Prey for the Beast

Prey for the Beast

A horrible creature with an insatiable appetite for human flesh feasts on a group of terrified campers.

A group of weekend warriors go into the woods to avoids the troubles of home life when they meet a group of sexy hikers out to do the same. Unbeknown to the two groups, a predatory animal ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Prey for the Beast torrent reviews

Spencer K (fr) wrote: I was on board with this movie for about the first 20 minutes and then it all just went very downhill for me. Sharlto Copley gives a fine performance, but that can't save this movie from being the downright bore that it is. I lost interest very quick, and nothing surprised me or shocked me in the slightest and I just really wasted it to be over with. and when the end came I was damn glad because this movie sucked. don't waste your time.

Annie C (mx) wrote: i thought it'd be just a typical teen love story but it's really well made, full of surprises, beautiful scenes, never dwell on sentimentality too long - good enough to make a skeptic cry.

Krish P (ru) wrote: by Hi my husband has to ii

Kristian M (de) wrote: When I first watched it I liked the film, but now that I looked back at it I can see why the critics disliked it so much. When the developers of the film made the story line they didn't even know what they were doing. They screwed up big time. When they put bad dialogue and lazy editing inside the plot they made it look childish, for putting outside references into the film they made it look dated and for changing the source material they didn't respect to what's already been perfect. I'm not going to act like everything that the original Yu-Gi-Oh did was a masterpiece, but when the original series got it right it got it right and fans like myself remember why it's a memorable show to look at. They don't need to try to act all fancy by putting in different lines from other movies or shows, they don't need to be scared to show a lot of effort to impress the non fans, because what fans are trying to look for (including people who never grew up with the show) is an amazing plot that would be perfectly executed and superior so that way non fans like the critics will get a great understanding of what the show is all about or better yet if 4kids have a hard time coming up with ideas they don't need to make movies made about them. However if the next time you decide to make a movie based on a popular series and different franchises the least you can do is understand the source material. I mean the idea of this... making a movie that is a heartbreaker based on a show and card game by the same name. It just makes me sick to my stomach. There is a reason why the show is superior, and I can guarantee you that people will still be watching the original series and still be playing the card game and bullshit like this would disappear from everyone's subconscious.

Aswin W (de) wrote: This was a good average psychological thriller. From the begining when Melissa George lays on the ground in a crumy room thought she just talked to a mysterious man the whole time but was more than that. Had few twist and turns to a wicked ending.

Ken C (es) wrote: Singin' in the Rain's magic shines through in its charming, delightfully limber set-piece numbers, and most of all, in its hearty, genuine love of its own craft. It is totally appropriate that the greatest musical ever made reflects passionately on the history of its own genre, specifically Hollywood's troubled transition from silent to talking pictures at the end of the 1920s.

Sarah F (de) wrote: I wonder what this is about, i think ill see it!

Alain P (ru) wrote: This is pretty funny. Has some funny scenes (like, when Stewart and Ginger Rogers are eager to consummate their marriage. The cat fight) You could say it's a solid romantic comedy. Stewart seems to do better in this one, than I've seen in another comedic film. There's good enough chemistry between Rogers and him, because they still come off convincingly enough as a young doe-eyed couple, where it's not too chick-flicky, because their characters contrast enough to make it work.

Kevin D (fr) wrote: The Crusades began in the late 11th Century as the Christian Armies of Europe, responding to Pope Ubran II`s cries to go to war on behalf of all Christendom, against the Muslim armies in the Holy Land near Jerusalem. These battles lasted over two hundred years, and are considered some of the bloodiest of the Middle Ages.Ridley Scott Delivers a truly epic historical drama about a blacksmith Balian (Orlando Bloom) turned crusader, and how even a man from simple beginnings can change the world. The brutality of the times is duly delivered throughout the film, and well acted throughout with a fairly dynamic cast of supporting actors. Most notably Liam Neeson as the Knight Godfrey, Edward Norton as the masked King Baldwin, and David Thewlis, the unnamed monk who supports Balian throughout his battles. What he really achieves, and to my surprise is a lack of bias towards both the Christian and Muslim sides of this battle. Both sides retained their own ideologies, but never once does Scott make one side seem to be without principle or merit. Despite what people may feel currently, when I look back on this film, I think it fairly portrays the honour and cruelty of religious ideology on both sides.One of the best achievements of this movie is the lack, or at least reduced use of CGI throughout the film. Every Battle looks realistic, and avoids the pitfalls of subsequent movies like 'Lord of the Rings,' and 'Troy' (of which Bloom also stars). Ever face on the battle field is a different one, and it looks exactly like it should. 1500 dressed in armor, and each with their own weapon, fighting it out for their respective King and Religion. The towers that were used in the siege of Jerusalem were really built using technology from that period of time, and it certainly adds a sense of realism to the movie.Of course it's not without a few minor flaws. I'm usually thrown off by the use of the British accent during historical dramas. I understand the necessity of it, as it connect the viewer to the period, but considering the majority of the Knights during the crusades were of mixed decent (French and Germanic mostly), it can seem a bit out of place (especially when using names like Raynald de Chatillion and such). It's a bit like using an American accent to read Shakespeare. It throws the whole thing off. Additionally, there are several differences between the theatrical version, and the director's cut (being 194 minutes) is noted by the Director as being the 'definitive cut,' so it's recommended to avoid the shorter 2 hour version as it misses an entire act.Undoubtedly one of the most detailed and well portrayed epic films of it's time, Kingdom of Heaven is a beautiful rendition of a brutal time.4/5

TheRantingAnchor R (au) wrote: Probably the best movie in the Michael Bay series.