Bundy: An American Icon

Bundy: An American Icon

Bundy, starring Corin Nemec in the title role and co-starring Kane Hodder, details the dark psyche and previously unexplored motivations of the man who became known as one of the most notorious serial killers to leave behind a legacy of evil.

Based on the true story of one of history's most demented serial killers. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Bundy: An American Icon torrent reviews

Facundo S (kr) wrote: La nueva entrega de la saga de Astrix y Obelix corre a cargo del, con esta proclamado como director de las adaptaciones de las Bande-Dessine de Ren Goscinny (como ya hizo con "Le Petit Nicolas" (2009)), Laurent Tirard. Aqu se observa en el desarrollo mucha ms soltura que en "Le Petit Nicolas", y esto es quizs lo que hace quizs pecar a la pelcula: Tirard deja un poco de aprovechar los dilogos enormes de la base original de Goscinny en pos de un humor slapstick. Pero no deja de ser un trabajo genial, como Tirard nos tiene acostumbrado. Rene a un festival de figuras del cine francs en poderosos secundarios como Catherine Denueve ("Belle de jour"), Dany Boon ("Bienvenue chez les Ch'tis"), Grard Jugnot ("Les Choristes") y Valeri Lemercier ("Avenue Montaigne"). Es justamente esta ltima (que ya haba brillado junto a Kad Merad en el "Le Petiti Nicolas" de Tirard) la que se roba la pelcula en su histrionismo como el personaje de Miss Macintosh, que forma una dupla excelente junto al Oblix de Grard Depardieu. Edouard Baer esta muy correcto como el nuevo Astrix y demuestra una vez ms el gran poder de TIrard a la hora de seleccionar actores. Destaca la gran fotografa y la banda sonora de Klaus Baldelt, otra vez trabajando con Tirard. Recomendable: Levanta el Nivel de las ltimas entregas de Astrix, con una buena historia, con un buen elenco y que te hace pasar un buen rato. Destaca Lemercier como el mejor personaje secundario de Astrix desde Roberto Benigni en "Astrix et Oblix contre Csar". Tirard baja un poco el nivel desde su brillante adaptacin de "Le Petit Nicolas", pero sigue creando productos excelentes del cine francs para toda la familia.

Gautam N (ru) wrote: The girl in Yellow Boots, is not your typical Indian movie. It reminds me of another movie called "Love During Wartime" It is the Indian version. But the protagonist is female and older. She also has a monster for a father. I don't want to give the plot way. But I can tell you what this movie is like, it shot beautifully and has many honest moments. Also showing India from a female perspective. You see the world from her viewpoint. You see the sexually starved people and clearing of ones throat. It's quirky and features some wonderful cinematography and gives a whole new meaning to "Happy Endings" if also makes us look at ourselves and see what vile beast we are to exploit women for our own sexual pleasures. This movie, will take you away and is showing that India isn't all song and dance.

mia l (fr) wrote: A delightful children's movie with adventure, a sweet creature and a wonderful message. If you enjoyed Goonies, Gremlins and similar films, don't miss this one.

clarice j (fr) wrote: this movie forever changed the way i view the world and my place in it. i have not experienced much death in my life thank God but from this movie i learned that it's with me everyday motivating my every move. fascinating. do yourself a favor and buy this movie when it comes out on DVD.

Greg W (gb) wrote: one of murphy's better late career comedies

Matt U (us) wrote: Fuckin give it giv'r!

Tatsuhito K (ag) wrote: The visual effects may seem very dated and the plot is rather childish, but the heart is still in the right place. Spy Kids 2 is still a fun time.


Melanie A (gb) wrote: worst movie ever made.

Edith N (es) wrote: Apparently, There Was No Innovation Under the Code I have read [i]Seduction of the Innocent[/i], which puts me above the average when it comes to discussion of the Comics Code Authority. (With the January decision of [i]Archie[/i] to drop the authority of the Code, the CCA is now basically defunct, too.) I have read about the history of [i]Mad Magazine[/i], which the movie touches on but fails to explain in any real way. Indeed, now I come to think about it, I know a lot about the history of comics. This probably means that I am not the ideal audience for this documentary, even though I've also read about half the more obscure comics mentioned in the later sections. I know what they're essentially ignoring, and I know how important it is to what they do cover. On the other hand, the idea that someone knowing the history this movie covers knows what it gets wrong means there's a problem. We do start with the Old Days of comics, back when working for one of the big companies was the way to get your art known. We have the jovial and enormous form of William M. Gaines telling us of his father's innovation in comics and the early origins of the medium. We have Will Eisner talking about how he got his own start. And then we get into the uncredited Frederic Wertham. (There are, in fact, two people shown going on about the Evils of Comics; neither of them are credited, even as "stock footage" on the IMDB page.) We institute the Code. Bill Gaines mentions the creation of [i]Mad[/i]. Stan Lee is onscreen for a few minutes talking about the creation of the Fantastic Four and so forth. And the implication is that there are no comics worth reading from then until the rise of people like R. Crumb in the late '60s. A lot of the major figures in underground comics discuss their work, and Frank Miller is brought in to talk about making Batman interesting and relevant again. But Will Eisner didn't stop working when he stopped working on [i]The Spirit[/i]. Stan Lee, Gods help us, will go on until he dies, though how much he currently does is a matter of debate. (They do appear to have stopped letting him name characters at least.) Jack Kirby, who gets perhaps a minute and a throwaway reference from Will Eisner, basically did go on until he died. The movie shows a few covers of things like [i]Superman Vs. Muhammad Ali[/i], the implication being that nothing interesting was happening in the mainstream at the time. It's true that what was actually happening was limited by the restraints they worked under, and it's true that there was probably more artistic innovation in the undergrounds. But it is also true that Art Spiegelman would probably not have a Pulitzer for [i]Maus[/i] had Will Eisner not pioneered the graphic novel format. In short, it's a little too self-congratulatory. I've read some underground comics, and I find a lot of them derivative and poorly illustrated. They are self-referential and basically assume that, if there's drugs or sex involved, they're groundbreaking and provocative. This is not to say that all the mainstream work is great, of course, and it's also true that this was filmed before the great renaissance of artistic mainstream comics. ([i]Sandman[/i] would not begin publication until the following year.) However, at the same time as most of these people were creating, Alan Moore was working for DC. He isn't even mentioned, and again, Frank Miller gets only a couple of minutes to talk about his work on [i]Batman[/i]. But by focusing on a dozen talented underground comics and ignoring the mainstream entirely, a certain impression of the comics world is given, whether it's a fair one or not. Honestly, I would have preferred ignoring the mainstream comic book world entirely for the purposes of this film. Or anyway acknowledging it and then using people like Harvey Pekar to show the best of what was being done outside the mainstream at the time. Entertaining as Bill Gaines was and formative as Frederic Wertham was, they are only tangentially relevant to what was happening with Zippy the Pinhead. After all, Gaines dodged the Code by making [i]Mad[/i] a magazine and ducked out of the comics publishing industry entirely. Wertham moved on from comics to television and violent movies. Heck, he even had a certain amount of respect for the very kind of underground comics under discussion here--the ones which weren't distributed to children--in his old age. Spider-Man basically doesn't enter into this discussion, and the film's greatest flaw is pretending that he does.

Peter P (fr) wrote: Well done bomber movie, it has some great ariel scenes, and although I didn't really know any of the actors, it was decent in that department too, although it was hard to keep all of their characters straight, cause a lot of those white boys looked the same, well, except for the guy with claw for a hand, he was always easy to spot.

Stuart K (jp) wrote: Directed by Stanley Donen, best known for films such as On the Town (1949), Singin' in the Rain (1952), Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954) and Bedazzled (1967) comes this romantic comedy that feels quite dated, and it could benefit from a remake, but it managed to do well when it was released originally. It has Matthew (Michael Caine) and Victor (Joseph Bologna) who work in a big company in So Paulo, Brazil. Matthew's marriage to wife Karen (Valerie Harper) is in doubt, so the men decide to go on a holiday to Rio de Janeiro, where they rent a nice house with a good view. Along for the ride is Matthew's daughter Nikki (Demi Moore) and Victor's daughter Jennifer (Michelle Johnson). At the beach one night, a moment of passion comes over Jennifer and Matthew. The next day, Jennifer declares her love for Matthew, much to his fear, what's going to happen if Victor finds out, so he tries to cover it up. Alot of the comedy in the film doesn't work, and a plot like this would have been more suited to someone like Blake Edwards, indeed it does feel like a cash in on 10 (1979). There are laughs, but not alot. Unsurprisingly, it was Donen's last film.

Ronnie M (us) wrote: I didn't give this a full 5 stars because this movie left me wanting more. This film is severely under rated because of the darkly heartbreak going on with the parents. But I wanted to see more after Greta discovered the truth. After the screen fades.