Cheerleader

Cheerleader

Five high school cheerleaders, their coach and a couple of adolescent sex-crazed guys travel to a cabin in the woods for a weekend getaway only to be killed off one by one by an unseen maniac.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:0 minutes
  • Release:2003
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:Cheerleader 2003 full movies, Cheerleader torrents movie

The Tigers are all-smiles until they begin their journey to the national cheerleading championships and the young girls realize that more is at stake than their spankies. Cheerleader ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Cheerleader torrent reviews

Phil L (de) wrote: What it lacks in plot, it makes up for in atmosphere. This Craven-esque boogeyman, has a way of getting under your skin. Not perfect, but it manages to pull off a few creepy sequences.

Cori A (de) wrote: Could've done more but overall I like it. (September 8, 2010)

Evette M (de) wrote: Spoiler Rant: OK so here's what I gather from the show: smart, brave, moral, noble guy lives a crappy abusive childhood, defies odds and gets into college, devotes himself and earns a respectable degree, success culminates to a swanky loft office job. No time to bask in lime light because he spends the remainder of his short life getting physically, emotionally, and mentally tormented, and all for the purpose of helping others. Yet his selflessness does not exonerate him from imaginary sins. We're told that he is the proximate cause which precipitated the deaths of innocents. The producer of the show in interviews I've read rationalizes Scofield's death with the explanation that he had to answer for all the victims, that it wouldn't be right for his character to walk off into the sunset happily ever after. Lincoln's bad judgement which led to his arrest is surely more proximate and more culpable. Yet Burrows survives and Scofield has to die? The one character who is burdened with the task of continually figuring out how to save everyone does not get one final respite, for even his death reminds us that he alone can't enjoy the fruits of his own efforts. It's even more illogical to suggest that Scofield was really happy when he died because death freed him or whatever the mantra is. The man wanted to be around for his son. He was doomed to a fatherless childhood, and doubly doomed to die without meeting his son. How is this in anyway just? This is stupid, not poetic. I enjoyed this show because it was fun to watch, and I wasn't expecting a thought-provoking masterpiece. It wasn't until after I finished watching it in its entirety that I had time to reflect on why it was so disturbing to me in the end. Unintentionally disturbing. The writers did not succeed in crafting a harrowing or thoughtful story, yet I am nonetheless left upset by the message. I guess something about the 'unsung hero' resonates with me. Very very sad.

Joakim I (es) wrote: Man fattar ju varfr den hr filmen inte gr hem hos jnkarna.

Adam F (nl) wrote: "Failure to Launch" is yet another bad and unimaginative romantic comedy and I will gladly tell you why it's terrible, while also admitting that it's not a complete turd, and that it has a few, tiny saving graces. The entire premise is just ridiculous and feels incredibly uninspired: "What if, we took the traditional romantic comedy, where the guy is super hot and charming but the catch is he still lives with his parents!" That's what this movie is about. Matthew McConaughey plays Tripp, a guy who still lives with his parents and doesn't care. He uses the fact that he hasn't moved out as a way to break up with girls who he feels are getting too close to him, meaning the chances of him moving out with a girlfriend are incredibly slim. His parents, fed up with this nonsense hire Paula (Sarah Jessica Parker) to help get him out of the house. You see, she's a woman who specializes in pretending to date guys so she can boost up their confidence and get them to become adults. Officially, she's not supposed to get attached to the clients, but uh oh! What happens if she can't resist that McConaughey charm?First of all, you don't buy the premise of the film for a second. Sure, there are people that live at home with their parents for years, well into their adult lives but can you believe that Matthew McConaughey, attractive as he is wouldn't have been out of the house, if only so he could pick up chicks left and right in college or throw big, loud parties? There's a reason most people look forward to moving out of their parents house but those are never taken into account in this film. Instead, we're given a bogus explanation for why he has not moved on: a tragic past with a girlfriend that died years ago. You might think to yourself that this might sound like a legitimate reason, but that's the movie tricking you into liking it, do you know why? Because it's a carefully calculated way to make his character sympathetic despite the fact that earlier in the film he's depicted as being lazy (since he lives with his parents and doesn't do any chores), deceitful (he deliberately invites girls over to his house so he can pretend that he doesn't understand why they break up with him and pretends to have a boat to impress the ladies so he can get laid), cowardly (he's afraid of being in a relationship) and a lousy friend. It's also an experience that is traumatic, but not so traumatic that it can't be set aside when the plot needs it to be (like if he had been mugged and had developed agoraphobia as a child kind of thing). Because of this contrived plot point, his character is very inconsistent from scene to scene. Later in the film you see his soft side, how he likes kids, and he becomes a nice, charismatic guy. The film tells you that deep down, he's just hurt and THAT's the reason why he hasn't moved out, not that he's a big jerk who likes to manipulate women and take advantage of his parents. If you chop this movie in half and watch them separately, you would think Tripp is from two different stories altogether.The movie is extremely predictable and the jokes are lazily written. You get not one, not two but four jokes were animals bite a character for comedic effect. You don't see that many people get attacked by animals in children's films and those often resort to the basic poop and fart jokes in order to get laughs. Sure, you get some variety because no two animals are the same (mockingbird, lizard, dolphin and chipmunk) but it really screams desperation when cute animals and their reactions are used to boost up the comedy (what, you mean you didn't laugh when he dog reacted to the mention of neutering?). The other jokes are just as inspired; people get hit in the face with pieces of sushi, fall down while rock climbing, get hit in the face and fall into the ocean, get shot in the foot accidently and so on. One joke that's so bad it feels offensive (not because it's racist but because the writer must assume only morons are watching the movie) is when Tripp discovers his father waltzing around in the nude. The setup is that Tripp's father Al (Terry Bradshaw) is desperate to get his boy out of the house so he decides to transform one of the rooms into his own "nude room" and Tripp just happens to walk in. So what would an actual, real human being say in such a situation? "Eww! Gross!" or "What are you doing dad!?" and maybe cover their eyes? Well not this guy. When "Tripp" sees his father he just casually starts talking to him like nothing's unusual. It's a scene that is supposed to be funny but just comes off as unsettling and kind of creepy. The one good thing the movie has going is Zooey Deschanel as Paula's roommate Kit. Her boozing, "couldn't care less", slightly sadistic character has the best lines (when she calls Paula a "dirty little fun haver" you'll genuinely laugh), the only believable romance in the film and her natural charisma and charm bulldozes through the cheap jokes and lame script to actually create a fun, memorable role and makes you look forward to seeing her character. Every time she's on the screen the movie brightens up and becomes funny. You'll be watching and wishing the whole movie was about her instead of this catastrophe starring two actors who have zero chemistry. During the obligatory third act breakup between Tripp and Paula, I was begging that this movie would have an inspired scene where the two of them just never see each other again because it was once again caused by a stupid revelation about one of the characters' past (talk about the pot calling the kettle black by the way). I hated Tripp's character after that scene. Just because Matthew McConaughey looks good with his shirt off (uh and I say that in the most manly way possible!) we're supposed to cheer for him and Sarah Jessica Parker to get back together? I say forget abouth them and focus on Zooey Deschanel and her subplot.The conclusion feels incredibly contrived. The leads are literally locked into a room together so they can talk until they fall in love. It's so lazy you've seen it done time and time again and confirms that these are not two real people, they are puppets dancing at the beat of a bunch of lazy filmmakers that expect us, the audience to just buy whatever junk they churn out. The only redeeming value, like I said is the character of Kit and her sub-plot but even then that's not nearly good enough to give the movie anywhere close an "average". I should conclude with some kind of joke about launching this movie into the sun but honestly, I feel like the dead horse has been beaten to a pile of bubbling goo at this point so I'm satisfied. (On Dvd, May 18th, 2013)

Wayne H (mx) wrote: An interesting film is probably the best thing that can be said for this movie...that is, unless you're into steampunk. The movie is slow and a bit underacted, but the references and uses of the steam era are great. I would like to see other films set in this same world. It's worth watching to say you've seen it, but it could have been much better.

David J (fr) wrote: Really beautiful filming, but not too much extra appeal.

John B (mx) wrote: One of the worst films ever made!!!

Cain L (ru) wrote: What any teenager would like explosions, quirky dialogue, and a script that keep changing to please an audience.

Tyler W (fr) wrote: Not Very Scary But A Good Amount Of Action!

William W (es) wrote: I watched this no-budget film, shot near Dallas, Texas, last night, as part of my 50-film 'Nightmare Worlds' collection by Mill Creek. Though it had no scares or suspense whatsoever, and you could tell what was going to happen at least ten minutes before anyone in the film clued in, it had the enjoyability and charm of a period piece, or time capsule, of youth from that era. The instrumentals from the garage band The Wildcats, and watching the teens dance, interact and fight, were the best aspects. You could do worse--and I would much rather watch something like this than a pretentious piece of garbage, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, that Hollywood pumps out by the truckloads these days.

Emma N (jp) wrote: Brilliant film for the time it was made.

Tim M (au) wrote: As an old school game show fan I think I held this to a higher standard and Robert Redford met them all. A fantastic cast matches the true to life story of the quiz show cheating scandals of the 1950s. It's a piece of history depicted to near perfection.

Waleed A (br) wrote: this movie is terrible and made me angry. it had potential and a lot of good things going for it. it was well directed with beautiful shots. it was well acted and had good tone-setting music. i was enjoying it for more than half the movie. and then it turned into a straight relationship drama with a love triangle. so many scenes were so intentionally awkward. i was so disappointed that that was the direction it took. this is a generally well made movie, but was a waste of time IMO. did i mention how boring it was? three characters, all talking, nothing happens. gg (1 viewing)SPOILERSand to top it off, it didn't have a conclusion. it just ended without telling us what happened. not open ended, just prematurely ended to piss us off even more than we were. if the movie focused more on men becoming baser animals and killing each other to get to be with the girl, that would have been more enjoyable. it was just about cheating drama for girls who love "the wrong." also, everything i liked about the ann's character went out the window when she decides to sleep with caleb the same night that loomis tells her he loves her. again, probably just written that way to feel more wrong. so stupid.

Dustin B (au) wrote: Creepy. Much less tedious than the average home-invasion movie.