I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell

I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell

Tucker decides to take an impromptu trip to celebrate his friend's bachelor party. He drags his friend into a lie with his fiancée, gets him into trouble and then abandons him in order to pursue a hilarious carnal interest. Tucker is disinvited to the wedding, and in order to get back in, Tucker has to find a way to balance his narcissism with the demands of friendship.

A selfish cad (Matt Czuchry) jeopardizes his relationship with two close friends after throwing one of them a particularly decadent bachelor party, getting his invite to the nuptials revoked. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


You may also like

I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell torrent reviews

Cedric L (ag) wrote: Although one of Woody Allen's best, it's carried by his steady directing and Cate Blanchett's performance.

Luckee C (fr) wrote: Talaash is an top-class mystery filled with non-stop suspense & thrills. Fully enjoyed this one, packed with drama, entertainment & suspense! Highly recommended if you are into suspenseful mysteries such as the drama CID. Verdict = Hit

Maisam M (nl) wrote: its one of the weirdest movies i have ever seen and i didnt understand a thing as it was in foreighn language but yet it was a nice piece of work.. i hope sooner or later Hollywood make this movie in english version, tht would be good.. but its clearly the weirdest movie i have ever seen with a hot actress Jennifer Decker..

Cameron J (es) wrote: It follows most of the same plot beats as "Exorcist: The Beginning", stars Stellan Skarsgrd as Father Lankester Merrin, has the same writers and even comes close to the same runtime, but sure, this is a new and improved prequel to "The Exorcist". I like how this film's title literally boasts, "Oh yeah, and for the record, this is the prequel to 'The Exorcist'", just to prove that it has no subtlety about being an attempt at making you forget about "Exorcist: The Beginning", which I suppose it alright, because as far as impressing the critics more, this prequel/remake/early version/midquel/whatever is a success... relatively speaking. Swedes can apparently break important rules as people from the land of death metal by driving out Satan and his assorted buddies, but I seem to be giving this "promising" story concept too much credit, seeing as how there's no saving the film it's attached to, at least when the final product "suffers from hit-and-miss psychological tension, poor visual effects, and weak writing", and is an "overambitious failure of a horror movie". Man, Rotten Tomatoes really did hammer into this baby, and it scored almost 20% higher than "The Beginning", but hey, at least William Peter Blatty, the novelist behind this mythology, liked it, which is most important... in a more idealistic world. Sorry, Bill, my man, but in America, the power of money compels, and even though this film is cheaper than "The Beginning", it made its predecessor look like the financial success of the first "Exorcist"... that is, the first installment in this franchise, not the first chapter in this mythology, which is "The Beginning"... or maybe this film. ...Jeez, you see, prequels are confusing enough in a series when we don't go back and remake them, and to make matters worse, I for one don't think that this film ultimately any better or any worse than "The Beginning". Granted, I'm that one jerk who actually liked "Exorcist: The Beginning", but the point is that this film commits its own sins. More along the lines of an early concept for a film that was too fresh and poorly received for additional funds to be all that considerable, this film is certainly a fair deal cheaper than the $80 million disappointment that was "Exorcist: The Beginning", but it's still backed by a total of $30 million, so certain technical shortcomings are a little difficult to get over, for although one of the more noticeable technical setbacks is less well-defined and less grand, yet intimate camerawork that is mostly distancing in comparison to the camera quality of "The Beginning", there are still faulty visual effects and even the occasional editing hiccup, thus making for a technically improvable film whose budgetary problems add to cheesiness. I didn't find "The Beginning" to be as cheesy as they said, but it was still kind of cornball at times, and while this film is often cheesy in different ways, it ultimately matches its predecessor's cheese factor with histrionics and the occasional dialogue fault, as well as some subtlety issues. True, the film is arguably more subtle than "The Beginning", but when that subtlety lapses, it falls out fairly glaringly, and such moments in bombastic direction by Paul Schrader joins questionable writing spots and even more questionable technical spots in undercutting some of the bite of the film, which was always to be limited by, at the very least, familiarity, as you can imagine. Throughout this paragraph, I have been drawing comparisons between this film and "Exorcist: The Beginning", and while I'm certainly not basing all that broad of an opinion of this film based on its more high-profile, more critically panned predecessor, the final product's being so similar to "The Beginning" reflects the lack of necessity in this story concept, which is tainted enough by general clichs that reflect some laziness. It's perhaps natural shortcomings that really shake the integrity of a film that actually could have gone pretty far, and perhaps should have, seeing as how it was graced with a second chance, but pacing problems should be noted for giving you plenty of time to ponder upon natural shortcomings, being dragged out by repetitious material, made all the more glaring by a meditative atmosphere that was not really all that prominent in "The Beginning". The meditativeness of this film makes the final product seem more intelligent than its predecessor, but if nothing else got said predecessor by, it was sheer entertainment value, which is limited in this dryer film, whose thoughtfulness would be less distancing if the film wasn't so faulty in plenty of other places, taking enough damage to join its predecessor near the brink of, at the very least, mediocrity. Well, just as the "Exorcism" prequel before it did, this film manages to keep from falling beyond that brink, being a mess, sure, but a pretty decent one, or at least a pretty decent-looking one. For both this film and "Exorcist: The Beginning", the great Vittorio Storaro was employed as cinematographer, and while this film's equipment is, as I said earlier, less well-defined, and with a less impressive field of view than the equipment used for "The Beginning", Storaro throws in the occasional stylish shot to catch your, which never drifts too far away from Storaro's trademark tastefully sparse plays with lighting, whose lighter shades are nothing if not lovely, and whose darker shades are near-haunting in their complimenting the tone of this thriller, which is truly established by Paul Schrader. Schrader makes his share of mistakes as director, and even has some intentional methods of storytelling that are kind of questionable, with the most notable hit-or-miss element within Schrader's storytelling being a certain meditativeness that often simply ends up blanding the film up with cold spells once material runs dry, yet just as often proves to be kind of effective, soaking up brood and subtle intensity in a way that is not all that biting, but kind of smart, and generally fairly effective, at least enough to establish a consistent degree of intrigue. Now, that intrigue is limited, but it still stands, and no matter how faulty Schrader gets to be as director, his efforts do a decent job of breathing some life into this film and saving it as yet another fair interpretation of a promising story concept. This is a very been-there-done-that story, even if you take "Exorcist: The Beginning" out account and leave yourself with only the clichs to soak up, but this tale is not so stale that it doesn't still have a fair deal of intrigue to its subject matter, augmented here by more attention to thematic depth and intelligence. Now, the film isn't that much sharper than "In the Beginning", and its themes on human flaws, as well as the repercussions of those flaws, are also a little too familiar for their own good, but the subtle touches that distinguish this film from the more commercialized "The Beginning" end up going a pretty good ways in gracing the film with decency that is perhaps finally secured by some inspired acting. Actually, I thought that everyone was pretty decent in "The Beginning", and while this film is sharper in plenty of places, Gabriel Mann is a bit of a lowlight, - being not as convincing as he should be as a conceptually compelling young and hopeful priest - but when other supporting players are good, they're typically stronger than their counterparts, while Stellan Skarsgrd proves to be as good in his charismatic and subtly layered portrayal of the once-ambiguous Father Lankester Merrin character. Skarsgrd doesn't have a whole lot to work with, but he ultimately all but saves the film, which makes a lot of mistakes, but makes enough commendable calls to ultimately endear as a decent, if messy final product When the beginning has ended... again, some cheesy technical hiccups and subtlety issues, combined with conventionalism, dragging, dry spells and all around inconsequentiality, drive the final product into underwhelmingness, but through an intriguing subject matter, - with worthy themes and tones, brought to life by anything from handsome visual style to highlights in direction and acting - "Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist" ultimately stands as a fair, if flawed alternative interpretation of the precursor to a classic saga. 2.5/5 - Fair

Sharon B (au) wrote: What a nice break from the Hollywood sewwer. something heartwarming, clean, you can watch with the kids, and enjoy a sweet story. I'll buy this one.

LyLe L (gb) wrote: So according to the film, atheists are all very evil people...

Malcolm Z (kr) wrote: I just rewatched this and I'll admit, it was A LOT cheesier than I remembered, but it was still exciting and also made me laugh. I recommend.

Martin T (ag) wrote: Kinda boring, really couldn't get into it much. The stark contrast in the photography works well to evoke a certain desolate mood, and Rocha does some interesting things with the soundtrack (including the narration in song). But the characters are too nutty and high-concept, and the film's religious/political messages are way too blunt. Impressive for 1964 Brazil perhaps, but I sure didn't get much out of it.

Brian W (es) wrote: If anything this movie was enjoyable for the music, if you're an Elvis fan. The story line is a little weak and I'm still not sure if it really had a point to it but I did enjoy the soundtrack.

Isla B (ru) wrote: Great fun. Love Tommy Lee Jones's deadpan.

Jimmy P (fr) wrote: I'd watch it, but...... I REALLY don't like country music :/

Juan Diego L (br) wrote: Es divertida por lo que es, por querer ver los trucos de magia y por qu (C) lo hacen, pero despu (C)s de un tiempo los trucos ya no se ven como trucos sino como magia real y no es lo que esperaba, el final me sorprendi eso mejor la pelcula.