Curse II: The Bite

Curse II: The Bite

After a young man is bitten on the hand by a radioactive snake, his hand changes into a lethal snake head, which attacks everyone he comes into contact with. Also, his body becomes filled with snakes. Now, he must prevent himself from hurting others.

After a young man is bitten on the hand by a radioactive snake, his hand changes into a lethal snake head, which attacks everyone he comes into contact with. Also, his body becomes filled with snakes. Now, he must prevent himself from hurting others. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Curse II: The Bite torrent reviews

Mihai L (br) wrote: Beautifully shot, excellent performances from many actors especially M. Fassbender, keeps you engaged but I could not empathize with the main character as I did not understand his willingness to accept slavery so easily. To me, the first act is by far the weakest, when it should have been a home run. I was not made to feel hope leaving the soul of the trapped protagonist so his decisions seemed out of place throughout the film.

Josh B (gb) wrote: A lot of interesting conversation points could be started here, but, as a 'documentary', it crossed all kinds of ethical boundaries. So, in one sense, you could've asked, where's Ashton Kutcher?

Tanay B (au) wrote: Super movie!! Fine message!!! MUST WATCH!!

Bonnie K (de) wrote: He's got a point, but the execution is a bit cheesy.

Mike J (kr) wrote: For a Christian movie this was good.

Cesar J (mx) wrote: It doesn't have a flowing story. It's pretty much a whole combination of three stories into one film, almost like the classics like "Fun and Fancy Free" and "Ichabod and Mr. Toad". But at least the stories aren't bad.

manuel a (gb) wrote: this movie is interesting because is like somthing new i never see one movie like this

Nishlank J (kr) wrote: Its a beautiful sad film in which characters leave a mark without any effort or without themselves feeling the pain;

Joseph O (gb) wrote: In this introduction to the James Bond franchise, MI6 agent 007 (Sean Connery) must get to the bottom of a mystery involving nuclear devices (because it's the 60s) in the Bahamas.I just started to explore the Bond movies and I wanted to see as many as I could. So, what better way to begin the franchise with the film that started it all? This movie came out during a decade that was pushing taboos and traditions of what could be shown in movies. Since filmmakers at the time were mostly still experimenting with their films, I thought it would be interesting to see how they handled "Dr. No".First, let me start with the negatives. Some of the pacing, around 30-40 minutes in, felt dreadfully slow. Since the opening scene with the murder, I was drawn into the movie. But, the film felt like it was taking too long to continue developing the main story with the nuclear devices. Though, to be fair, it should introduce to the viewers the character of James Bond and his agency, since it's the first film in the series. Also, some of the special effects, especially some scenery, looked dated.I have very mixed feelings about the main villain. I think there was good suspense built to his character, because we first hear only his voice and how he can control his operations and make his goons tremble (well, one of them). But the actual scene with actor Joseph Wiseman didn't show much to him other than being stern. I mean, it's cool to see the first James Bond villain, but I wish there was more to his character.The overall plot, however, I thought was executed well with a big sense of fun. Particularly at the end of the second act, the dialogues felt like the writers were having a lot of fun doing their job. I felt like there was much enthusiasm (or at least, a sense of gravity) in a lot of the actors in them describing the conditions of their crisis to make the film sound fun. The climactic sequence is simple, but cool to watch.The acting also helps the overall film. Sean Connery is so cool in this film, one often forgets he is Indiana Jones' dad, a character with very different attitudes. Ursula Andress was alright. This is one trope that will bother many viewers, and in other films it bothered me as well. The Bond girls usually do not have much to them other than bodies, which lets Bond take advantage of them. Here, Andress as Honey Ryder mostly just provides a damsel in distress situation for Bond, maybe having a trait or two.Overall though, "Dr. No" is a good introduction to the James Bond franchise. Though it has pacing issues, viewers should be grateful that it takes time to introduce many important characters and tropes that will be common in the series (for better or worse). I do look forward to continuing the franchise for some fun.7/10

Dan C (au) wrote: one of favorite movies growing up recommend to any horror movie fan 80/90s horror films are sooooo good