You may also like
Kill Switch torrent reviews
Soren H (br) wrote: Luke Wilson gives it his best shot in this altogether middling indie drama. The first half of the movie implies a fascinating history and character development for Mr. Poole, a dejected, dying man in the final throes of life. His interactions with (ultimately minor) characters such as the supermarket cashier give insight to his life, and intimate to the audience that there is hope that maybe Henry Poole will have some redeeming qualities beneath his rough exterior. Dismayingly, the film does nothing to follow through with the promise of its strong start. Instead of being a fascinating character study, the film takes a decidedly Hollywood approach to Mr. Poole's troubles. After finding a stain in the shape of the Virgin Mary on the wall of his house, the entire neighborhood, comprised largely of stereotypically Catholic Hispanics, come to pray and turn his house into a religious destination site. This is of course troubles Poole, who only wants to be left alone. This turn of plot, and the introduction of a religious element, marks the downfall of this film. As beautiful as the idea of a magical religious figure appearing and saving everyone from misfortune is, this idea works only in concept on-screen. The movie plays out essentially a deus-ex-machina-style scenario to conclude the film, something which does not fit the tone of the first half at all. If we never get a chance to really learn about this character, then why would we accept that he deserves this massive salvation? Overall, this movie plods along and doesn't go really anywhere, despite a good first impression. It is unfortunate, because I could see that without the cheesy religious aspect that made it feel so artificial, this movie could have been an excellent little flick - not to mention showcase for Luke Wilson, who, as per usual, manages to deliver a great performance in spite of the story. I can't really recommend this movie to anyone in good conscience, unless you're into that sort of manipulative religious schmaltz. Verdict: Movie Meh RT Score: 50% (57%) ~ Sren
Kenny G (us) wrote: En fornjelig satire, der taber pusten i tredje akt, da filmen jonglerer med alt for mange ideer, der ikke er til dens bedste.
Elena S (it) wrote: so gloomy.. So dark...
Clifford L (br) wrote: How low would you go for the passion of love.
Phil H (de) wrote: Another minor horror flick from Carpenter that has gained cult status over the years. This is actually the first time seeing this film for me and like other Carpenter horrors I found it familiar, not really scary, but nicely creepy with something to think about after.I was surprised how similar the plot is to his other films, a group of people stuck inside a building, trapped, fighting against an evil force. A few of Carpenters films follow these sorts of themes, always fighting an evil supernatural force or gangs of zombie-like bad guys. You can tell its Carpenter a mile away although that's not a bad thing, its always pretty comforting to see his recognisable visual style from way back.I'm sure you all know what I mean, the filming in widescreen/anamorphic, stark lighting contrasts, his now legendary synthesized musical scores, handheld cam/steadicam, the fact you never really see the evil the good guys are fighting that much, plots with hidden meaning, strong individual lone characters, opened ended finales on occasions etc...Everything is present and correct in this horror tale and its enjoyable to see. Alongside all of that the cast are mostly recognisable too, hot off the heels of 'Big Trouble' Dennis Dun and Victor Wong are cast again, Pleasence is back as another lone force of good to try and stop the force of evil and character actor Peter Jason pops up again here with a meatier role. To be honest I would say that is the one problem with the film, its too familiar from Carpenter. The plot is bordering on his other works, he uses many of the same actors again when they don't really fit the bill (Dun and Wong here) and it kinda looks and sounds the same as his other works too. The score could easily be from any of his films frankly, its good and atmospheric but you could stick it anywhere, any one of his films. In all honesty this film is virtually 'Assault on Precinct 13' but with possessed people instead of criminals.The devil is never mentioned I believe, but I'm assuming the 'father' was suppose to be the devil? and the dreams of the future are showing this evil force to have taken over the world?? hence the warning in the dream I think. Not too sure how this evil became trapped within the cylinder, or how it was placed into the basement of this church, or where the evil actually comes from originally and its goal etc...but lets just overlook that a bit shall we.That said I did enjoy the film and I thought the finale was a good thinker, a bit creepy and dark, wraps up quick and open ended...nice. Makeup and special effects are decent and created with thought, the film has a nice spooky pending doom vibe about it and the story is interesting if a little bland. Not quite as good as other Carpenter tales but still solid.
Harry W (de) wrote: I was among the few people who liked Masters of the Universe when I first watched it, for predominantly among other reasons that I haven't seen the original show He-Man and the Masters of the Universe, and because I enjoyed the camp tone of the science fiction film. Re-watching it gave me a similar yet lesser opinion.It's a very derivative film, featuring a cheap but surprisingly good production design and visual effects all very reminiscent of Star Wars, with a good musical score that is reminiscent of Superman. But it doesn't hold much to itself that proves it had originality and clearly pays no teal tribute to the original show He-Man and the Masters of the Universe, and its story is lacking in adventure. There were great locations and ideas set up which weren't capitalised on like they could have and should have been, and instead the story takes the boring and cliche "earthlings getting involved" story where the characters end up on earth and the focus is on getting back to stop their planet Greyskull being destroyed. If they had of stayed on Greyskull or gone to a planet that doesn't have the aesthetic look of something you can spot by looking straight out the window it could have been cool. Unfortunately they went in an alternative direction and ended up with a terrible story vaguely reminiscent of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home without nearly enough clever writing or acting to mask it well enough.Plus the acting and script are terrible. Dolph Lundgren is laughably wooden as He-Man, Courtney Cox is completely bereft of charisma, and whoever put Billy Barty's character in there clearly had no idea how to write a story because he fits more into the context of a failed Lord of the Rings adaptation than a story about Masters of the Universe. Although I must say that the moment where Dolph Lundgren delivers the iconic line "I Have the Power!" Sucked me into it because the atmospheric emphasis on it was great, and had they done that more in Masters of the Universe it could have been way better, and the scale of it could have been on adventure as opposed to being shrinked down to a story in a small mountain town.But nevertheless it didn't prevent me from enjoying Masters of the Universe, partially because of how it was bad but also because it was fun.Masters of the Universe has a similar look to Highlander II: The Quickening, except it isn't the single worst film in history and maintains a sense of fun to it. And it boasts some entertaining action sequences in particular any scene where He-Man gets into a sword fight. Mainly it's because the action is strongly atmospheric thanks to the colourful visual effects, sound effects and musical score particularly which is fairly memorable. Really, Masters of the Universe is a guilty pleasure, a crummy and camp 1980's failed adaptation of a cartoon series which boasts a minor sense of fun and plenty of colour to it, although it doesn't really transcend its poor plotting. But still, Masters of the Universe is just cheap fun, nothing more and nothing less. It isn't well acted or well scripted or well plotted, but it looks good on the surface with mainly good costumes and makeup next to a childish sense of 80's nostalgia and fun. I'm one of the few people to believe this, but I simply had fun watching this crap, and I'm not ashamed of it.
Steve G (au) wrote: The bathtub scene is so awkward. I love Paul Simon & this underrated album. But this isn't very good at all. The soundtrack deserves a better movie.
Marco T (ru) wrote: I can see why others would be infuriated by this bizzare oddity of a film with an almost incoherent plot, but I had a great time with it. Catchy title song as well.
Ivan M (gb) wrote: A great little film, frequently cited as being on par with the other classics of the early thirties wave of 'rise-and-fall' gangster movies, such as The Public Enemy or Hawks' Scarface. Edward G. Robinson is once again mesmerising as Rico Bandello and Douglas Fairbanks Jr. also gives a great performance as his old buddy, desperately trying to leave the life behind. It's fairly standard in it's use of cinematography and style, but the very unique performances and complex characters win the audience over. Yet another pro of this film is that it does not ignorantly glorify the life of crime, Robinson's character learning himself that being a cold and calculating criminal works temporarily, but comes back to haunt you soon enough. A gripping climax and definitely a classic worth watching.
Riley O (jp) wrote: Fun, creative look at an Arnold action movie. Lot's of great cameo's and references from past films.
craig h (gb) wrote: Simply the best film ever made.
Mohit K (us) wrote: Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction is rightfully edged in as one greatest films in the history of cinema. Unlike traditional movies, Pulp Fiction does not follow a stereotypical plot line for Pulp Fiction, but instead chooses to intertwine the tales of a boxer, a couple of novice robbers, two hit men and a gangster's wife into one action packed thriller. This is a key concept that Tarantino clearly thought of when writing the script because even though the events in the movie do not follow a chronological order, the script flows flawlessly. This is accomplished through Tarantino's exceptional use of dialogue to make the four chapters of the movie weave in and out of the chronology fluently. The first and last scenes of the movie clearly illustrate the plot structure of the film as both the scenes are the same subplot of the movie; the restaurant robbery with Pumpkin (Tim Roth) and Honey Bunny (Amanda Plummer), and the rest of the subplots integrated inbetween these scenes.The tone of the movie is set within the first scene with the iconic soundtrack "Miserlou" by Dick Dale and His Del Tones, following the introduction of one of the four subplots. The upbeat tempo matches the fast paced events and all action style of the movie. Tarantino's use of background music for special effect is evident throughout the movie as he uses tracks such as "Girl You'll Be A Woman Soon" to depict the tension between Travolta and Thurman, and highlight Travolta's cautious approach to his mobster boss' wife. This is not the first time we have seen Tarantino use background music as a crucial tool in his film, as his other films such as Kill Bill have also contain soundtracks famous now such as "Bang Bang", in which the lyrics explain a major event in the movie.This use of dialogue is the signature characteristic which makes Tarantino's movies standout. Following the structure of the plot, Tarantino uses dialogue in an unconventional way to set the tone of the scene as well as depict the relationship between characters. We see this in underrated scenes, for example when Jules (Samuel L. Jackson) and Vincent (John Travolta) hold an irrelevant conversation about what Quarter Pounders are called in Paris and the degree of intimacy insinuated by a foot massage while they are driving to a bloodthirsty encounter with some college kids who had managed to get on the wrong side of Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames), Jules and Vincent's boss. In an ordinary plot, the two hit men would be discussing how to tactically handle their job, but we see Jackson and Travolta engage in a pointless conversation. However, Tarantino's dialogue is not unusual dialogue is not just to throw off the audience, but actually follows a particular strategy. We see Jackson bring up the conversation about Quarter Pounders a few scenes later when making small talk in a tense situation with the college teens. Moreover, an anecdote of Marsellus throwing someone off a four-story building for giving his wife a foot massage is raised to set up one of the four plots in the movie; when Vincent takes Marsellus' wife out on a date on his orders. This is why Tarantino's use of dialogue is so crucial in the film as despite the plots not following a chronological order, the structure of the dialogues allows the movie to flow freely as the dialogues lead the movie from one scene to another.Throughout the movie, Tarantino successfully merges themes of raw brutality and humor to give the film a unique sense of identity. This dark humor is portrayed through numerous methods throughout the movie. For example, Tarantino uses the simple concept of a comedy of errors but twists it into something darker in the scene where Vincent accidentally shoots one of the college kids in the car on their way back from retrieving the brief case.Pulp Fiction can be interpreted as an absurdist film due to its distinct structure and story line, as unlike a traditional film, the plot does not have a typical build up to a problem, which is then resolved by a character and allows the story to reach a climax. Instead the plot focuses more on observing different characters behaviours under varying circumstances that seem to be purposeless and philosophically absurd. The movie's use of dark humor adds to the abstract nature of the plot, as this is humor you would not see in normal storylines, hence emphasizing the idea of absurdity.This absurdist plot may be viewed as a point of criticism to those who prefer traditional three-act storylines with an inciting incident, a confrontation of the problem and the resolution. To this audience, the plot of Pulp Fiction may seem aimless and lack the conservative structure of other movies, and to this audience I would advise to keep an open mind towards the storyline or not to watch it if they are absolutely against such a movie.Having chosen a strong cast, including highly credible stars such as John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson and Bruce Willis, the actors did not disappoint. Playing the roles of two mob hit men, Travolta and Jackson put in phenomenal performances, capturing the essence of the characters and portraying the stress and fear of mob hit men when they run into trouble in very emotive displays. Both actors displays were on par with performances they had delivered in previous movies, especially Travolta who turned in his best display after his iconic role in Grease, only this time he has reinvented himself from a chocolate-boy hero to a hard-hitting mob gunman. While other actors such as Ving Rhames, Uma Thurman, Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer didn't have roles as big as Travolta and Jackson, they were essential in painting the bigger picture as part of the other subplots respectively, and did an admirable job representing their respective characters to create greater affects of tension and build up the story.With Pulp Fiction, Quentin Tarantino has proven himself to be more than just a director or a script writer. He is an artist. He has worked his quintessential magic on the film through the plethora of different ways scenes have been shot; the introduction of the characters and the subplots, the key themes of vengeance and violence and other key characteristics that make the movie scream "Tarantino!". While these directing traits are, what made Tarantino a legend, the very same traits can be seen as what are bringing about the mediocrity in his work. Considering Pulp Fiction was released in 1994, it was one of the first few movies that put Tarantino on the map, and so with a 'tried-and-tested' formula proven to work so successfully, Tarantino's following movies such as Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained have followed similar themes of violence and vengeance. This has seen Tarantino's latest movies become somewhat predictable and clich as the audience already knows what to expect, so unlike me, if you have seen any of Tarantino's more recent films you may not be that surprised by what Pulp Fiction brings to the table, but it will definitely strike you as one of, if not, his best movie."Pulp /'pelp/ n. 1. A soft, moist, shapeless mass of matter. 2. A magazine or book containing lurid subject matter and being characteristically printed on rough, unfinished paper." That is how Tarantino introduces his script and screenplay for Pulp Fiction, and that is what tells us so much about the film from so little.. As previously mentioned, the structure of the movie is erratic in a way which makes it unique. Its lack of following a chronological path when taking the audience through the four key plots of the story is what Tarantino highlights with that very opening sentence in the script, which is perhaps why 'Pulp Fiction' was considered the perfect name for the film.The rarely seen structure of the plot line, the phenomenal dialogue and script in addition to some outstanding performances from a star studded cast made the movie extremely gripping for the audience and brought out and combined well the flavors of action and dark humor. A must watch in my opinion, as an action film enthusiast, it gave me everything I was looking for with a dollop of humor to swirl with the craziness of the events in the movie.
Ken S (de) wrote: "Roar" is one of the strangest things I have ever seen. Essentially Tippi Hedren and her husband at the time Noah Marshall made this movie about a guy who lives with big cats and he is out of the house when his family come to visit and get chased by lions and tigers. To make this film ,they used totally untrained animals...and that resulted in the film not only crediting the animals as co-writers and directors (because they did whatever the hell they want), but it also lead to the most ironic element of any film - it boasts that absolutely no animals were harmed in the making of the movie, yet 70 cast and crew members got injured, some fairly severely. The movie is a rambling crazy mess because, again, untrained animals ran the show. It's not really surprising to learn that Hedren and Marshal divorced not long after the movie was completed...when you consider that Hedren's daughter (Melanie Griffith) had her face mauled by a lion. Hell Hedren had to have plastic surgery due to a mauling on set. And the Cinematographer had his scalp ripped off (and lived!). This is a totally wackadoo premise made by mad people that value animal lives above human lives. I'm not saying animal lives are less valuable really, but when you are risking people's lives and trying to spread a message that these cats are essentially harmless...you have clear mental problems. Kind of worth checking out just for the madness of it all.