never boring, even if it's completely forgettable.

Tracy F (au) wrote: One of my favorite political movies. It was brilliant. The cast was amazing.

Krishna D (ag) wrote: A beautiful movie, I'm glad that a new Hercules movie was made and a better one at that. Although the Hercules tv series will always be the best. We get to see the tragedy of Hercule's past and his relationship with the golden deer woman.

Brian S (br) wrote: With a title like that, you can immediately expect what's coming to you. And yes, it's killer alien clowns coming down to earth and going on a rampage. It's a really good alien invasion film, one of the best I've seen yet ! It's a typical movie that represents a lot the 80's. The acting is good enough and the movie has an non-stop entertainment to it, blending horror and comedy. Recommended !!

Reginald W (us) wrote: Was always my favorite Clint Eastwood movie...and he directed it.

Brian P (mx) wrote: Pure dumb barroom fun. Awesome title song, and of course, the orangutan Clyde :)

Mark M (jp) wrote: If you watch this oldy but goody you may never fly again.

Niklas S (gb) wrote: How the fuck did I miss this!? There's body parts flying left and right with waves of blood following them. On top of that there's boobs and fucking rugged looking gangsters. The swordplay is insane. Wait I'm not done yet, it actually has a pretty freaking good storyline as well. For all samurai lovers this is a must see. Daigoro!!

Jackson P (es) wrote: Mel Gibson is awesome (but insane, in the movie and in real life)

Andrew B (br) wrote: It would be interesting to see if Cronenberg were to remake Videodrome set in the present day, how different it would be.The central theme of our interaction with media (or maybe medias interaction with us) translates differently in 2016.Something just felt a bit off throughout the movie, and I don't think it was intentional. The way that the hallucinations came and went felt very unnatural and not so much in a disorienting way, but more of an issue with how the movie was edited...

Jill H (de) wrote: There were some inspirational moments, and it was a great story, but it didn't really do much for me. It was lacking something.

Cameron J (ca) wrote: "Red river, red river, send John Wayne right hither". Hey, it's a little less cheesy than making a clichd reference to "Moon River", although maybe I should have gone that route in order to avoid some confusion, because without a tune that peaceful, one might think this would be a horror film or something, based on the title. Shoot, I don't know why I had to go through all of that trouble, because once you see that this stars John Wayne, oh boy, you better believe that it is a western if there ever was one. Ladies and gentlemen, before "Rio Bravo", Howard Hawks, John Wayne and Walter Brennan joined forces to bring you this, which you still might get confused with "Rio Grande", seeing as how this film is set around a river, and has some stereotypical Mexicans. Well, it's a while before those Mexicans come into play, so if no other stereotype gets you confused about the difference between this and, well, most every other western of the mid-20th century, it is, again, John Wayne in a starring role. I just like how this film let you know just how old Wayne was by 1948, alone, by having a grown Montgomery Clift play his son (Adopted; but still), and still predating "Rio Bravo" and "Rio Grande"... I think. If nothing else distinguishes this film from "Rio Gra-I mean, "Rio Bravo", it's this film's actually being better, but not exactly by a long shot, thanks to certain shortcomings. I don't really know if this film has the pretense of being all that refreshing as a ranch adventure western, but that doesn't make the conventions much less notable for building a formulaic plot whose character aspects are still not quite as familiar as they probably should be. The films open up just in time for the adventure to begin, with the bare minimum, if not some holds to background development, then proceeds to be surprisingly limited with extensive expository depth throughout the body of this ostensibly intimate drama. In all fairness, expository superficiality might stem from general superficiality, for although there's more grace with this film than the usual western of this type and time, there's not much to subtlety, whose lapses get to be cheesy at times, at least with their manufacturing certain melodramatic conflicts that try to make up for a lack of meat to the basic idea behind this plot. The adventurous narrative is certainly conceptually intriguing enough for a rewarding final product to be crafted, though not easily, because outside of the manufactured, a sense of conflict is a little lacking, and it doesn't exactly get too much meatier the more the film drags along. The film is not as long as something like "Rio Bravo", and is certainly not as [u]over[/u]long, considering its story concept's being of greater consequence, but there is still something excessive about the plotting in a lot of ways that, before too long, get to be rather repetitious, if not aimless. They film sometimes says too much, and other times, it doesn't say enough, and while there is enough control to the meandering chatter of flawed storytelling, there is nonetheless plenty of issues to storytelling. These issues really do stand a solid chance of making an underwhelming film, but in the end, the effort rewards the patient, largely because of storytelling that, even then, would be nothing without compelling ides. They have to work hard - perhaps a little too hard - to beef up this story, but to say that this narrative of limited natural conflict is rather inconsequential would feel inaccurate, because the dramatics are reasonably gripping, and the sheer adventure, if nothing else, really holds ones interesting, and is particularly done justice, even by John Datu's art direction. The production value is neither especially extensive nor original in this formulaic studying on plains trekking, but it's still rich and dynamic enough to compliment the aforementioned important sense of adventure. Borden Chase's and Charles Schnee's script further draws upon the scope of the film, because what it lacks in dialogue flare it makes up for in set piece color, which also does a little to compensate for expository lapses, until they go challenged by some surprisingly extensive characterization, sold by unsurprisingly charismatic performances. Most everyone charms about as much as you might expect, and their chemistry augments that, yet there are some dramatic layers which, while too dated to really stand out, breathe some life into the character depths which define much of the grace to this drama. So much is superficial to the storytelling, but when inspiration in storytelling is hit, themes regarding the relationships, betrayals and other trials of rancher men of the Old West are brought to life. This thematic depth is, of course, dramatically anchored by Howard Hawks' directorial storytelling, which, for all its superficialities, never loses a solid deal of entertaining color, punctuated by revelations in dramatic storytelling that, while hardly ever anything especially stirring, utilizes grand style and thoughtful atmospherics to engross. With all of my praise, if there are quality highlights in this drama, they take their time to come into play, but they get here, along a consistently endearing path that entertains and compels enough to genuinely reward. When the river finally runs dry, conventions, expository and natural shortcomings, superficialities, and a somewhat excessive length run the risk of the rendering the final product underwhelming, but it is through a juicy story, immersive art direction, well-rounded writing, charismatic acting and entertaining direction that Howard Hawks' "Red River" emerges as a genuinely rewarding western classic. 3/5 - Good