Michael is a young boy living in a typical 1950's suburbanite home... except for his bizarre and horrific nightmares, and continued unease around his parents. Young Michael begins to suspect his parents are cooking more than just hamburgers on the grill outside, but has trouble explaining his fears to his new-found friend Sheila, or the school's social worker.
- Stars:Randy Quaid, Mary Beth Hurt, Sandy Dennis, Bryan Madorsky, London Juno, Kathryn Grody, Deborah Rush, Graham Jarvis, Helen Carscallen, Warren Van Evera, Wayne Robson, Uriel Byfield, Mariah Balaban, Larry Palef,
- Country:Canada, USA
- Director:Bob Balaban,
- Writer:Christopher Hawthorne
A young boy living in 1950s suburbia begins to wonder where his parents get their meat from... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Parents torrent reviews
(es) wrote: More miss than hit, again.The first ABCs of Death was a novel concept but the result was a mixed bag.The idea of both movies is that 26 different directors each take one letter of the alphabet, and make a short (4-5 minute) death-themed story on it. Segments are shown in order, ie from A to Z, and end with "(whatever) letter is for (something)'.Nice idea, but the execution didn't quite measure up to the concept. The short stories vary from very clever and interesting to incredibly stupid. Some are clearly made just with shock value, and no narrative, in mind.ABCs of Death 2 is slightly better than the first movie, but now the novelty has worn off. There are some great little stories - B (directed by and starring Julian Barratt, of The Might Boosh fame) is funny and interesting and C makes a very good point in a very short space of time.Less incredibly stupid stories than the first one, but not much more good ones either.Overall: so-so. More bad stories than good.
(jp) wrote: Coherent, powerful, informative... now, I want to learn the Ochs' songs I'd forgotten about. Thanks, Brandywine, for showing!
(es) wrote: Very suspenseful my eyes were glued to the screen
(us) wrote: After re watching this recently, I absolutely love everything about this film. The characters, especially Penelope Cruz who was hauntingly beautiful in her portrayal as Marie Elena. The cast was so well chosen and acted it's an inspiring tale of love, adventure and making lasting vs fleeting choices. The script and Allens directing style and flow so well from scene to scene. The one that stood out was when Juan Antonios chance encounter with Vicki at the Gaudie museum he says only unfulfilled love can be romantic. That stood out because it's the principle in which the whole film surrounds.
(gb) wrote: This movie is family friendly, teaches values, and has some very good acting. It's the only movie I know of with a parrot that actually educates the viewers as to how parrots truly behave, feel and think.
(au) wrote: awsome moviegreat races scenes.Nadia Bjorlin is sooo hotttttand the cars are hot too.
(br) wrote: not as good as the other 2
(nl) wrote: Odekerk's gotten better as time has gone on.
(mx) wrote: [color=white]What can I say about this film that will sum it up nicely............[/color][color=#ffffff][/color] [color=#ffffff]Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha he he he he he ha ha ha ha. Ahaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho he he he he ho ho ho. (holding stomache now) Haaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha uhu uhu uhu uha ha ha ha ha ho ho........etc, etc......[/color][color=#ffffff]This has got to be the worst film I have ever seen. I have seen better acting from a piece of MDF. What on earth possesed David Hasselhoff (and even Linda Blair) to accept this movie![/color][color=#ffffff]The only reason I saw this film in the first place was due to the fact the film was bundled free with a DVD player purchase. [/color][color=#ffffff]It is billed as a horror/thriller but to be quite honest, I have never laughed so much at a so called serious horror film. [/color][color=#ffffff]Go on, please watch this film. You will then appreciate what I am talking about.[/color]
(jp) wrote: A powerhouse cast and a compelling story presented here by director Norman Jewison and beautifully filmed by cinematographer Sven Nyquist combined to make this a marvelous film. Meg Tilly radiates beauty, faith, and simplicity as Sister Agnes, a novice in an unnamed monastic order of nuns who is accused of murdering her newborn child. Jane Fonda plays a court appointed psychiatrist whose duty is to render a diagnosis that will allow the church and the courts to sweep this case under the rug, but who fights to find out what really happened. More detective than doctor, she follows the trail to wherever it leads, to the consternation of all. And Anne Bancroft, as the Mother Superior with her own secrets, wants this ordeal to be over before her own failures are revealed. Some of the early scenes, as the story was being set up, left this viewer a little confused and the relationship between the good doctor and a sympathetic police detective was largely unexplained. But, except for those shortcomings, this was a powerful film dealing with innocence and guilt and faith versus skepticism in a wholly believable manner. Questions remain, but the verdict rendered by the court seems just and fair, and the clash between faith and reason is not settled, but has reached a truce. One feels that an unlikely friendship has been established and that the good Dr Livingstone and Mother Superior Miriam Ruth share a mutual respect for one another as a result of these events.
(ru) wrote: *** (out of four) The second filmed version of the celebrated true crime book by Vincent Bugliosi. It lacks the authentic feel of the first and feels quite stagey, but it features a good performance from Jeremy Davies and should interest those who are interested in the story of one of the biggest and most disturbing true life horror stories. Davies plays Charles Manson, the evil genius who mesmerized dozens of young hippies. When his dreams of being in the music business failed and he was turned away by the likes of Terry Melcher and Dennis Wilson of the Beach Boys, Manson convinced some of his followers to brutally murder those who were living in Melcher's former house. He hoped to spark a race war where he would eventually be the king. I do recommend reading the book, since the film skips over a lot of important facts, but if you simply want to see a quick overview, this will do.
(au) wrote: I remember watching this movie in loop as a child. I watched it once a day, sometimes more. It's brilliant aesthetic and spotless cinematography appealed to me along with superb erotic exoticism. A bit Tintin with girls in it. I believe that, until now, this very movie still created what still remains a huge part of my artistic sensitivity.
(ca) wrote: absolutely ridiculous .... the only positive thing about this movie was the little bits of funny parts between the news casters ... the rest of the film, especially sandra bullock was just horrible. the plot was just stupid, and mary was an over-obssesive psychopath - her type of uniqueness should probably have been put in a mental institute as opposed to celebrated. i just feel like sandra bullock was a really bad choice for this character - the best choice would have been if the character didn't exist because it was just that unrelatble and idiotic, but an actress like sandra bullock who's usually like the smart beaurocratic woman just looked out of place in this movie. every bit of this movie oozed with cheese and i could literally feel my brain cells dying as i was watching it.
(ru) wrote: I can't believe I saw a baby emerging from...you know...
(kr) wrote: Strange, beautiful and multi-layered. One of the Coen brothers' best films.
(br) wrote: Nice visuals indeed, but that's it! Very long, boring and utterly infantile story.