When a man is eaten alive by an unknown creature, the local Game Warden teams up with a paleontologist from New York to find the beast. Add to the mix an eccentric philanthropist with a penchant for "Crocs", and here we go! This quiet, remote lake is suddenly the focus of an intense search for a crocodile with a taste for live animals...and people!
Lake Placid follows three people who attempt to stop a giant, 30-foot-long man-eating crocodile which terrorizes the fictional location of Black Lake, Maine, United States. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Lake Placid torrent reviews
(kr) wrote: This is the *worst* movie I have ever seen. I am a huge fan of b-movie horror and this was NOT UP TO SNUFF. Don't even bother.
(us) wrote: It's easy to get enchanted by the emotional deepness that La Seydoux and Adle Exarchopoulos manage to give with their amazing chemistry.For sure one of the top romantic dramas of the year.
(br) wrote: The Messengers may not have been the best horror film, but it definitely wasn't the worst. I frankly enjoyed the first film, and thought it was a fine ghost story. But this direct to DVD Prequel is awful.The film is poorly conceived with a bad plot and bad acting. Like with every other straight to DVD title, The Messengers 2 looks cheaply made. I felt that the film lacked anything that would make a good horror film. The absence of chilling horror makes this an awful film. The Messengers was a good film, but this prequel is simply poorly made. The film has no real connection to The Messengers aside from the films score. I felt bored watching this and it took me everything to finish watching it. I was really hoping to like it, unfortunately, this straight to DVD title continues the tradition of bad straight to DVD titles If you're looking to watch the film, be warned.that it has nothing to do with The Messengers. This prequel doesn't explain anything, and decides to go somewhere that has nothing to do with The Messengers. In other words this prequel doesn't make sense, and is only related to The Messengers in name alone. The film is poorly directed, with sloppy writing and acting. If you're looking for a good horror flick, you won't find it here. Messengers 2: The Scarecrow is an awful attempt at cashing on the success of the original. Though The Messengers wasn't a great horror flick, it was still good fgor what it was. But this prequel is simply awful. Avoid it.
(ag) wrote: I was like what the heck was that. It was like a war movie mixed with a stupid film with a bombshell girl. Ugly movie right here!
(it) wrote: Good performances . . . inaccurate about the every-autistic-has-a-savant-ability thing . . . pretty banal in the end. When is there going to be a good film involving autism?
(fr) wrote: Great cast, bland story..really not as bad as I expected though
(ca) wrote: Best movie EVER I have the 3D and blue ray disc
(de) wrote: dis movie will tel yu how to keep or get yo man
(ag) wrote: Matt Damon plays a villain. Brenda Fraser is the leading man. Ben Affleck has a very small supporting role. And where is Chris O'Donnell now? All look so fresh but already showed so much potential back then. Can also be a complementary film to DEAD POETS' SOCIETY sans the inspiring teacher.
(br) wrote: love this horrible movie
(mx) wrote: In a weird way it's kinda like the Godfather. The protagonists are doing a wrong thing, but you root for them to make it work.
(gb) wrote: I want to see this so bad
(br) wrote: About Cherry looked like it tried to present an intimate portrait of a girl with its melancholic soundtrack and thoughtful close-ups, but it ended up resembling a parody of itself instead. On the basis of theme, it was kind of more interesting. Basically, it eliminated men from the picture entirely, which seems to suggest that men are either exploitative or judgmental, and that Cherry, our heroine in question, couldn't find solace with them, so turns to a woman instead. To be fair-ish, the film isn't suggesting that all women are supportive or supportive by default of their gender, so it has that going for it ? But it's certainly not kind to men. In all, this isn't really a movie about female sexuality, and the countless obstacles that prevent its integration into society, and it's certainly not a feminist film. It was more practical than anything else, like if someone doesn't approve of you, find someone who will. With that said, it falls short of making any kind of meaningful point.
(kr) wrote: Sweet little film where Kristen Wiig and Guy Pearce don't do anything in particular, but somehow you can't look away till you see everything that happens to them! Charming!