While traveling through the cursed Old Highway 13 in New Mexico, each passenger of a bus to Las Vegas is attacked by an evil fiend that possesses and destroys their bodies. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
While traveling through the cursed Old Highway 13 in New Mexico, each passenger of a bus to Las Vegas is attacked by an evil fiend that possesses and destroys their bodies.
You may also like
Devil's Highway torrent reviews
Jamie C (ru) wrote: Pretty good.. shitty ending ;)
Arturo R (ag) wrote: No hay conflicto en la historia que te mantenga atento y provoca demasiada hambre
Jane L (fr) wrote: This film is legitimately terrifying.
v9y j (it) wrote: Starts off well but then wahii Dhaak ke tiin paat. Avoidable.
Babak I (ru) wrote: Looks like a very horrbile B-grade movie so I'm not going to waste my time watching it.
Dillinger P (it) wrote: With films like Lions for Lambs, its overall themes and tones, although relevant, come at a cost for lengevity. Were I to watch this back in 2007 my consensus of this outing may have been dramatically opposite from now. But then when making a film set during any current period, it really is hard to predict the future. Lions for Lambs centers around 3 couplings, a PR free meeting between the Senator of the USA and an experienced journalist surrounding a new plan of action for the war on terror in Iraq. It follows the meeting of tutor and student in a modern day society and it follows the horrifying predicament that 2 young American soldiers are put in and basically tries to tie them all into a nutshell, without being to controvesial, while at the same time trying to hit those marks. The conclusion is a jumbled mix of excellent ideas and performances, with horrific gaps in pacing and very little feeling of relevancy between the meetings until the very end, by which point it feels more tacked on that anything else. The cast are all excellently chosen, Cruise plays the Senator as smug and arrogantly as you would expect him to, really playing to his strengths with his perfect smile, with serious undertones. Meryl Streep also does a fine job as a journalist, trying to be used to force propaganda against the people of America. Equally Robert Redford and Andrew Garfield both turn in extremely viable performances of student/teacher mentoring. The week link are the soldiers, although their situation is on the surface, the most thrilling, it just lacks any real attention, acting like more of a tool to intercut between both meetings. Redford does well directing his actors, with powerful performances but when the string is so loose between them its hard to find weight behind it all. The ideas are yet again brilliant, controversial and meaningful to the world, not just the american people, but it still leans heavily on the good old USA side, meaning that we dont really get a sense of the opposing side, almost making this a one sided arguement, were it not for Meryl Steep and Andrew Garfield. It looks nice in places, and as short sequences the 3 all make for some entertaining pieces of drama, but by the end you can visabley see the seems just unbuckle before your very eyes. Watch if you wanted to catch this but never got round to it, but there are plenty of other offerings out there that give something more accurate.
Tayyab R (gb) wrote: On the cover, this film wouldn't stand out in your movie archive. Abhay Deol, who virtually took the first babysteps towards starting his career in the shadow of the Deol name while the bubbly Ayesha Takia has done little to stand out from the sea of Bolywood divas around her. However, the fluidity of the film will surprise you - something that the script needs to be given full credit for. On the flip side, the movie was a clear-cut depiction of youth and hypocrisy and takes the 'everything is fair in love and war' to a whole new level; albeit a mindless and insensitive to others-around-you level. While its evident that the movie can offer little to withstand the test of time, its best to see it as a light, pleasant, out-of-touch from reality mindset and the script will keep you hooked for the over 2hr run-time.
Richard L (de) wrote: In my opinion, this movie was not really funny save for a few jokes here and there. I think I just don't get that kind of humor.
Bryan K (br) wrote: Though there's some stuff worth laughing at in this one, this sequel captures next to none of what made the original special. Losing Smokey as a character and leaving Craig to be the comedian does not work, with the supporting cast of new characters around Craig less amusing and more absurd. The new neighborhood has none of the grit or charm that LA did in the original, Rather than relying on at least semi-believable episodes for comedy such as the neighbor across the street getting caught in bed with the pastor, there's pink-clad record store owners flashing guns and an uncle's bedroom full of...toys. The villainous gang of Mexican thugs are poor substitutes for Deebo, who like the rest of the original cast that found themselves in the sequel confined to their own solitary roles riding in the back of a dogcatcher truck. Shouldn't have made this one.
Daisy M (ca) wrote: decent but unoriginal detective-kinda movie
Tim B (de) wrote: One of my favourite movies.
Spencer P (mx) wrote: A wonderful piece of Australian cinema for fans of period pieces, this is beautiful writing and solid performances presenting a very respectable kind of romance, and shedding light on underprivileged individuals anywhere.
Miroslav G (mx) wrote: The film that started it all: Dr. No. Dr. No, the very first James Bond film, is a solid little film despite the ridiculous amount of acclaim it has garnered. I'll give this movie credit however for kick-starting the series, but there isn't really anything special about it. Only reason why Dr. No is met with such high regard is because it started the series, making it's deeming of being one of the best in the series more obligatory than genuine. But let's not forget: without this film, we wouldn't have the many great Bond films that have succeeded it. Also, Dr. No was surprisingly revolutionary for its time and moviegoers had never seen anything quite like it before, easily imprinting itself in memories of many. And even though this film may have been extraordinary in its time, it's considered a bit slow by today's standards. It seems that the producers had just chosen a more laidback and straightforward Bond novel to kick-start the series with due to budget constraints, making it easier both physically and financially for them so they could see if this series would really take off or not. I can't really blame them for this, but due to it, the film can seem a bit lackluster at times. Overall, Dr. No is a solid, respectable, and straightforward espionage thriller that started the beloved Bond series and is a must-see for any fan of the franchise.
William R (de) wrote: Lets be honest here........you didn't come to see the plot or story......