I Heart Shakey

I Heart Shakey

Shakey is a family film about a 35-year-old widower named J.T. O'Neil, his precocious 10-year-old daughter and their devoted mutt Shakey. After moving from a small town to Chicago and missing the fine print in their rental contract, J.T. is forced to try and get rid of his lovable pooch. Shakey and Chandler won't have it and hatch a plan to keep Shakey and teach J.T. a valuable lesson about loyalty and the importance of keeping family together.

Shakey is a family film about a 35-year-old widower named J.T. O'Neil, his precocious 10-year-old daughter and their devoted mutt Shakey. After moving from a small town to Chicago and ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

I Heart Shakey torrent reviews

Brad S (fr) wrote: 2nd time watching this silly but fun "ghost" movie starring Don Knotts. he cracks me up so I really enjoyed it, but if you're not a fan, skip it. It's just good clean, family fun.

Brad S (us) wrote: Really entertaining documentary on the making of Romero's "Night of the Living Dead". There's lots of footage from the films, critical interpretations, and fun behind the scenes stories from Romero himself. A must for fans of the film, or horror fans in general.

Mark C (au) wrote: A very nicely done ghost story, that manages to be intensely creepy without resorting to the typical horror film, over the top theatrics.

Moses S (au) wrote: One of the best Swedish movies I have ever seen. Such a sweet and touching story. That Skarsgaard legacy continues...

Robbie N (nl) wrote: Kevin James is definitely a well chose actor to play his designated role. You wouldn't want some big tough guy who would make it easy and you don't want a little scrawny guy to make it unbelievable. This movie delivers a strong message about caring and courage, and despite being somewhat predictable, it's not bad. It was much better than I expected, and I expect most people will feel the same way to this predictable, yet tolerable movie.

Buggy B (kr) wrote: As far as low budget, B-grade disaster flicks go this was about what you'd expect. I've seen way worse Sy Fy movies for sure. Decent enough premise (basically borrowed from The Day After Tomorrow) and an enjoyable lead in Michael Shanks who even gets a bit of a back story revolving around his teenage daughter and impending divorce. The story jumps around (a lot) between Philadelphia (actually Ottawa) and Hobart Australia (really Hobart) following a renowned physicist trying to figure out how to stop a sudden climate shift which has opened up a hole in the ozone and is starting a new ice age that could wipeout mankind. Of course initially none of the higher ups believe the hero scientist when he tells them that bad things are a happening until, well, worse bad things happen. Taking the form of deadly ice fog (-90 deg) killing in seconds and presumably being able to chase cars. Airliners also crash, a research vessel runs aground full of soggy dead scientists, there are frozen surfers, general panic and running in the streets. You know all the stuff that makes for an "awesome" B movie. Some of the insta freeze scenes are unintentionally hilarious, the budget is low so the special effects are lame and of course none of the science works but I still had a good time with this. I am a fan of the good (bad) disaster flicks though. 12/27/14

David J (us) wrote: A great and energizing Documentary about fair use, copyright, intellectual properties, etc. The main frame work that the film maker chooses to use is that of Mass Up artist Girl Talk, which is obviously a great idea....this movie is maybe a bit lopsided, but probably mostly right anyway, and has an added benefit of making one want to create in general! very good doc, recommend it!

griselda p (ca) wrote: it going to be awesome

Alice H (jp) wrote: Family or fame? The girl make a good choose.

Luis D (it) wrote: This is one of my favorite creature movies!!! I don't understand the hatred of people. There are far more worst movies and people worship them.

Tina T (nl) wrote: I don't know how this movie only has 64%. I thought this was one of the best I've seen lately. It had twist after twist in a non corny way, & kept me on my toes the whole time. It brought light from a different angle on a story weve heard many times before. Granted I did find myself losing focus a little towards the end but it tied together great & before it was over I was entranced again.

Jonathan P (kr) wrote: The only Children of the Corn movie to not be released on dvd, it states on the box that it has "the best special effects since Terminator 2" well they were special but not in a good way. Ryan Bollmans performance was creepy and genuinely good, but the movie just didn't add anything the first hadn't already covered. Not the worst horror movie you could dig up but not one that will have you sending emails to the studio demanding its dvd release either.

Brandon V (br) wrote: ha George Burns... as god... yeah... no

Stuart K (ru) wrote: Written by Terry Marcel and Harry Robinson, (the former directed it while the latter produced and composed the film), this is a very cheesy swords and sorcery fantasy, done on a shoestring budget as well. Despite a game, spirited cast, it doesn't entirely work and some of it drags as well. Set in some medieval fantasy land, it has the evil Voltan (Jack Palance, hamming it up), killing his own father (Ferdy Mayne) after his father refused to give Voltan the last elven mindstone, before he dies, the father gives the stone and a magic sword to his other son Hawk (John Terry), who avenges to kill Voltan. Some time later, Voltan has attacked warrior Ranulf (W. Morgan Sheppard), who finds shelter in a nun's convent run by Abbess (Annette Crosbie), but Voltan gets there, kidnaps Abbess and holds her to ransom. So, Hawk and Ranulf, along with giant Gort (Bernard Bresslaw), elf Crow (Ray Charleson), dwarf Baldin (Peter O'Farrell), all brought together by a mysterious sorceress (Patricia Quinn) team up to bring down Voltan and save Abbess. It's a very silly fantasy film, done on the cheap, mostly in a wood across the road from Pinewood Studios, the special effects are a bit on the ropey side, and it has a good supporting cast including Shane Briant, Harry Andrews, Patrick Magee and Roy Kinnear. But, a bigger budget might have helped.

Jammy D (nl) wrote: Excellent film for a cosy winter afternoon in front of an open fire. Top class cast, top class film.... Unbeatable Entertainment, Classic!!!????????????

Edgar C (kr) wrote: Loosely based on the real story Saint Simeon Stylites, a 5th Century Syriac ascetic saint who achieved fame for living 37 years on a small platform on top of a pillar near Aleppo in Syria, Buuel's Simn del Desierto has been a film long-discussed regarding its possible implications and allegorical conclusion when, in fact, Buuel ran out of funds and was forced to end the film abruptly. It does feel butchered regarding the scope of his intentions.It has been written that "an abrupt, ill-suited ending suggests that Buuel either tired of the subject and wanted to move on to other things, or that he ran out of money and had to wrap before the process servers showed up." The first interpretation is ridiculous; analyzing his body of work, it is clear that he never left a project unfinished. His increasingly scatological satirical criticisms of the Church became each time more aggressive and never felt uninterested; after all, Buuel was a poor, hypocritical frustrated man that constantly wanted to use cinema as a psychological means to, at least partially, get rid of the resulting emotional, religion-related frustrations that assaulted him since his childhood because of his harsh Catholic-based upbringing, thus directing cinematic statements in a maybe unconscious attempt to justify his own lack of comprehension and egotistical superficial claimings against a metaphysical life that he could never understand and thus assumed as false and non-existent.But he is a cinematic genius, so those two traits of him should be considered as mutually exclusive when analyzing his feature-length masterpieces from an objective, and still artistic point of view.Simon is a VISUAL spoof of Jesus Christ, including the temptations that Christ had in the desert from the Devil, which are partially emulated in the same order here. As blasphemous as that sounds, I find that hilarious. However, he makes the wise decision of remaining neutral towards the character of Jesus Christ and instead uses him as a mockery of the Church, which fully criticizes the traits of this mammoth-like institution that even I as a Christian repulse. Normally, this is the film credited to be his most scandalous mockery at religion, but I disagree. One thing is to mock at a religion, and another one to mock at the Catholic Church and his followers. What remains his most childish and immature project is The Milky Way, where he takes a look at believers of any Bible-related doctrine as... well... stupid people devoid of any rational capacity, which in itself is a stupid thing to do, like Buuel clearly was. Here, he still didn't make that mistake and decided to reference the idolatry that people are capable of having towards any person that can draw a significant amount of inspiration comparable to the stereotypical image that modern society has assigned to Jesus Christ. Here, Buuel laughs at the futility of miracles, references the factual ignorance that the modern Catholic institution has towards the meaning of particular verses of the Scriptures (that Christ himself condemned in the Gospels against the hypocritical scribes and Pharisees), and makes a satirical contrast between the blind "saintliness" of the early centuries of mankind - which of course still resonates today with fundamentalist doctrines - and the self-destructive, twist-dancing and rock-inspired trends of modernity.Or why would Simon say: "I just realized I don't know the meaning of what I am saying", after uttering Catholic prayers and words in Latin? That's the epitome of religions based on deeds, which God rejects, instead of faith (Ephesians 2: 8-9).Less harmful than I was led to believe but epically controversial given its time (and the religious censors of the 60s!), Simn del Desierto is an unfortunately unfinished project featuring marvelous visuals and a magnificent camerawork by Gabriel Figueroa, with an unforgettable performance of Silvia Pinal as "The Devil", who is still today one of the most renowned Mexican actresses in the industry. In my reviews of The Milky Way (1969) and The Phantom of Liberty (1974) I mentioned the obvious influence I perceived Buuel had over the Monty Python crew (I later confirmed this perception through interviews and was proved right), but now I consider this "short" effort as the earliest possible influence before Buuel hit French territory once again.94/100P.S. P.S. Keep an eye out for Brazilian master Glauber Rocha as one of the monks! Buuel himself was inspired to make this film by one of his films, Black God, White Devil (1964) to the extent of even hiring him for a cameo appearance.

Jessie C (nl) wrote: I was really excited about this one because of how iconic James Dean is and because I had never seen something with him in it before, and honestly, I was disappointed. I was really annoyed throughout the entire movie. I read a little bit more about the movie afterward and it enlightened me to the film's strengths that gave it "classic" status, which helped a little bit, but I can't ignore the fact that this was a really annoying movie.I don't usually pay too much attention to film titles, but this one truly says it all. Bunch of angry suburban kids causing mischief for no reason, essentially. I get that there was an element of emotional neglect from adults, which fueled their teenage debauchery, but it played out like a bunch of spoiled white kids messing everything up for everyone else because they didn't know how to deal with their problems. It's a real issue, this painful separation between generations, but this movie was so melodramatic about it. I hate to compare negatives (because a negative is a negative and that's that), but there are a multitude of other more important, more devastatingly horrible issues out there. I don't expect every movie to tackle an societal problem, I get that some movies are just fun, but if they wanted to make a drama about a problem, they should have picked something else. I just didn't care. I didn't feel bad for these kids.It was so dramatic, the story was weak, a vessel for the studio to make money off of Dean more than anything. That's like every Zac Efron movie. Not much substance, but with an exceptionally attractive male displaying both strength and sensitivity- it's a formula to make profit. That's why I'm surprised this is a classic. Seems like something a 1950s Teen Nick might put out for a quick buck or something. The story-telling was bizarre, also. They tried to do some kind of "let's get this story started and fill in the blanks of his past later," which I've seen work many times, but it just didn't work here. I felt like I came into a movie halfway through, too many details merely implied, too many rapid jumps in story/relationships, just made it frustratingly mysterious for no reason. Pacing was so strange. Starts out ominous and tense, then after bad things happen, it gets light-hearted and silly.The only things I really enjoyed were the aesthetics, and I'm not sure how much credit they should get for that considering the ~aesthetics~ I enjoyed so much were just how things looked back then. I also did see the spark that has made James Dean so legendary despite his short career/life. His acting was over-the-top, in my opinion, at some points, but he really did have something about him that was fascinating.Such a bizarre film to me. By the time it was over I had more questions than I had answers and that is enormously frustrating. I really, really didn't like it but I'm so confused that I didn't enjoy such a widely beloved film so I might try to give it a viewing again but I highly doubt it.5/10Bye love you