Feeding Mr. Baldwin

Feeding Mr. Baldwin

A house sitter bites off more than he can chew when a dead body mysteriously shows up at the estate he's watching.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:0 minutes
  • Release:2013
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:Feeding Mr. Baldwin 2013 full movies, Feeding Mr. Baldwin torrents movie

A house sitter bites off more than he can chew when a dead body mysteriously shows up at the estate he's watching. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Feeding Mr. Baldwin torrent reviews

Kay L (fr) wrote: Wasn't sure where this was going, but ended up enjoying it.

Roy C (br) wrote: Short, energetic pops. The South African High School Musical.

Jacky L (us) wrote: not my cup of chamomile; took a hell lotta sittings to finally complete the movie (which by the way came across more as pretentious mumbo jumbo than brilliant and daring).

Dillon L (es) wrote: It's even worse than the first one! And it doesn't even have most of the good cast members from the original! God, I hate straight-to-DVD films.

Willy B (fr) wrote: Despite my admiration for the talent and ingenious character of Haneke, I must admit I am very disappointed of this movie. No consequence and no satisfactory development in the characters presented. I think he could have done more of Kafka's work. Provocative for the sake of being provocative and no red thread...

Ken S (br) wrote: Decent enough quirky comedy about a Hollywood shoot in a small town. The cast is good even if the plot and some of the jokes don't always feel quite right. But it is hard to find fault in a movie that tries, has such a great ensemble cast, and manages to be be funny (even if it isn't all the time). I would say it is only for the crowd that enjoys quirky comedies.

JJ J (kr) wrote: Crazy lady going crazy seeing dead stuff.

Craig P (es) wrote: Great performance by Raul Julia.

Richard D (mx) wrote: A huge step down from the first film. Many things contribute to this. The budget is significantly lower, but what really harms this one is the reduction in the number of stories. Three so-so stories are stretched out far longer than their threadbare plots justify. Each becomes tedious before they can get to their predictable punchlines. The pulpy approach of the first film is replaced with a serious tone that isn't justified by the silly stories. Finally, while Tom Savini looks good in his Creep make-up, the animation that makes up most of the between story segments is cheap and shoddy. Not a complete waste of time, but a serious let-down.

Ken T (mx) wrote: SyFy "B" movie all the way...Watch only if you 've got nothing better to do"

Diego Fernando G (mx) wrote: Oh dear Uma, what have you done?

Jon C (gb) wrote: exceptional performances by both Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymoura sweet and charming love story that literally spans over timeit's funny cause there's a hint of a sci-fi element to the whole thingRichard during a party is confronted by an old woman who says ''Please come back to me..'' and he becomes fascinated by her appearancewhen he finds out she's a famous actress on broadway he struggles to find a way to meet her in person and from a fellow valet he's able to hypnotize himself by traveling back into the past and meet her younger selffrom then on the movie turns into a soft, loving and warm romance story about two people who it turns out were destined to change each other's lives from both past and presentnothing keeps true feelings at bay whether it be Christopher Plummer as Seymour's mentor or the measures of time or spacethe ending is very sad yet still rewarding to say the leastthis is a great turnaround from the late Reeve than what we're used to seeing him do

Cameron J (de) wrote: It's the directorial debut of big shot director Robert Zemeckis and is produced by Steven Spielberg, and yet, there's not one single person in this cast who's name is recognizable, or if it is, it was probably attached to something you'd care not to remember. Some people might wanna hold their hands, but they don't want to have to recognize their names. ...Hello, is anyone back from getting lost after I mentioned Robert Zemeckis and Steven Spielberg as if they were two different people yet? Well, when it comes to that, I think the only people we need to worry about getting lost as I try to distinguish the two directors are New Yorkers, because Spielberg is Jewish and Zemeckis is Italian, and in the Big Apple, there's scarce difference. Okay, here's a good way to distinguish them: now-a-days, Spielberg makes consistently good movies, whereas Zemeckis, now-a-days, makes consistently excellent movies. Note that I emphasize "now-a-days", because let me tell you, this film is not among Zemeckis' greats. Don't get me wrong, it's a pretty decent film, yet nothing to write home about, and there are a couple of reasons why. As much as I love Bob Zemeckis, don't go thinking that "Cast Away" was his first experiment with slow storytelling. Of course, if you're thinking that "Cast Away" was his first experiment with storytelling that should be slow, then you're right on the money, particularly when it comes to this film film, because this Beatles-based beat is a slow one indeed, which is to be expected, considering that this was Zemeckis' debut, before he honed his skills. Heck, even David Fincher wasn't killing it dead - as he always does now-a-days - with "Alien 3", and sure enough, this film drifts along, diluting resonance that was already hit pretty hard by limited development and the fact that when it's not slow and quiet, it's so frantic and noisy that really grates into your nerves after a while. This further distances you from the story and characters, and it doesn't help that the story and cast are already lacking in compellingness, because they're even more lacking in originality. From the fanatic fangirl to the satirical, cool, rebel boy that falls into slapstick humor, almost, if not every single character in this cast is a type that we had seen maybe a little too much by 1978, alone. Now, it's not like this film leans closer to being "that" mediocre lost film for Zemeckis than "Death Becomes Her", yet there's little that's top-notch or even terribly upstanding about his film, leaving it forgettable. Oh wait, becoming forgettable is something that would happen to your typical film of this type, which, don't get me wrong, this film doesn't transcend its conventions and flaws, but neither does it collapse under the weight up them, mostly because, even in the beginning, Zemeckis knew how to tell a joke. Now, not all the jokes - particularly the slapstick ones - hit, but the ones that do really charm. As slow as the film is in pacing and resonance, you never fall out, because there's such an unrelenting aura of charm burning off of the screen, thanks almost entirely to Zemeckis' staging of these comedic set pieces. There are sight gags and snappy lines, and even moments where the film actually expresses awareness of its cliched story and characters in a more often than not genuinely effective fashion. This was before the Zemeckis era of dazzling visual effects and awesome, sweeping cinematography, so don't expect that to wake you up through all of the low points in the film, but you can always depend on the humor to keep you going. Of course, a joke means nothing unless someone is telling it, and while I will give plenty of credit to Zemeckis for the humor being so often effective - seeing as plenty of the effective jokes have a feeling that's common with Zemeckis' comedic acting directing -, I've got to say, in the immortal words of the clearly not immortal Jonh Lennon himself, power to the people. The cast is a familiar and sometiems obnoxious one, yet, at the end of the day, they win you over with charisma and their nifty, reasonably authentic embodyment of these products of his or her time, whether they be the raving fan of the pop, the protester of the pop or the guy who fancies himself just too cool for all this pop. The film's 1960s timeline isn't in your face; it's organic, it's charming and leaves you enjoying yourself way more often than not. At the end of the day in the life (Get it, Beatles geeks?), you'll walk away having seen the same-old-same-old, only with less development and more slowness broken up by many obnoxious, if not just plain grating moments of noise, yet what leaves this film to stand its ground is Robert Zemeckis showing off his now notorious comedic skills, as well as the colorful cast of charismatic performers that charmingly recreate 1960s pop culture with subtlety and help make "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" an attention-grabbing debut for the now-great Robert Zemeckis and a generally entertaining film on its own. 2.5/5 - Fair