Dreammaster: The Erotic Invader
On a quest to unravel the mysteries of recurring nightmares, four college grad students experiment on each other, monitoring and attempting to manipulate their dreams. Grant, the most troubled of the quartet, is disturbed by the sensual Devora, an erotic fantasy figure who torments and teases him in the most vivid of dreams. Determined to help him, Grant's friends enter the twilight world of his sleeping mind, only to discover that Devora's curse of eternal pleasure is irresistible...
- Stars:Lisa Boyle, Patrick Ahern, Kristen Knittle, Timothy Di Pri, Mark Sherman, Patricia Skeriotis, Teresa Politi, Jennifer Barnes, David Ranker, Robbie French,
- Director:Jackie Garth,
- Writer:Vernon Lumley
A researcher has found a way to help people take control of their dreams and in that way give an end to recurring nightmares. He ask for students with such problem to participate in his ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Dreammaster: The Erotic Invader torrent reviews
(au) wrote: If you like fishing then you'll like this movie.
(us) wrote: Stupid movie, terrible plot yet hilariously funny. Some amazing lines, a great comedy cast that doesn't get enough credit. So dumb but so great in a strange, no pun intended, way.
(ag) wrote: Audrey Tautou. In love with you.
(ca) wrote: Too slow paced to hold my interest. I may need to re-watch it when i am not already tired.
(ag) wrote: Had hoped that this would be simply beautiful, but alas in some parts the scenes just went on far too long. Agreed that there were riveting moments, but they were memorable for being so few.
(ag) wrote: este es un ejemplo de una pelicula que no se la pudo con la nobela, como muchas peliculas, lo ms rescatable son las actuaciones de "Julio Jung y Adela Secal", lo dems esta de sobra. Una pena para este gran director que tiene obras maravillosas como "Julio comienza en Julio" y "A la sombra del Sol".
(mx) wrote: It was either give this 5 stars or none. On one hand it's the worst action/marital arts movie ever. On the other hand it's the worst action/martial arts movie ever. This movie is so AMAZINGLY awful that it is worth knocking back a couple of drinks and watching the sheer incompetence of everyone involved in this travesty of a movie.
(kr) wrote: Funny comedy. Terrible movie.
(ag) wrote: I never get tired of watching this movie. Tis' a breakthrough performance for Billy Bob, never seen him play a geek before. And the heist plots are perfectly clever and the lines are funny as ever.
(au) wrote: I love Bmovies like this these are better than most movies today.
(ag) wrote: whacky sci fi nonsense but its fun...lol
(ca) wrote: FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS (1943)
(ru) wrote: A film that just comes and goes without make much of an impression one way or the other. While I do think that it's a bad movie, all things considered, it's not nearly as bad as it is boring. With that said, and this might be one of the only positives I can come up with at this moment, is the fact that the the film is over in a flash. It might not be a good movie and it might not be entertaining, but the film does not wait any time throwing you into what's going on in this small and quiet town. I'll take positives where I can find them. I suppose Dean Stockwell is also pretty decent in this movie, even if he doesn't appear a lot in it. I think there's a good idea here and some of the moments where the tease something or just show you the monster(s) in the background walking away as the camera comes up to one of the characters, or taking their hand away from the wall. I think some of that worked pretty well. The problem is the fact that the film, while not doing so straight out of the gate, doesn't tease the appearance of the 'monsters' before actually paying off on it. It's not like they're really that scary, they look like zombie cavemen or something, but it's strange that the film didn't have you 'work' for the reveal. So many movies wait until the last possible second until they do the reveal that, by that point, it's already too late. This film does it relatively early in the story and it still doesn't do much to help the film improve. It's not like there's that much in the way of horror in the film to begin with. They try, but it felt a little salty and colorless to me, like they're borrowing from other films without any of the effort or thought put into it. The structure of the film is also kind of a mess. Characters and their motivations are inconsistent. It's just all over the place, I can't even explain it. Characters appear in one scene and then are never seen again until the last possible second. Characters go from being unlikable to barely likable. Feels like the film was written in a non-sequitur fashion, where one thing rarely has to do with what came before it or will come after. Look, I like the Chiller tv channel, even though my cable provider dropped it, and I think myself a horror fan, which means I watch a lot of really low-budget horror flicks, but this film just has a TV movie look and feel that just holds it back. Like you can just tell that it was made, essentially, to be aired on Chiller after either a short theater run and/or VOD distribution. There's nothing wrong with that, there's plenty of good TV movies out there, but when's the last time you saw a GOOD made for tv horror movie. I'll wait. This is, obviously, not gonna change the perception that made for tv horror movies aren't any good. I do think that the film got better as it neared the end, and I don't mean to say because the film would've almost been over, don't be mean, you guys. I do think there's some improvement though in how the doctor takes out all the monsters and the 'twist' itself is not bad because it, actually, kind of makes sense within the context of the story. You can't say that about a lot of twists in films. But I still don't think this film was any good. It's on Netflix, so on that regards, it's harmless, but it's not a good movie in any way. It's more boring that bad, but I still wouldn't recommend it.
(kr) wrote: 'Shooter' is a pretty unremarkable action-thriller, but it's competently made, and Wahlberg does a fine job.
(fr) wrote: Had never watched the series but heard of it. Saw the movie on cable, liked it very much and intrigued me to check into the TV series. Have now binge watched the first 2 episodes and well into third. Wonderful writing!
(de) wrote: To call We Need to Talk About Kevin disturbing would be something of an understatement. Nary a moment goes by in the film's two hour running time that doesn't carry an unsettling aura of despair, but it speaks to the craft of Lynne Ramsay's direction and her dedicated cast. Told in a non-linear format, the film sublimely unravels the doomed fates of it's characters, and it results in what is arguably the first truly effective film about a Columbine-esque scenario. It's fortunate that not every movie is as brutal as this one, but We Need to Talk About Kevin earns its right to tackle such content.