You may also like
Luring Lips torrent reviews
Cade H (gb) wrote: This thriller, which is relatively unknown, ended up being very exciting and worth a watch. With its very short runtime at only 75 minutes, things happen quick and go from 0 to 100 without a whole lot of background or depth to the characters. The fairly simple concept of a killer locking down an office building and one guy trying to survive was done rather well and an added twist kept things interesting. There is only so much you can do on one floor of an office building, so at times it got a little dull and receptive and seeing the same hallways and cubicles was a little boring. The so called "professional" killer was dumb at times and that took a little away from the fear and dread the viewer was supposed to feel for the trapped employee. Things got pretty intense toward the end but the actual end right before the credits was very disappointing. If you want a few quick thrills and suspenseful scenes Not Safe For Work should satisfy you just don't expect to be amazed.
Ben W (ca) wrote: After reading the books and seeing the first movie, I had much higher hopes for this film. The acting and special effects were good, but the plot was underdeveloped and strayed too far away from the already in place story line in the book. As well, the actors are much too old to portray the supposedly thirteen year olds of the story.
Inta K (au) wrote: greaaat movie!!!especially loved the ending!!!! that was huge plus for the movie!!!!!
Emre K (mx) wrote: kendine iyi bak bu arala.r A?KINA E?KYA !
Tim M (us) wrote: Literally knuckle-biting. "A debut feature that replaces the Coen brothers' humor in similarly labyrinthine comedies of errors with Arthur Penn's grit and Peckinpah's tense string tuning." I was skeptical about the claim that it was the best noir since Body Heat, but it gets surprisingly good. Considering Memento, Brick, Sin City, Blade Runner, Fargo and The Salton Sea all have elements that make them different, the comparison makes sense. Chilling ending.
James K (nl) wrote: Ouch, what a movie. I'm left a bit conflicted by this movie. It was good in many respects but overall i didn't like it. I didn't dislike the performances, nor the quality of the film, nor the story, all of which are done with great foresight, style, directing and camera work. I dislike the fact that I'm reminded of the horror of war, the war in Iraq, a war in which should never have started in the first place. The way this movie shows both sides to the story is a stroke of genius. The reckless abandon in which some people will go in order to get revenge is this movies greatest strength. To help the 'Insurgents' and be victimised by the US Marines or to help the US Marines and be butchered by the Insurgents'. Based on a true story, it makes me sick to the stomach to see that nothing has been learned since the Vietnam War or the Second World War for that matter. There are always innocent people that get caught up in war and although it is hard to see sometimes, every effort MUST be made to protect the innocent otherwise there is no point to war but 'chaos'. By the end of this movie I hated everyone... that is why I'm left confused and conflicted. Apart from a few that didn't get killed or that lost their loved ones, i hated everyone. Perhaps that is what the director was trying to do. Show that no one is truly innocent in war...? I don't know what the message was, that was trying to be said, But the message i got was that the US Marines need to be put on a very short leash otherwise they are likely to shoot anyone that is of ethnic background regardless if they are in a foreign country, like Iraq. "Bloody cowboys with itchy trigger fingers". The best bit of the movie however, is at the start of the film where there are interviews with some of the Marines who are in the Iraqi War, and one soldier explains where Iraq is. Crude and very Un-politically-correct but funny all the same.
Heather M (ag) wrote: This was a trippy horror story without a satisfying conclusion, but Holmes and Blunt were fun to watch.
Iowa B (ag) wrote: The final act(the last 30 minutes or so) of Pedro Almodovar's "La Mala Educacion" is powerful and absorbing and might even make you rethink the whole film....which, before that final act, strangely enough, wasn't much. Strangely enough, because the ingredients where there, it's just that the overall result, before the final act, felt as if it was done in a hurry. The layers where there, certainly there were some intriguing elements, but it just wasn't attention-grabbing. It was not bad, just slow and a bit disappointing. So, overall, I might give this a 3.5 out of 5. With two good acts(opening and ending) , I can forgive the limper middle one. Especially since it didn't take ages.
Vincent O (br) wrote: i'm glad i didn't watch this movie before going to cayman... but SMITH COVE!!! my favorite spot to swim!!!
Augustine H (de) wrote: The sweet smell of success in Sidney and J.J.'s eye is indeed a cancerous tumor.
David C (us) wrote: Solid cast and occasionally snappy patter. It's plenty cynical but not top-drawer Lang. Needed more George Sanders and Ida Lupino.
Jason C (de) wrote: The acting helps make the story a little more interesting but overall it is pretty slow and boring repeating the same scenes a lot it seemed. Nothing really stands out and you will probably forget this movie a day after seeing it.
Barry P (br) wrote: Seriously people, future civilisations are going to judge us.