Idol of Evil: Hell Is Forever

Idol of Evil: Hell Is Forever

When David Hilton's friend and colleague, Dr. Kixley, is kidnapped by dangerous Satanists, David is called on by the Vatican to help save Dr. Kixley from an evil end.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:95 minutes
  • Release:2011
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:suspense,  
  • Category:Horror
  • Stars:
  • Uploader:Chich1Phat
  • Country:USA
  • Director:Kevin McDonaghN/A
  • Writer:Kevin McDonagh, Aj Nicol

David Hilton is a mythological research expert. When his friend and colleague, Dr. Kixley, is kidnapped by dangerous Satanists, David is called on by the Vatican to help save Dr. Kixley ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Idol of Evil: Hell Is Forever torrent reviews

Greg N (fr) wrote: Some movies are worth reading.

Mloy X (it) wrote: Sonja Burpo (Kelly Reilley: Honey, you know you should have turned the other cheek, though, right?Cassie Burpo (Lane Styles): I did turn his other cheek. When I hit him.Colton Burpo (Connor Corum): Is Cassie going to get a spanking.Todd Burpo (Greg Kinnear): Heck, no. I'm going to teach her how to hit without hurting her knuckles.I figured this was going to be a bit preachy and overly sentimental, so I initially had no interest in watching it but free-HBO day changed all that. (Yes, I am a cheap bastard!). So, back to the film.It was not-so preachy, yes a bit sentimental but interesting nonetheless, the little kid was adorable and the acting was not too over the top; plus, the fact that I adore Greg Kinnear and Kelly Reilly probably didn't hurt either. Overall, it's inspirational (even if you have issues about organized religion), the story is uplifting and leaves you feeling a bit hopeful, I guess, and that's always good.

Juuso L (au) wrote: Sit perusmukavaa jenkki-indiet josta ei voi kuin digata. Loistava cast.

Amanda H (br) wrote: This was ridiculous and stupid, but I laughed hysterically through about 90% of it, and that's why I deemed it worthy of a three-star rating. I would hardly call this horror, but I was incredibly entertained nonetheless.

Ken C (ca) wrote: I can't believe Paul Giammati is in this, I can't believe this got a 60% on the T-meter, I just can't believe this movie exists. Who thought that this would be good? It's not even a movie for kids people die, kids swear, all this shit happens that parents wouldn't want there kids watching and at the same time this movie is so silly you'd think that it would be a made only for kids movie, but it's not. This movie made me question life and what goes on in some actors and filmakers heads. Not as bad as I thought it would be but still...just...awful.

Joseph H (it) wrote: pretty decent.Some good and funny scenes.

Josh E (ca) wrote: (I submitted this as an English essay)Gregory Doran(TM)s adaptation of Shakespeare(TM)s Hamlet was very well done. I enjoyed both Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation and Gregory Doran(TM)s adaptation equally. However, I felt like this adaptation did the better job of staying true to the play. While it does put a big modern spin on the play, it maintained the story(TM)s original dark and grim atmosphere.This movie was much better casted than the other adaptation. Having a younger actor (David Tennant) play Hamlet seemed to better fit the character(TM)s childish mannerisms. He acted with a great range of emotions. While Kenneth Branagh acted the part psychotically most of the time, David Tennant(TM)s acting ranged from psychotic to tranquil, from joyful to depressed, from hateful to loving. This great range of emotions portrayed in a very off-putting way helped show the character(TM)s emotionally-contradictive personality, which is what Shakespeare likely intended.The minor characters were also very well casted. Gertrude was portrayed as emotionally troubled as opposed to old and bitter, which I felt added more dynamic to the film. Claudius seemed more intimidating and antagonistic in his polite manners, in a devil in disguise? sort of way. The Ghost of Hamlet was acted antagonistically as well. While reading the play, most often the reader(TM)s first impression of the ghost wouldn(TM)t be that of an antagonist. But the way the part was acted was very tour de force, and aggressive in a kind of Raging Bull? demeanor. The portrayal of the Ghost reflects Hamlet(TM)s fluctuating emotions, but also foils his lack of anger and confidence. Also, it was very smart to portray King Hamlet as more directly antagonistic than King Claudius, because it helps the audience focus more on Hamlet(TM)s inner conflict and less on his family affairs. I also thought it was very clever to make Patrick Stewart play both Claudius and the Ghost of Hamlet, because they were physically the same person, but almost polar opposites in their demeanor.This movie had less production value than Kenneth Branagh(TM)s version. However, I liked the lesser production value of this version. It creates a whole different atmosphere. Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation had Victorian, well lit settings that seemed almost too lively and grand. The setting of this version is much colder?. The rooms are smaller and the halls are narrower, giving the movie more tension. It also makes less use of lighting, for a dark and gloomy feel. It also gives the movie more ambiguity and suspense, while only focusing on what(TM)s important (example: the ghost? scenes at night sometimes kept the actors in the dark while lighting the ghost when it makes its appearance, then uses lighting to capture the actor(TM)s reactions). All of this helps to capture the play(TM)s true heart of darkness, which I really appreciated.There was a difference in this version(TM)s sequence of the play(TM)s scenes. Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation was very paint-by-numbers?, in that it reflected the original text in its entirety. But this adaptation(TM)s removal and rearrangement of scenes made it seem more movie-like?, so that the plot is more easily comprehensible and entertaining.What I appreciated the most of this movie is its well thought out use of different types of shots, which all had different purposes. The type of shot that I considered most cleverly executed was the found-footage shot. In this movie, it is in the form of security camera footage. I felt that the use of this type of shot helped to increase feelings of paranoia. My favorite example of this is during Hamlet(TM)s to be or not to be? monologue, where Polonius and Claudius watch him via the security cameras. This scene also made a good use of long shots (shots that last longer than a minute without cuts) and close-ups, which help the audience appreciate the acting more as well as create more intensity. A lot of long shots were used during monologues. The long close-ups in the to be or not to be? scene, matched with the found footage shots, created a really intense and paranoid tone that I really enjoyed and did not expect.Another type of shot that the director implemented that I really enjoyed was jump-edited shots. This is when two sequential shots don(TM)t differ in camera angle, and the subject remains on camera but in a slightly different position. Jump-edited shots were cleverly used during Hamlet(TM)s soliloquies to show sudden shifts of emotions. In one shot he(TM)d be maniacal in his expressions, and it will cut immediately to a shot of him in a sad and melancholy trance. This makes it seem like these two emotionally-polar sides of him coexist, and the intention of this was likely to mess with the viewer psychologically, which I really enjoyed.I also really enjoyed the varied use of static shots and moving shots. In Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation, most shots were moving, making the movie seem much livelier. However, this adaptation consisted of mostly static shots to create a better gloomy atmosphere. The moving shots are only used when something is going wrong. This helps guides the viewer(TM)s emotions. Overall, I really enjoyed this film. The varied acting, the gloomier production atmosphere, the clever execution of different shots, and the more coherent plot sequence all helped to create a wonderful adaptation that is unique in that it stays true to the play not literally, but through artistic elements. This is a wonderful adaptation that deserves more recognition than Kenneth Branagh(TM)s, so that moviegoers can be exposed to the play(TM)s true raw heart of darkness, rather than given blockbuster eye-candy that only captures Hamlet(TM)s words and not its spirit.

Ellen R (br) wrote: Masterpiece. There's a version for everyone. Try the short version if you're more of an action viewer. Do the Director's cut if you want a deeper sense of the characters. And the mini-series will give you even more detail. Whichever version you try, you will be remembering this film long after you've watched it.

Neil J (es) wrote: The oldies are always the best

Jaime R (ru) wrote: I never get tired of Frank Capra.

Stuart P (it) wrote: A superb entry into the Bond canon. Mikkelsen is superb.

Robert S (gb) wrote: One of the best films of the 90's, and on my top 25 of all time. This film holds up more then 15 years later.

Kimberly W (ru) wrote: I loved this movie!!! It was very well done and definitely worth a watch.