You may also like
Harpy torrent reviews
Hugo G (ca) wrote: 7.1/10This is one of the most disturbing and bizarre yet interesting and mind bending films I've ever seen. The story was so twisted and strange, while also the acting was really good, mainly from Masumi Miyazaki, who really delved into her character and all the extreme situations she was in. It is a really hard film to watch because of its extreme content, but it is also one that sticks with you because of how intriguing and visceral it is. But still, you can go so far with its shock value, that it may be too much or simply not enough of really what's going on that actually makes it even harder to watch. ~March 19, 2015~
danielle p (ru) wrote: love love love this movie. and did I mention I love ti
Pavan R (au) wrote: Didn't now what to make of it till almost the end, just couldn't guess where it would end up. An intense drama passing through everything from poetic justice to racism, and from anger to acceptance. Has a profound effect on you and gets you thinking so take your time to watch it.
Darren D (au) wrote: High on body, low on originality and almost a total lack of script as well. Casper Van Dien had very little to do in this movie.
Deb S (jp) wrote: Tom Berenger is superb as the tough, aging Marine ex-sniper Sergeant Thomas Beckett who is lured out of retirement to assassinate a Serbian general believed to be committed atrocities against the Muslim population. He's teamed up with a death row inmate and dropped in enemy territory. The mission goes well, Beckett kills his mark but then things take a terrible twist. The rest of the film is a rather exciting adventure where things are not what they seem to be.
Holly K M S (fr) wrote: Horror fans everywhere rejoiced at the news of the much awaited crossover. This, however, failed to deliver. So many irrelevant and easily unavoidable plot holes, sloppy dialogue and confusing repetition make this a slow burner, if ever lit.
Emily M (kr) wrote: Ewwwwww!!!!!!!This movie wasn't very good!!!!!! It was like Amandas brother with an English accent in the early 1900's!!!!!!!!!!
J W (au) wrote: For a late-90s medieval-style fantasy, Kull isn't that bad. Of course, it isn't that good either. You know you're in trouble when you make a movie that damn near copies Conan the Barbarian. Sorbo's acting is rather stale; he looks really tired and bored throughout the entire film. It's as if it were filmed while he were taking a break from shooting the TV show Hercules. Tia Carerre as the resurrected evil witch/queen/demon/thing was somewhat fun to watch, if a bit over-the-top at times. At least her costumes were adequately revealing, which I think is all that matters to the target audience. The problem with the main characters is that they are so stereotypical that they come across as flat, two-dimensional characters with nothing better to do than fight each other. The hero has no faults (other than a dark past as a pirate and rogue, which is never explored in detail and only adds to his heroic charm), while the villain has no redeeming qualities. It's just a classic battle of good versus evil, except the execution of that battle is less classic than some of the film's music.This is actually one of those movies where the supporting cast stands out better than the main characters, which is part of the film's saving grace. Most of the secondary characters seem a lot more interested in what they are doing and offer much more convincing performances than the boring stereotypes they trail behind. Visually, the movie is pretty average. Since it's not meant to take place in an ancient Earth, there is a mixed plate of styles influenced by fantasy and history alike. The result is acceptable, though some more creative concept art might have done the movie more justice. Special effects are also average, and adequate for the time it was released. Some of the CGI was pretty obvious, but acceptable for the casual viewer.Whether you like the movie's soundtrack or not depends largely on how you feel movies should be presented, and partly on what kind of music you're into. I personally enjoyed the sword fights set to heavily distorted guitar riffs, as well as the standard orchestral fantasy fare. Unfortunately not everything modern translates well into a medieval-style fantasy, as many of the actors (especially Sorbo) drone out their lines with their standard voices. Not that every fantasy movie needs to be full of medieval British accents, but a little voice training to sound less "American suburb" would have helped.There are a few weird plot holes that I don't really understand either. For example, the guy who resurrected Akivasha...why did he wait for Kull to become king before resurrecting her? Was there a missing scene where he only just found the scroll he was reading from? And for that matter, why did he even need to tell the conspirators who were plotting against Kull? Couldn't he have done it on his own anyway? If Kull didn't trust Juba that much, why did he insist on bringing him aboard the ship? And why did Juba just give him a ship to begin with? You'd think a guy like that would have put up more of a fuss and tried to get something out of it. If the Breath of Valka could only be carried by a woman, why didn't they have Zarelda kiss Akivasha (thereby causing Akivasha to show her true form and then die)? That would also have been more appealing to the target audience, I think. And while we're on the topic of not making sense, why is he called "Kull: The Conqueror?" He didn't actually conquer anything, he just sort of inherited the throne from the guy he killed. The rest of the movie was just about defeating the evil sorceress/demon/witch/whatever. You'd expect a movie with a title like that to have some kind of epic military struggle. But anyway...Despite its flaws, Kull: The Conqueror is a watchable and entertaining film, if you're in the mood for simple brainless entertainment. It's full of decent (if poorly choreographed) action, but its stale good-versus-evil premise will leave intelligent audiences with sore eyeball sockets from rolling them every five minutes. Anachronistic dialogue and music, plot holes the size of Guam, lack of originality, and blatant plagiarism from better movies distract from the story.
Randy Y (it) wrote: A simple, but somewhat fun film. Lower rating just because of the annoying silliness that happens on the ice rink at several points, but notably when the lasso comes out.
Sage H (us) wrote: Easily recognizable as Eastwood's worst film of his entire career. Everything we love is taken away about him: his cockiness, his badassery, his toughness, and his wide acting range. He tried to hard to act this role to no avail to such a horrendous script. You could really care less about anything that happened and it seemed like a waste a time. And the ending sucked. One of his most dull and unexciting characters ever. It was a complete snoozefest and lacked any excitement.
Ms Amanda J (de) wrote: Kristy McNichol is really great.
Ketil T (us) wrote: Seen 19.11.07. Interesting to see this movie from 1941 in full colours. It is definitely a different story about Billy the Kid and maybe closer to the truth than any of the others.
James C (jp) wrote: Oh man....n00bs complaining that it was too long; don't understand epics.
kc k (kr) wrote: go back to bed you poop stain
Christopher B (au) wrote: Mostly predictable with a fair amount of bad science.
Damien R (nl) wrote: Yes! It's in English!
Ryan L (ag) wrote: Bahaha. This was a blast.