You may also like
Crab Trap torrent reviews
Ally F (ag) wrote: Be strong that u r facing it, whatever it will be.
Mileidys T (de) wrote: saw both love both great good job people
Private U (fr) wrote: Difficult to appreciate
V r o n i q u e (us) wrote: It is a very good movie , it talks about christmas !!!!
Hafidha A (mx) wrote: Long, but engaging. I became very invested in the main characters, wanting nothing but the best for them. This is a WWII film, and it's hard to let your guard down, esp. as you wonder where the film is going ... it's meandering at times, but never dull. Beautifully filmed, with memorable characters, and yet another reminder of the devastation that war brings.
Mahir T (br) wrote: Fantastic, even better than the former!
Graham M (mx) wrote: Very, very stupid and all the more entertaining for it.
Henry W (ag) wrote: I was moonwalking back then
Sam B (it) wrote: The Kingdom Of The Spiders is one of the most confusing, pointless movies that anyone who is dumb enough to watch it will see. Made in 1977 by John Cardos, this 1 hour 34 minute film is about some type of venomous spider taking over a small town and killing everyone in it. It was very unrealistic and never really had a point to it, and it was easy to tell that it was just for entertainment because it wasn't meaningful at all. One of the themes I could pull out from it was that you shouldn't mess with the environment, but that theme wasn't well displayed throughout the movie. This movie consisted of very bad and unrealistic special effects, which made it seem very fake and comical. In the very beginning of the movie it was very hard to tell what was going on because it never really explained where all the spiders came from in the first place, and it just left me very confused. One of the main problems with this movie was the terrible acting. This film was so unrealistic that it was almost impossible to take the actors seriously because of their ridiculous reactions to the spiders. The one half decent thing about this movie was the spiders. Most of them looked very real and a lot of them were real, and they had better acting skills then the actual actors. There were many points in the movie where you could tell that the spiders were not real because they just sat on the ground not moving, and that took away from the small bit of realness that this movie had. I should take into consideration that this movie as made in 1977 and they didn't have much advanced technology, but they still could have at least picked a better plot and storyline to make it seem more realistic. It had some good camera angles and camera shots, but none that really stood out. Overall I would say the only reason that you should watch this movie is if you are looking for a good laugh, or if you have absolutely nothing better to do or no better movies to watch.
Stuart K (mx) wrote: To date, the only film written and directed by Lewis Jackson, this is a low-budget psychological slasher done for $450,000, which Jackson got from producer Edward R. Pressman (Badlands (1973), Phantom of the Paradise (1974) and Wall Street (1987)). It's not "just another slasher film", and it's not perfect, the dialogue is trite and some of the performances aren't very good either, it's still fun to watch. When he was a boy in 1947, Harry Stadling (Brandon Maggart) used to love Christmas, but his illusion of it all was shattered when he discovered Santa wasn't real. Harry now works in a toy factory, where a lot of the toys he makes have a Christmassy feel about them. But, he's constantly bullied by his co-workers, and they don't seem to give a damn whether it's Christmas or not. Then, something snaps inside Harry, and he gets himself a Santa suit, and he goes on a one-man crusade around his neighbourhood of deciding who's been naughty, and who's been nice. Those who are nice get presents, while those who are naughty get something horrible. It's a good idea for a film, it was poorly distributed at the time, but thanks to John Waters, he helped make it a cult, underground hit. It's also a bit of a template for a lot of the psychological horror films you get now, but it manages to be fun and has a few (unintentionally) funny moments.
Joyce D (us) wrote: A campy tribute to Zombie movies/TV shows, with nods to Walking Dead, Zombieland, Warm Bodies, and Dawn of the Dead.
Christopher E (fr) wrote: I can't decide which Fantastic Four adaptation I hate more, as this version will do nothing but make your four year old giggle. "Fantastic Four" is the story of a genius young scientist who jump starts a space program. With the help of his muscle bound best friend, he'll join forces with a former colleague and a hothead to form the Fantastic Four. It becomes obvious as to who their threat is, when an evil villain rises up on scene. Honestly, I can't decide which "Fantastic Four" adaptation I like/hate more. There are some major differences in how each film was approached (2005 vs. 2015), and neither leave a positive impression for the franchise. I recommend staying away from both films, but in order to back up my critique, let's continue.What I liked about this film (term used lightly) is the relaxed, cartoon vibe that works about half the time. I feel like this is the kind of movie you can plop your two year old in front of, and he/she will have plenty of fun with the film. Take that as a good or bad thing, but that's how it is. I won't lie, I giggled a few times, but at a point, it was just so cheesy and illogical that it made it a negative aspect for the movie.Oh my, the actors in this movie. The talent in this movie wasn't the strongest, and it definitely showed on more than one occasion. None of the actors are downright awful by any means, but no one really showed why they belonged here. Ioan Gruffudd was alright as the lead, but didn't really do much as the star of the film. Jessica Alba was actually laughable and cringe worthy at times, while Chris Evans came off as a jackass who didn't learn anything in the end. Michael Chiklis didn't have to be good, as he was in an ugly costume for 80% of the film, and Julian McMahon was wasted as a villain. Big names don't lead to big results, but rather, can lead to big flops. The chemistry was alright, but nothing noticeable. The practical effects in this movie actually worked pretty decently, but the CGI looked pretty bad. I understand the time period in which this movie was made, but it relies on CGI at times, which can ultimately be a negative. It's cool to see actual cars explode or real sparks flying everywhere, but it looks very off when Reed Richards is stretching around like a maniac. The story is nearly absent, the pacing is a joke, and the dialogue is bland. All three of these are poorly executed, and it makes it feel like less effort was put into writing this movie than Josh Trank's version (at least you saw the effort in that one). The story moved at a pace so fast that you barely knew what was happening and it was all over the place. I had no emotional gravity to the situation, which means I could care less as to what happened. The dialogue was boring and was a pointless way to advance the story. In the end, this was a pretty disappointing film. I only watched it because of its Netflix instant watch release, but I highly recommend avoiding even that.
Grant S (es) wrote: The Philosophy Department of Braylin College in Rhode Island is about to welcome its newest lecturer, and the stories surrounding him are already legend. In additional to being an excellent lecturer on Philosophy and an author of many books, Abe Lucas has a colourful history as an activist, womaniser and lover of life. However, the Abe Lucas who arrives is no longer that energetic, positive person. He is now a depressed, empty shell of a man, and an alcoholic. Over time he befriends one of his students, Jill, and another lecturer, Rita, but even their friendship and obvious affection for him doesn't lift his spirits. Then, from a dark, unexpected source, he finds a reason to live...Woody Allen in fine form - one of his better ones over the last few years. His movies have become hit-and-miss of late - between wonderful creations like Blue Jasmine and Midnight in Paris we have pointless and/or bland offerings like To Rome with Love, Magic in the Moonlight and You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger. Gone are the 80s and 90s when every Woody Allen movie was brilliant, original and incredibly entertaining. Irrational Man isn't in the same league as the films from the heady days of the 80s, but it's still pretty good. Whimsical and intelligent with great warmth. Not as profound as I was thinking it was going to be, but it does have a few good themes and explorations thereof.Great performances by Joaquin Phoenix and Emma Stone in the lead roles. They are perfect for their characters and they work well together. Good support from Parker Posey.