You may also like
Jabardasth torrent reviews
Alexandria D (it) wrote: i did enjoy it, but sceetchy in some parts. love the idea as paranormal, could have been better. i want something that makes me scared not laugh and its been awhile!
Amanda W (de) wrote: Different/Not bad/Kinda Liked.
cresyl joy b (it) wrote: i love ploning..i love how she remained faithful for her love to Tomas(her long lost love). :)
Jonathan R (nl) wrote: it was pretty darn good nice homage to the first
Umer B (au) wrote: form its cover its looking good i must see this movie
John M (it) wrote: It is ok to check it if there is nothing else to watch but it is a movie that I would not recomment. It has some positive dialogues and some funny situation.
Austin J (it) wrote: Fantastic. Aside from Night Watch, the first movie in this series, Day Watch is the only *other* vampire movie I actually like. And for you Derrideans out there, enjoy watching a piece of chalk literally reinscribe the universe in such a way that whatever is written becomes always already true.
John M (ag) wrote: Guy Ritchie at his best.
Chad R (fr) wrote: Typical Dennis the menace antics. Kids will like this but really Don Rickles is the only reason to watch.
Jim H (fr) wrote: An aging couple cares for their estranged daughter's stepson.This is probably the nicest, sweetest, most wholesome film about death ever. The primary conflict, Norman's fear of death and his unfinished business, is treated with such a light-heartedness that the film takes on a dreamy pastoral quality. By itself, the film could be charming, able to deliver insight about going into the night with a smirk rather than a frown, but the film's conflict is complicated with the entrance of Norman's daughter. I understand that the conflict between Henry and Jane Fonda informs the film's contemporary interpretation, but as it plays today, there needs to be more setup than Chelsea's weeping into her mother's arms about Norman's placidity. The film's highlights are the performances. Even Jane Fonda is exceptional, and Katharine Hepburn plays the ideal, strong-willed grandmother, a woman all of us should want guiding our lives. Henry Fonda's Oscar win was deserved.Overall, it's hard to imagine so many ducks and landscape shots in a film about the inevitability of death, but at times, not often, On Golden Pond pulls it off.
Isabelle W (br) wrote: Herzog, I'm so sorry, mas no consigo gostar de filmes que envolvem tortura animal. Mal a. Colocar galos para se matar s pra poder filmar e chocar as pessoas pra mim no sinnimo de cinema de qualidade. Muito menos filmar galinhas, ratos e porcos mortos e um macaco sendo pseudocrucificado.
J K (br) wrote: One of the 2,000+ beach musicals Frankie and Annettte put out during the 60s. As Ive often said, if THIS is what beach life was like during my parents teenage years then I am glad I wasnt around then. Not sure what I found more annoying about these movies, Frankie's helmet hair or the Dick Dale soundtrack. At least when Elvis did one of these he used his own songs. Dick Dale just rehashed the same guitar riff over and over again. It was like a death metal band, minus the death metal.
Michael C (nl) wrote: Over all this movie isn't to bad but it does have it's flaws. Varan does get plenty of screen time compared to other Toho monster films like Gojira and Rodan but he doesn't really do much than smash a building or two. Also there is a lot of shame less stock Footage from Gojira and godzilla raids again. Although it is nice to see a new monster Varan has no real powers other than flight which is a little dissapointing. The special effects and and music are rather entertaining, the only example of bad effects is the suit itself. There are scenes where it is coming apart. The movie is good but not great.
Agus B (it) wrote: es psima esta pelicula,las voces de seth green y joan cusack no estan mal pero lo malo de esta porqueria es que tiene una animacin re pobre,simon wells y robert zemeckis son buenos directores, pero dirigiendo esta bazofia son muy malos directores.
Rob W (fr) wrote: My daughter liked it
Mike H (ag) wrote: Why do we have to talk about movies from the 1940s and 1950s as if they're our retarded youngest child with a heart of gold? Why do we pretend like movies from 1895-1939 + 1960-present day are one category and 1940-1959 are another category? We don't need to lavish such excited praise on the outdoor black-and-white photography, or on John Ford as a war film director, or on John Wayne as an American icon. Those things are true to a degree, but hackneyed rose-colored propaganda is what it is, and it's offensive to measure work like this against Charlie Chaplin, Mike Nichols, Francis Coppola, Stanley Kubrick, Ingar Bergman, Federico Fellini, even Georges Melies, even Francois Truffaut, etc, etc, etc, and pretend like we're looking at exceptional photography, direction, acting, writing, editing, or anything else about the production you might care to pee your pants about.