You may also like
Lasermannen - dokumentären torrent reviews
Alex r (ca) wrote: This was fairly original. It introduces one of the most original horror villains in a long time. The story is mediocre, but the on screen killings make up for it. The movie was a lot of fun to watch, filled with descent acting and some cool death and suspenseful scenes, this is a film not to miss. Though not that memorable like the slasher films of the 1980's, Wrestlemaniac offers up a taste of it. So if you're looking for a decent Horror Slasher film to watch, Wrestlemaniac is one that might interest you. So if you have nothing else better to do, step into the ring, and wrestle with this maniac!
Corey B (it) wrote: It's so easy to read the title and think this film to be a cheese fest because even Canadians like me can't take the symbol of the mountie seriously. However regardless it symbolizes law for us Canadians. With that in mind this film does a credible job in fashioning a western out of the Canadian rockies. The cinematography is absolutely astounding. Acting however is very hammy. However a very well done Canadian Western.
Ana M (fr) wrote: Super goofies y adorables, hablando en francs y amando al chocolate (De todo esto estoy practicando :P)
Jims M (au) wrote: one of the best classics of Rowan Atkinson
Sean C (ca) wrote: In many ways this was made for me. It is a tale of passion mixed with guilt with a dark atmosphere. Not a perfect film but for me thoroughly engaging. The violent scenes are few but jarring and effective.
Nora M (ru) wrote: It's a movie written and by Til Schweiger, produced and directed by him as well as staring Til Schweiger. It was suppose to be great! And it is the sweetest lovestory ever told on German screen.
Jo Y (es) wrote: That sounds like fun...
James T (de) wrote: a terrible made shark movie. the shark looked totally fake through out the movie
Steve Y (fr) wrote: Scott Malcolm's top ten list.
Jennifer M (mx) wrote: I can watch it over and over.
Juli N (kr) wrote: Julian Sands Rocks! Unfortunately the film doesn't!
Chun W (fr) wrote: A very funny over the top and entertaining Jackie Chan film, but a mix of feelings from me. The action & stunts were not as many hardhitting or dangerous as most Jackie Chan films of that time (but there is a very impressive scene I must put an exception for as Jackie runs through a hall of explosions and dives off a 1st floor rail to the ground floor doing a very impressive half twist sommersault :))But for most, the action is played mostly for laughs, which is gd in it's own right and I suppose works as this film, as it's based of a popular Japanese manga "City Hunter" which was filmed due to Jackie's fan base in Japan, whom put in a personal demand for it. Some of the fight scenes were were pretty nice though, fast paced and has Jackie signature creative choreography.Not a particular favourite of mine when it comes to Jackie Chan films, but it is very fun, loads of visual humour and captures the colourful manga style, which the movie inherited.My main gripe is the in the English dub they didn't even give Jackie's character a name, they just call him "City Hunter" through the whole movie and same goes for other minor characters, like Jackie's partner who's character is called "Makimara" Is just referred to as "Sidekick".... LAME! Why not just use character's name from the Japanese Mangas..- "Ryo Saeba"....?At least in the Chinese original track they called him "Man Bor" which is the translated name for Ryo in the Chinese translated prints of the manga and animes.Moments worth catching. The harilious scene when a hostage is seduced by a homosexual international terrorist LOL!Lots of funny Asian Pop references from Bruce Lee to the mangas the movie is absed on itself to street fiughter 2 the video game! :)The fight at the end with Richard Norton with weapons ranging of metal staffs, tonfas and short sticks is very fast paced.It was pretty cool watching Jackie do the iron cross as well.
Ron I (ag) wrote: This is a little known very funny movie. With Richard Dreyfuss as Trotter and David Johansen as his "negative Nelly" sidekick, the two show the funnier side of what being at a horse track can be like. All the characters with their little superstitions or opinions on how to pick a winning horse, in actuality, are comically right on. Each makes a hilarious contribution throughout. Regardless of the lifeless reviews left here, "Let it Ride" is hilarious if you know what betting on horses or a truely funny move is about.
Spencer S (gb) wrote: Astonishingly this thriller is one of the creepier films, not to be placed in the horror genre, that I have ever seen. Between the childlike voices in the score, the voyeurism from the murderer, and the strange ending, this film crept under my skin and lingered. Jane Fonda gives the performance of a lifetime as Bree, an unaffected prostitute who is wrapped up in a game of intrigue after one of her former clients disappears. Strait laced PI, Klute, comes to the city to find him and she falls in with the investigator. Most of what makes the film gritty and realistic comes from Bree, who is one of the most interesting female characters in seventies' cinema. She has long term goals to be an actress or model, but she doesn't see the problems with that goal, and she is also stubborn to see the inaccuracies in the world. She respects her clients when she's with them, but she feels shame and resentment towards them and herself. Bree is both audacious when confronted with her world and sullen towards the implications of her actions, making her interactions with Klute that much more interesting. Whenever Fonda is onscreen she illuminates with her performance, creating a complex portrayal of a sanguine woman without many options left. Thrilling and yet creepy, this is a film highly recommended for the hardhearted and the brave.
Marcus G (br) wrote: Certainly an epic movie but if ever a film was saved from just being another western, it was this one. Its presentation in Cinerama has kept it up there as a grand epic, showcasing both western American as well as the all but failed technology of which it was filmed. Great score, stellar cast, though unnecessarily so, and stunning visuals make this a must see, at least once. The story on the other hand is nothing more that a vehicle for the all the above... BLU RAY The "Smilebox" version of the film, which simulates the screen's curvature was first rate and along with the brilliant quality of the transfer, minus the vertical lines, and the crisp clear sound makes this a pleasure to watch.
Matthew P (gb) wrote: I've never found a Todd Phillips movie particularly funny. Most of them also have structural problems. School for Scoundrels fits into both of these categories. It opens with some promise, which only makes the final two-thirds feel like even more of a waste. If it had actually been about the "School for Scoundrels" of the title, perhaps it would have been worthwhile. It's wasted opportunity. Roger (Jon Heder) is a loser. Or, more correctly, he's a step below "loser" on the totem pole. He pays the bills by handing out parking tickets -- which apparently pays well enough for him to drop $5,000 just like that -- he doesn't understand how to talk to, well, anyone, but especially his neighbor, Amanda (Jacinda Barrett). He volunteers at a big brother program, but has had three children ditch him. He's given a number to call, at which point he is told to bring the aforementioned money to a certain location, and that's it. Apparently he's such a loser that he doesn't even understand the definition of the word "scam." As it turns out -- because this is a movie -- there is no scam. There is a class taught by Dr. P (Billy Bob Thorton) about how one can better himself as a person. Presumably the class is only available to men, because there isn't a single woman in the class. Dr. P initially comes across as the type of drill instructor personality who might just be able to whip these lads into shape. At this moment in the film, directly following our introduction to Dr. P, I thought I might be in for something that's going to be really funny. School for Scoundrels doesn't want to be about this classroom setting. It decides instead to have Dr. P set his sights on Amanda just to assert himself as the top dog. A battle of will ensues between the teacher and the student. Nothing fresh comes of this; they attempt to one-up the other a couple of times, all while not letting anyone outside of the classroom know that they previously knew each other. The "school" must remain a secret, presumably because nothing looks more sad than a grown man going to a class in order to gain more confidence. The film isn't done completely removing itself from its initial idea, either. At the end, we get a slap-dash attempt at hammering in a rom-com. Or, at least, the ending to one. A character runs through an airport in hopes of getting to another character before he or she takes off -- and it comes down to the last second because that's how these things work. It's another change in direction that is very noticeable and doesn't work very well -- in this case because the rest of the film wasn't a romantic comedy. I actually had fun for about the first twenty minutes of School for Scoundrels. It had everyone making fun of Jon Heder -- a generally good idea -- and it had a dark tone to the comedy. Later on, I didn't even see it attempt a lot of jokes. There were some, but the sharpness was lost and it became more about the plot, which kept changing direction unnecessarily. The jokes got lost along the way. The good critic would mention that School for Scoundrels is a remake of the British film from 1960. I haven't seen that film, but I recommend taking the chance on it over this one anyway. There's a very good chance it'll be more worthwhile. If it isn't, at least you can be a hipster and when your friends ask if you've seen School for Scoundrels, you can tell them that you say the British one, which many of them won't know existed. You can educate them! That alone is makes it worth the time, doesn't it? I mean, you like knowing things, don't you? Is it this obvious that I'm already pretty much out of things to say about this version of School for Scoundrels? Oh! Right. Rape gets made fun of. Dr. P has a right-hand-man, Lesher (Michael Clarke Duncan), a very large person with a deep voice. Apparently, he rapes people. So if you hate seeing that subject treated like the butt-end of a joke, there's another reason to dislike this movie. And it's not even like it's a one-time thing, either; it gets brought up three times, if memory serves. Billy Bob Thorton works in his role. He's often a pleasure to watch perform, and seeing him take pot-shots at Jon Heder was a lot of fun. If the film was just that -- nothing more -- for 90 minutes, it would have been better. Jon Heder plays the loser well, too. He was Napoleon Dynamite back when that film was relevant (hint: it never was), so if you wanted to see him made fun of for twenty minutes, start up School for Scoundrels and turn if off after that time. You'll get some enjoyment out of that, at least. School for Scoundrels is not a good movie after it changes direction, which is about twenty minutes in. It begins as a cynical movie whose target is Jon Heder's loser character. It ends as a romantic comedy that forgot jokes belong in comedies. Billy Bob Thorton is fun to watch when he makes fun of people, but that's about the only enjoyment I got out of it. Skip it and watch the original, if only to say that you've seen the original and unleash the hipster within. This concludes the first lesson of "School for Hipsters."
Arslan K (au) wrote: Very enjoyable with great acting and story.
Twisted Progress (br) wrote: It was a twist from the Bram Stoker's Dracula with Winona Ryder & Keanu Reeves in it and the nature of some of the characters have changed but it was enjoyable. I am so vampire obsessed.
Marc R (fr) wrote: Powerful, well-acted, and vital.
jordan l (au) wrote: Loved this film, very quirky set pieces. Only thing negative is it could of been a better story line involved.