An advertising firm, desperate to keep an account from a financially-ailing brewery, concocts a macho ad campaign centering on three losers who inadvertently prevent a robbery at a bar.

An advertising firm, desperate to keep an account from a financially-ailing brewery, concocts a macho ad campaign centering on three losers who inadvertently prevent a robbery at a bar. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Beer torrent reviews

(us) wrote: Any message about Jesus deserves more than five star.... this movie will not go down well with skeptics. But for believers it definitely solidifies the faith. Heaven is definitely for real. According to Colton, Jesus is definitely white and has bluish green eyes.

Akash (fr) wrote: Good movie, worth watching.

Watts Up M (br) wrote: They should've never made the childs play series into a complete comedy.

Andrew M (jp) wrote: AT first I found the non linear story telling a little confusing, but I quickly got used to it and found it an interesting technique. This film is very well shot and some scenes verge on the beautiful, even while they are depicting ugly things. The child actor is fantastic in this and the adult leads are more than capable in their roles. I watched this because the screen play was written by one of my favourite authors. Here his writing style is minimal, but realistic. I would dearly love to see some of his own novels dramatised well.

Micah G (ca) wrote: I think Gilliam might have taken a bit of influence from "Lawn Dogs" when he wrote "Tideland". What we have here is a bizzare message driven fairy tale that's self-aware enough to acknowledge the inherent sensitivity of its subject matter, but it doesn't cave into conservative conclusions about how such a relationship ought to be portrayed.At heart, "Lawn Dogs" is about trust, not the death of innocence or the festering political correctness all around us that sees danger in every unconventional relationship. It does touch on the subject of sexual abuse, but it doesn't come at it from the angle you'd suspect...and that's the whole point, isn't it? Sexual abuse, for the most part, usually visits as someone you've known well enough to trust completely. The climax is an unexpected treat and its moral resolution arrives just in the nick of time.The film is carried through excellent lead performances, Sam Rockwell and the impressive young Mischa Barton. Sumptuously photographed and written with great intelligence by Naomi Wallace, it dares to be erotic, provoking, unconventional and incisive.

sarah s (gb) wrote: wasn't the best but it was still good. the guy playing gino was HOT!!!!!!!!!!!

Allan C (de) wrote: Meh second sequel to what I would argue is the best haunted house film since "The Haunting" and has yet to be topped. The first sequel was okay, but nothing special. This one has Carol Ann as the only only returning member of the family, who's now living in a modern high rise with relatives, Tom Skerritt and Nancy Allen. Zelda Rubinstein also returns as Tangina, the only other returning character, although I suppose you could say that Reverend Kane also returns, but he's played by somone in make up to look like actor Julian Beck, who had since passed. This film was a much more low budget of affair and was written and directed by a solid b-picture director Gary Sherman, who did "Wanted: Dead or Alive," "Vice Squad," "Dead & Buried" and "Raw Meat," so there was a talented genre filmmaker behind the camera. Sherman does have some interesting visuals, with mirrors and reflections being the main sours of scares in the film and the main source of the poltergeist activity. I'm also a fan of Skerritt and Nancy Allen, who are both good in the film, but the change of setting, the lack of good suspense and particularly the loss of the focus on the tight knit nuclear family was this film's downfall. What really makes the original film such a classic is not the scary clown, the melting face or carnivorous tree, but it was the very real and very identifiable family in a very scary and fantastical situation. Steven Spielberg wrote and produced the original (he secretly directed it according to some) and he touch is all over that first film when it came to character development of the family, looking very similar to the familial relationships in "Jaws" and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind." But I digress. Overall, this film isn't as bad as it might have been, but it's not as good as part two and is miles from the original.

Zach (ca) wrote: This was my favorite when i was a kid

Alex R (kr) wrote: 5th best Hepburn movie ever1. Breakfast at Tiffany's 2. Roman Holiday3. How to steal a million4. Sabrina 5. Funny Face6. My Fair Lady7.Love in the Afternoon 8. The Children's Hour9. Two for the Road10. Wait Until DarkHappy Birthday Audrey Hepburn-5/4/13

David M (gb) wrote: Who would've thought a movie about a bunch of chickens trying to escape a farm would be so enjoyable & become the highest grossing stop-motion film on the planet?! It's unique, clever & hilarious with golden British comedy & admirable animation that looks great even 15yrs later. This movie put stop-motion clay animation on the map for many people & proved that not everything needs to be shiny computer graphics to be entertaining. It's a shame it never got a follow-up film.

Alec B (es) wrote: Rather than refine the already complicated backstory, the movie just keeps adding more confusing material . . . I'm not sure why this is, the core concept (Vampires v. Werewolves) seems good enough without trying to shoehorn mythology into the mix.

I dont know w (fr) wrote: Looks to silly and predictable to enjoy.

Ibraheem M (de) wrote: As a comedy, Cat Ballou is average where you merely laugh once or twice, but the most memorable thing about it is Lee Marvin's double performance as a good guy/bad guy and Jane Fonda's charming beauty.

Jon J (it) wrote: Fascinating and beautiful.