Critters 3

Critters 3

In what appears to be a cross between Critters and The Towering Inferno, the residents of a shoddy L.A. apartment block are chased up to the roof by hoards of the eponymous hairy horrors.

In what appears to be a cross between Critters and The Towering Inferno, the residents of a shoddy L.A. apartment block are chased up to the roof by hoards of the eponymous hairy horrors. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Critters 3 torrent reviews

Bradley H (ag) wrote: It is certainly after an interesting observation about romantic relationships, but the premise it chooses to utilize never feels more than half-baked. But the performances from the leads are enough to keep the viewer engaged and amused, despite the annoying developments in the plot.

Alexander D (us) wrote: Totally sucks at every aspect. Trailer is good but the film is just a waste of every resources. They could just have donated the film's budget to charity. They can't get my 1.5HRS back!!

Tim T (kr) wrote: Awesome movie buyt they wreck to many good cars

Regine L (kr) wrote: (TM)...? 3/4 3/4 (R),,,(TM)'?-(TM) (R)', 3/4 3/4, 1/4, (R)?-(TM) (R)??,,,

Henrietta S (es) wrote: The U.S. of A folks still talk(ing) like we(TM)re in the 20th century! Interesting documentary about race relations in Charleston, Mississippi. You might want to turn on Closed Captioning? - I (often) found the southern drawls hard to understand. Made me wish my high school had a prom tho' (sigh)

James H (es) wrote: The third one wasn't terrible - but it lacks the freshness that we got from the very first film. The plot starts to get confusing ways with the flashbacks and sub plots. The new characters like Yeung (Leon Lai) are so unlikeable. They're not interesting at all. Leon Lai's performance was SHIT! The only performances I liked was from Tony Leung, the beautiful Kelly Chen and the winner would probably Andy Lau. His performance was great because in this film his character was a bit more different due to some mental problems. The film does build tension and suspense well. Overall, this isn't as good as the first movie - but it's still an ok movie.

Jose Miguel G (us) wrote: With a terrific lead performance by Steve Coogan, as well as enjoyable guest starts, great script and true passion for its subject, this satiric documentary is a solid point of view of one of music's most triumphant moments in the late 70s- early 80s.

Robert B (us) wrote: Lots of fun, bizarre situations and random cultural/movie/book references. A must for anyone who ever lived with a bunch of flatmates. Isn't it obvious I love Australian/New Zealand movies by now?

Charlotte Q (mx) wrote: Quite depressing but good portrayal

AD V (jp) wrote: The bad news is the violence is surprisingly restrained given the fact it's directed by Don (Phantasm) Coscarelli. The good news is...Lance Freakin Henriksen. All in all not bad for a cheesy 80's action/adventure film.

Jeff S (mx) wrote: This is one of my very favorite movies. I have a digital copy and watch it frequently. It's such a bitter sweet story of unrealized love. Plus Anne Bancroft, Sir Anthony Hopkins, and Dame Judi Dench star in this great film. The story takes place starting in the days just following WWII and follows a trans-Atlantic love via correspondence between a Londoner, and a New Yorker. There's no one inexplicably naked and nothing explodes. And they manage to tell the entire story without using CGI. It's charming. I give it my highest rating and endorsement.

Byron B (br) wrote: nominated for best foreign film at the oscars

Hannah D (ca) wrote: As a satire on movie-making it's aight. Could have used some stakes, just saying. Jacqueline Bisset is breathtaking!

LE (it) wrote: Awesome and funny movie!!!

Pure Rock Fury (nl) wrote: I have a friend who LOVES this movie. I, on the other hand, thought it was fairly bland and devoid of any suspense. Like any Italian horror film, "Macabre" has it's memorable moments and set pieces but it felt slow and most persons of average intelligence will figure out the "mystery" of the film about 40 minutes in, leaving you to sit through until the end just to be confirmed. As per usual, the acting is nothing to write home about and "Macabre" is likely better served with the Italian language track on. I got a few laughs, especially upon finding out that this was based loosely on a true story.

Thomas B (au) wrote: Good "Gansta" type movie. Good performances all around.

Cooper H (gb) wrote: Elf is Will Ferrell near his best. The movie is incredibly funny and has a lot of heart.

Andres M (ru) wrote: Spoilers Ahead: Despite some funny moments and cute animation, The Lorax is a harmless and fun, but generic cash in the bag that mostly disposes the darkness, subtlety, and magic of Dr. Seuss classic book and short. The perfect depiction of Hollywood cashing in on a classic book while disposing much of wit and charm that made the story a classic in the first place. I have been expecting something witty and satirical, considering that this was from the same people behind the glorious Despicable Me, however it all ends up being a film, with interesting undertones, and great talent, squashed with generic pop songs, simplistic characterization, dated slangs, and unnecessary subplots that had nothing to do with the book in the first place. The film centers on, not the Lorax or the Once-ler, but on a 12 year old boy named Ted, played by Zac Efron. The film does not center on the Lorax or once-ler because of the film's subplots. The story of Ted is that he lives in a corporate city called Thneed-ville, and is in love with a high schooler named Audrey, played by Taylor Swift. Ted's plan is to get her to fall in love with him, but order to do that, he must get her a tree, an objective that all ready alienated the first half of the story. The purpose of the book is that the boy was that one person who cared about the result of the once-ler and wanted to restore life for the sake of nature and its beauty. Here, Ted only goes to see him and get the tree, only to impress the girl, coming off as rather sappy and shallow.. Meanwhile, the city is controlled by a Mr. O'Hare, who's objective is to pollute the city so that he can sell fresh air: to make money. Sadly, the subplot and character of Mr. O'Hare alienates the story, because in the book, the city and the villain didn't exist, and if you think it through, the villain of the film is suppose to be the misunderstanding and the undoing of the Once-ler, and the addiction of consumerism. First, there are 2 worlds in this film. We have Ted's world, which includes the new subplots and we have the Lorax/ Once-ler world, which was the original story. Many of the film's problem come from Ted's world.If you read the book, the story is about Lorax and his attempt to teach the Once-ler how industry and reliance on consumerism can affect anyone or anything around him, and how his actions had led to the destruction of the forest and environment, and the Once-ler was the narrator. The theme of the entire book is the dangers of industry and how someone's actions and over focus on finance and sales can destroy something beautiful and important. The Lorax story which was the highlight of the film has been reduced to a secondary subplot to the film, rather than being the focus of the main story. Also, the second problem of the film is the film's setup. The charm and genius of the lorax is that it was not completely a fun up-beat story, but it was a dark and horrifying story, in the form of a colorful children's book. In the core of the book, it was a dark and subtle story about a kind man who wanted to change the world and innovate, which led to chopping down the trees. However, he meets mother nature (Lorax) who tries to teach him the beauty of life and that innovation and success does not always have to rely on corporation. The man ignores him and continues his business of his new invention, thinking it's the right thing to do, but destroying everything around him. And then, mother nature and his inner conscious try to show him what his business is leading into, but still, he ignored it. However, by the time the last tree was chopped, only then he snaps out of it and sees what he was doing, and what horror and dark future he has created, and at that time, he also realized one problem: it was too late. For years, he would sit in his empty factory, will full remorse and regret for what he has done, but at the same time torn, for the fact that he only wanted the innovate and make the world a great, and that killing the environment was never his main objective. One day he meets a young boy, who he realizes is the one that can change the future, because until someone "cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to change." He gives the boy the last seed of them all, and then goes off, in an ambiguous note. What was the message: Don't rely too much on corporation or consumerism, too much of will lead to danger. And also, problems can't all be stopped or fixed immediately, but if you really care about fixing the problem, you will eventually find a solution. Thats the magic of the book, it gave you a story of how the misunderstanding of industry and wealth can destroyed the world, how business can lead to the apocalypse, we don't know where the boy lived, what happened to the Lorax and his friends, or what happened in the end, letting the audience create their own ending. Also, it was simple, but the mood was dark, sorrow, and horror, in contrast to his other books, but what made the story more powerful is that even with the Once-Ler's unintentional creation of the industry-created apocalypse, there was never a villain or an antagonist. In fact, the villain of the story was the addiction; misunderstanding and pressure that led to this eventual wasteland, a personal fear and problem that people can relate to. The ambiguity of the ending was reform with straightforward ending that alienates the ambiguity of the book . A simple thing to note, is that the film starts, showing you the Lorax, guiding the beginning of the movie, rather than let the film visually guide you to the beginning, then they show you where the boy lived, created a city for him to live, and create a bunch of other simplistic characters full of clichs and stereotypes. Then they created a bad guy, who's main goal is to make money, try to stop the boy, so he can rule the world, and make money, with a rather forced, preachy ending that removes the ambigious tone of the ending. There is still some great parts. The animation shines brightly and in top-quality, and the character and world designs match the film perfectly. The best part of the film, or what the film should've been about should've been the story of the Lorax and the Once-ler. The film's biggest strengths lie in the Lorax and Oncler subplot. The story of the two, which was only 30 minutes of the film, has a bunch of changes, and yeah they kind of rushed the transformation of the once-ler, but it was still funny, witty and brought some of the charm from the book, with some very dark and touching moments. It's was the Thneedville subplots that fell flat and were void of creativity The characters are mix. First we have Ted, he is fine, but choosing Zac Efron is a very odd choice. Taylor Swift's character is completely lifeless and useless to the plot. The highlight of the film is Danny Devito as the Lorax. Devito is a natural, bringing you the best character of the film, the best wit, and helps the film being something worth watching. Ed Helms plays The Once-ler, while modernized is equally as witty and funny as the borax himself. The best part of the film was the story of the Lorax and the once-ler. Like I said earlier many of the film's problem occur outside of the Lorax's world. If the film was just about the Lorax and the Once-ler the film would've been much more enjoyable, and more faithful to the book. Despite some clever ideas, great animation and the story of The Lorax and the Once-ler, The Lorax is surrounded by the shallow subplots void of the dark charms of the book.