Blood Diner

Blood Diner

Two cannibalistic brothers kill various young women to make their flesh part of their new special dish at their rundown restaurant while seeking blood sacrifices to awaken a dormant Egyptian goddess.

Two cannibalistic brothers receive guidance from their uncle';s resurrected brain and proceed to collect the required parts: virgins, assorted body parts from whores, and the ingredients in preparation for a goddess-summoning ceremony. This gory thriller contains nudity and violence. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Blood Diner torrent reviews

Maria S (it) wrote: Excellent movie about struggles of a Christian teen. Also about how God is in control, as was evident in her story. If you have dvd watch interviews as people close to her say the movie did great job of portraying the real joy. Truly inspiring.

Sean Michael S (ca) wrote: A Glimpse Inside The Mind of Charles Swan III is the perfect example of a promising premise gone awry. At first glimpse, any art house fan would pop an excited grin at the names Coppola, Murray, Schwartzman, and a possible comeback role for the lovingly hate-able Sheen. Coppola - one of the many that make up the famous filmmaking Coppola family - visibly takes his tenure with Wes Anderson to heart and screen; the result being an awkwardly-artistic yet uninterestingly self aware expansion to the iconic look Roman brought to the table while he was the assistant director of The Life Aquatic (2004). Though at times the film accomplishes somewhat visually, the screenplay suffers without the charm of Coppola's writing counterpart - once again - Wes Anderson. Sadly, the glimpse we're given into the mind of Charles Swan III is not compelling in any rendition of the word. We're not given a character who exists on the hate/love spectrum. We're given a shmuck who only simply exists. To use The Life Aquatic as a further example, Bill Murray plays a constantly bland character who purposefully throws himself into terrible conditions just to have something happen in life. In "Glimpse", our titular actor gives us a character void of any depth. We see nothing. We are given nothing. There is so much painful nothingness in Sheen's performance that almost every promising aspect of the film is nullified - even with the help of the unswayable Murray. All in all, if you are interested in the negative side to flop art, give this film a try. But, as films on the shorter side go, you just might just find yourself 'glimpsing' a little too long. Viewer beware.

Bill C (gb) wrote: Daphne is invited to a Karate tournament at a private Dojo in Japan. The meet the Black Samurai and his robotic ninja army soon after they arrive. My sons 3-4 year old watch all the Scoby-Doo movies together. My oldest get a scared by some of the bad guys, but I ask him who is the bad guy and he responds some one we saw earlier in the show wearing a mask. The latest installments including this one diverge from the classic rubber mask formula. If your children are in that easily frightened age probably steer clear of this one and Goblin King and Aloha. These latest versions throw a lot at children besides disreputable real estate people in rubber masks. As a counterpoint to the scariness these version, there is much more discussion material out there than the classic formula version Pre-2000. There is a lot of modern and older Japanese culture watered down to the level of a 5-10 year old level. The movie is 75 minutes, about 15-20 minutes long. We watched it two time so far. At about 55 minutes you reach the classic unmasking of the Black Samurai. My youngest asked if it over but there is 20 minutes more.

David T (ru) wrote: Pretty freakin' awesome in my opinion.

summer t (ca) wrote: Loved this movie- sweet & fun characters in a beautiful setting. Great chic flick!

Ashley F (kr) wrote: cant unerstand title

Rute 8 (au) wrote: Well... it's a good movie, really interesting. A little confusing, sometimes you think it's a real story, but then you learn its based on a book, then.. you get confused again, thinking the story of the book is real. Anyway, the movie is really boring, i enjoyed the movie, but it's almost 2 totally boring hours of movie, ok?! You need to really want watch this, otherwise... you'll fall sleep.-

Brett A (it) wrote: Not sure why the terrible ratings - I actually thought it was quite good.

Brandon W (fr) wrote: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is directed by Tim Burton, and it stars Johnny Depp and Freddie Highmore in a musical fantasy film about Wily Wonka giving 5 golden tickets to random kids to go to his factory for a tour. I haven't watched this in a while, and since I reviewed the original, I figured I should just get it over with and see how it holds up, which the remake actually does, for the most part that is. The acting from the kids and their parents are pretty solid, and the effects look better than the original. It has some differences in there from the original, whether they're good or bad. The songs by Danny Elfman are catchy and memorable, although nothing beats the original with the songs. The production designs look creative and imaginative, and it does a good job of portraying the financially unstable family that tries to make the best of the situation. Now, let's get to Johnny Depp's performance. People are either loathing it, or just find it enjoyable to watch. I get why the movie portrayed him as that way because he's a man-child that had family problems which caused him to act that way. For my own opinion on this, the only time he did shined in this and actually give a good performance, is the last 5 minutes of the film where he can still act like a man-child, while not being awkward about it. During the film when he's in it however, he's so awkward in it that I'm just not liking what he's doing in his act, and it's not funny, except for a chuckle here or there from him doing something off-base. In something like the original, Gene Wilder basically acted like a bit of a sociopath when messing with the kids, and it's hilarious to watch, so when comparing to the remake, being a man-child doesn't really make a good substitute for it. I didn't really care for the fact that it was more about Willy Wonka than Charlie despite the fact that his name is in the title, and what they developed in there, was ok, but not really needed. The Oompa-Loompas don't look as memorable in this as the original does, even though the actor did a good job being all of them. I like the child characters in there as they are dislikable, but not to the point that it's too much as you can see that that's how they were raised. What I didn't like however, was that Charlie himself is too likable in this. When in the original, he has some disadvantages to himself that makes him more relatable and give it more of a thought about who's going to win. With this however, he doesn't do one wrong thing and it seem more obvious and predictable that way, making him a one-note character. I don't know, maybe it should've been a bit more similar to the original where it doesn't spend any character development on Wonka as we like to imagine what he's like, and not also know where the Oompa-Loompas come from. I still do like the movie more than I thought of it based on Tim Burton's adaptations from remakes and TV shows, but compared to the original, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory isn't as good as Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

carson m (de) wrote: great movie on Pre, didnt really follow his life, but was done well like a doc.

shanniel r (kr) wrote: it was real funny i like it

Matthew S (ru) wrote: Time has not been kind to this film.

Dennis F (ag) wrote: One of the creepiest films I have ever seen.

Jen M (ag) wrote: Surprisingly good Michael J. Fox movie is ok for Tweens. Ages 12+

Joe M (gb) wrote: Absolutely one of the most spectacular films ever! The sense of torpor, repression and lust that just seems to ooze off the screen! The lushness of the cinematography! All the actors give top notch performances, but special credit has to go to Kathleen Byron's Sister Ruth - a tour de force performance!

Onkel B (gb) wrote: Ugh...That's not funny.....

James B (fr) wrote: This was one of the best movies that I've seen in a while. Lots of great music, and a great story. Jeff Bridges is so completely believable in this role. A very compelling movie. One of the best dramas that I've seen in a while.