I'm Reed Fish
Reed Fish's life turns into chaos when a high school crush returns to Mud Meadows on the eve of his marriage to the small town's sweetheart.
You may also like
I'm Reed Fish torrent reviews
Julissa P (jp) wrote: It's a great, funny movie with a great story
Benedick L (gb) wrote: I was part of this film two years ago and now it has finally been released nationally, on dvd, so I can see it. I wasn't in it but because two years had passed, I didn't mind. I could see the film for what it was rather then pretend to like it because I had to because I was in it. It's by no means a work of art or, indeed, a film that will stand by the greats in british film making but Peter Howitt (director/producer/writer/star) has clearly devoted a lot of his life to put Stuart Browne's book to the screen. Browne died in 1999 and Howitt has been in love with the book for all this time.Howitt loves messing with time in films (see sliding doors) and here he does it quite effectively. It can be a bit confusing at times, especially with the flashy photography in certain parts, but as a whole, it is a typical british film. Humour underline with tragedy. Don't expect to like the protagonist because he certainly won't like you.
Wesley W (br) wrote: Run of the mill generic disney garbage. The movie was just too stupid and cartoonish for my taste. I would have tried to enjoy the car scenes except I couldn't because whenever Herbie would do a trick, the filmmakers would use fake as hell cgi. All the jokes failed to make me laugh because the humor consists of unfunny slapstick and some crappy written lines from the actors. The acting is just bland and forgettable from just about everybody and Michael Keaton was wasted because he had absolutely nothing to do here. The story is just recycled bull crap that you have seen on countless other movies and nothing was ever new or original. In the end, this is just a cash grab that is bland and forgettable and ends up being one of the worst disney films I have ever seen.
Jarrin R (br) wrote: This was a terrible movie. I just did not enjoy it period really. There were some good people in the cast but that is about it.
Jacob M (br) wrote: Fun start to a franchise. Had me on the edge of my seat waiting to see who was the bad guy. The twist was an amazing one. Tom Cruise knows how to make an action movie, for sure.
Byron B (ru) wrote: Deals with some interesting metaphysical concepts. Count Alucard (Ha!) travels to the American South. Lon Chaney Jr. has some strong moments, but generally doesn't fit the role. This time another morbid woman, Katherine, wishes for the undead eternal life that being a vampire can offer. Instead of the Count seducing the woman with his eyes and diving right in to bite her neck like a beast, he tries to blend in as a gentleman. Dracula is becoming more and more gentlemanly rather than monstrous. The woman leads the Count to believe she loves him, while leaving her fiancee, Frank, puzzled, and they visit a justice of the peace before planning a consummation that would fulfill her desire to be undead. Frank confronts them and in trying to kill his rival Alucard, nee Dracula, he fears he has killed Katherine, but he is confused. He seeks the help of another doctor and turns himself in to the police. The doctors in these horror movies always have the ridiculous combination of being a trusted scientific mind in the community and believing in the supernatural. This Dr. Brewster seeks the knowledge of Hungarian professor Lazlo who knows the legends. The two of them lead the charge to stop Dracula's plot. They don't realize the extent to which Katherine is responsible for the plot and not Dracula. She loves Frank and wishes to get rid of anyone in their way. It is difficult to judge one movie in this Dracula Legacy Collection as being better or worse than another. Each has some stronger and weaker elements, but I think most balance out, so I had to rate them the same. The writing and acting was pretty strong. This addition to the Universal Dracula series took itself seriously enough that it did not fall into cheesiness. Visual effects showed improvement too. The rubber bat was more controlled and there was at least a primitive attempt at showing the transformation from bat to man. Dracula finds a better hiding place for his coffin in the swamp, rather than being an easy target in the basement of whatever large house he is living in. As usual the rules are always being changed in these old horror films, so now we have it clearly stated that vampires can be killed by a stake through the heart or by burning their casket with their native soil before they can return to it at daybreak. Also vampires can transform into a cloud of smoke now besides a bat, werewolf (though this is never explored to keep it separate from Universal's other franchise), or rat (this being only used up to this point by Nosferatu). The death of a vampire is finally shown more explicitly too. But it doesn't matter because these monsters always live again to appear in another flick.
Dan C (de) wrote: Awesome movie. Gore, blood, action, and heads flying galore. This movie pays tribute to 80s post-apocalyptic films such as Escape from New York and Road Warrior. It knows what it is and doesn't take itself too seriously.
Josh M (it) wrote: Sam Raimi is a unique horror writer/director. He has his own recognizable style. Drag Me to Hell only shows pieces of what Raimi is capable of. Besides those pieces the rest is full of unnecessary jump scares.
Alberto N (au) wrote: Good acting, interesting story, good special effects for this time, Kirk and Picard together. This might not be the best star trek movie in my opinion but i think is up there. The problem with this movie is that is made for Star Trek fans, people that watch the series. Someone new, with no knowledge of starterk series watching this movie would have probably not like it. Asthe first of the next generation movies I believe they did a good job.