Devil in My Ride
Doreen is about to marry the man of her dreams, Hank, a mild-mannered guy who is equally as excited about marrying Doreen. However, Doreen's older brother, a wild man named Travis who's been estranged from her for several years, shows up to make amends, but instead he accidentally curses her. Doreen is now possessed by the devil. In Las Vegas is a homeless man known as Johnny Priest, who is the last known person to perform an exorcism in America. It's up to Travis and Hank to put aside their differences and travel from Chicago to Las Vegas to get Doreen an exorcism before it's too late and her soul is lost forever.
- Stars:Frank Zieger, Joey Bicicchi, Erin Breen, Sid Haig, Llou Johnson, Zarinah Ali, Hud Cantu, Tom Carlson, Harold Dennis, Craig J. Harris, Chris Heinrich, Cathleen Hennon, Dave Lipschutz, Rachel Joy Mazza, Benjamin Nicholson,
- Director:Gary Michael Schultz,
- Writer:Mike Dozier, Gary Michael Schultz
After Doreen has been possessed by the devil on her wedding night, her groom Hank, and her rebellious brother Travis, put aside their differences to travel across country from Chicago to ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Devil in My Ride torrent reviews
(nl) wrote: Never seen a movie quite like it.
(br) wrote: A good movie about hardware and computers being used against us!
(it) wrote: Back before the Ugly Stick beat the living hell out of the Olsen Twins, they put out family fodder like this. View at your own peril.
(de) wrote: The mercurial Castle Freak is a depraved, cannibalistic, grotesque monster. If I turn out to be half the man Castle Freak is, I will have done quite well in life. I simply adore this film. It's fucking bonkers.
(gb) wrote: Whiny and nowhere near believable, Bogosian's would-be slacker opus was already dated by the time Linklater got around to making a feature film out of it. Not badly cast (Zahn's puppylike doofus provides the film's few bright spots), but ultimately irritating and unnecessary.
(mx) wrote: I don't know why this is released under the working title Djano's Great Return other then a cash in. The title character's name is Keoma! Like we need another unofficial Django sequel. Always great Franco Nero returns to the spaghetti western genre in fine form & is even more nihilistic when he was back in the 60s. Keoma is a thing of beauty @ times & as a fan of the genre (& of Nero ) I has a great time w/ it. Although it doesn't always work & the ending sorta leaves a bitter taste in your mouth you can't help be get behind the badassness of it all. No it's not cut from the same fabric as Leone (I would say more from Corbucci) it still stands heads & tales above those pumped out trying to cash in & by 76 the genre had outplayed itself. Exploitation pioneer Enzo Castellari once gain proves that you can get blood from a stone
(mx) wrote: A question of innocence in faith
(ru) wrote: And this is where the meat of the movie is. This is an absolutely goregous film and I'm extremely happy to have finished these films. Mind you, I only watched them a week apart, but I wasn't as fired up as you would have thought about concluding a Russian epic. Regardless, this movie is a visual treat that really deserves attention. I talked about this in the review of the first film, but this is the movie that really deserves this kind of critique. I know that Ivan the Terrible, to some extent, is a biopic. But there are so many themes compared to Hamlet it is ridiculous. The only difference is that the protagonist (despite the title, "Horrible") is actually the Tsar as opposed to Prince Hamlet trying to kill King Claudius. Ivan is surrounded by scoundrels and usurpers and he has to be as shrewed as Hamlet to rid his court of these traitors. I mean, there is some really heavy stuff going on in this movie and that should be noted. This is a complex film. I don't know if this is the normal connotation, but I know that a lot of people think of early cinema as being light and full of fluff because they are still trying to get past the novelty of the medium. Eisenstein seems never have to have dealt with that issue. I know that the movie says 1959, but this movie was made decades before it was released. This movie is a breakthrough in filmmaking This one is far more political than the first part. It takes a few minutes to realize what is going on and without an in-depth knowledge of ancient Russia, I can imagine that you'd be a little lost. But the story quickly makes sense and then you realize that, despite the political overtones, that this is a character drama full of intrigue and murder. I mentioned this in the review of part one, but you really have to commend the visual choices when it come to makeup and costumes. The villains look villanous but not completely as dark as Ivan does throughout the movie. There's an interesting juxtaposition showing Ivan as a child. He is as strong-willed as he is in the future, but the look that Eisenstein chose for that little boy is so full of innocence. He has only been betrayed once and that betrayal has affected him only to relive the same moment over and over again. While I applaud the visual choices that Eisenstein made in the first movie, this is the one that is really powerful aesthetically. Towards the end of the movie, Eiesnstein switches between monochromatic and full color. Now, I've seen The Wizard of Oz. Screw that. Oz never flip-flopped back and forth. Going from color to black and white is a bold movie and quite effective. Honestly, this film really shows the impact of choosing a palate for your film. At one point, it almost seems like two separate films contained in one. I almost didn't recognize characters in either light. It was fantastic. The end of this movie is to die for. Literally, there's so much angst and cruelty in these characters. Yes, you see it coming in the last five to ten minutes, but that's what makes it perfect. You want this plan to go forward. You want to see these villains get their just desserts and they do. What's bizarre is that their downfall comes from a man obsessed. His obsession is proven valid and his darker desires are never removed, but rather satisfied. I mean, the ending is practically cathartic. I felt my own vengeful nature satisfied and that creeped the hell out of me. This really is a fantastic film that earns its "classic" title. It is innovative, and that's all well and good, but the movie itself is objectively fantastic. This is the one Russian film that everyone needs to see.
(us) wrote: The fact that this film's innovations have stood the test of time and are rarely ever copied successfully says a lot about the amount of thought and talent to be able to make this film. Orson Welles gives one of the most raw performances I've ever seen, especially from the 1940s.
(mx) wrote: Just as great as the book!