You may also like
Blücher torrent reviews
pat n (mx) wrote: Was he truly mad or was he just determined to to make people see what was obvious to him and yet not excepted by the conditioned masses? Perhaps time will tell. Bobby may have just been 9 moves ahead of most people.
ray r (es) wrote: Horseshit. I love a good serial killer movie but one where the fucking story is good and not these modern gore porn pop shite. These moves are like pop songs. All the fucking same. Its like theyve just realised we have CGI so they just sit around the office thinking of the most elaborate gorey death scenes and then on the last day of production they write a script/plot to fit around the death scenes. Also nowadays they try to glorify the criminal and his treatment of women. Its depraved. Its just hollow. Theres nothing behind this movie. Its stupid, predictable and too focused on how he kills them. The cast suck donkey balls and the main bad guy out of the gang looks like he is wearing womans make up. Also why the fuck would the serial killer kill the guy coz he knew his name but then at the end he steps in front of the news camera.... eh nice work douche nozzle, now they know what you look like. Shit movie made for shithead teenagers.
Neil A (us) wrote: A boy in rural Columbia loses his brand new soccer ball in a field that's mined. He and his friends scheme to get it back, as their town is plagued by both guerilla rebels and anti-rebel paramilitary groups. Don't expect a cheery tale.
Steve S (gb) wrote: Umm...I have no idea why I'm writing a review on this movie. Let's state the basics: poor quality (always dark, so you couldn't see a lot of the scenes clearly), sketchy acting (Chris Jericho needs to stick with his other job in the wrestling ring), and a plot that has been made more times than a baby crys. May I also point out that this film was just plain weird and I find it ridiculous that this is how the writers and producers feel a horror film should be. The ending was just the icing on the crap cake, too; absolutely absurd. This was not only one of the worst horror films I've seen, but one of the worst movies I've ever seen in any genre.
Tania A (it) wrote: Great performance by Alex Pettyfer in his first leading role. Good plot
Huw G (ag) wrote: Like one of those $2 movies in a bargain bin.
Guarasi R (us) wrote: De la mano de katsuhiro Otomo (Akira), mucha accin y sorprendente animacin, la historia en algunos momentos pasa a segundo trmino, en cualquier cosa algo que se debe de ver.
Robert D (ag) wrote: Well scripted, well plotted, well acted. What's there not to like? Redolent of the California of the late '40s, which also inspired "Devil in a Blue Dress" and "True Confessions."
Les E (gb) wrote: Great. Audrey in her last superb role and Connery near his best. The story is a joy with a good old fashioned begining, middle and end. The fighting is a bit 70's but you have to take that as it is. The supporting cast is a real treasure trove as well. Way better than more recent big budget oferings.
Kris Z (mx) wrote: Classic Britishhorror with amazingly bizarre monsters. The sounds they make as they eat people's bones are disgusting, and who can forget them dividing with the chicken noodle soup substance? Fun stuff that I loved as a kid, and you can never go wrong with Peter Cushing
Spencer S (gb) wrote: Another thirties' screwball comedy from the ubiquitous and always entertaining Carole Lombard, there isn't too much hilarity ensuing in this film compared to later works, but does manage to entertain. Most of the time the film does so with its interesting plot, centered on heroine Hazel Flagg (Lombard). Hazel finds out from her beloved physician that she is in fact not dying from radium poisoning as she had previously learned. At that exact same moment reporter Wally Cook (March) arrives in town to find her, whisk her away from the small town where she lives, and promises that he will make her the toast of New York City. Never having traveled anywhere, and fixed recently on her mortality, Hazel lies and goes back with Wally. Of course she takes her physician, makes him lie, and oddly does become the toast of the city, even reducing people to tears at the mere sight of her on the street or in a club. Hazel revels in the attention, and the love of the city, all the while falling in love with Wally, who is using her himself in order to get back in the good graces of his editor after a botched charity event. Of course it is Lombard's performance that makes this film even a little famous, not only for her impeachable beauty and reputation for being a loud and impish actress, but also because she was genuinely funny throughout her career. Even here she is flawed for taking the trip, but lovable as she makes everyone fall for her. March is also entertaining as the handsome love interest, but is rather flat throughout most of the film. Once Wally is made aware of her circumstances (as always inevitably happens) he tries to keep the secret from his editor. This does lead to one questionable scene where Wally hits Hazel so she passes out and he can fake a disease so they can fool the editor. This film is also shot in Technicolor, which looks odd since this film came out in 1937, two years before "Gone with the Wind" and several years before it was considered acceptable to make most films in color. The shots of the city simply look off thanks to a lack of understanding when it came to the process. This film is also famous for being the first film shown on television with a commercial break. Because of Lombard this film still receives attention, but besides her presence, the rest of the film slips into melancholy more often than not, and doesn't take enough chances or advantages towards the film's premise.
Joseph B (jp) wrote: Here's the movie (based on the book) The Hunger Games author ripped off...even though she claims she "never read it".
Alex K (br) wrote: Rambo started good and now it's just while perfect.