¿Qué le dijiste a Dios?
Unforgettable songs by Mexico's beloved Juan Gabriel highlight this irresistible musical comedy about two housekeepers who risk it all for love.
You may also like
¿Qué le dijiste a Dios? torrent reviews
Tim G (es) wrote: It's 88 minutes I will never get back.
Gio P (jp) wrote: a unique Filipino film that has an incredible artistic touch. Judy Ann Santos' quiet performance is fabulous but what really captures you is the cinematography and the magical view of Cuyo, Palawan.
Leong C (de) wrote: A powerful drama, with a very talented cast...
Private U (ru) wrote: Stupid but fun...cheers mate!
Adam F (de) wrote: "Pet Sematary" had a lot of potential, but despite what you might remember, it just doesn't live up to what it could have been. Based on the Stephen King book, it's about a family that moves into a new home. Louis (Dale Midkiff) is the new doctor at the university, Rachel (Denise Crosby) is his wife. Across the street is a friendly old man named Jud (Fred Gwynne), who warns them about the road nearby. As he explains it, the road has taken many lives, mostly pets. When Louis comes face-to-face with tragedy, he learns of a mysterious place beyond the pet cemetery, an old Mic Mac burial ground that holds mysterious powers.The biggest problem is easy to pinpoint: Screenplay by Stephen King. Having read the novel, I can tell you that the man hasn't cut a thing from the tome so plot points are quickly introduced and poorly developed because there's a new one right around the corner. The multitude of ideas here really needed a significant amount of buildup and development to be effective and as is, they just aren't and sometimes come off as 100% nonsense. Take for example, the Mic Mac burial ground. It's not a spoiler that this burial ground is not going to lead to anything good. In fact, we learn from Jud that it has a reputation for being an evil place. Why then, does he tell Louis about it, knowing that he will travel there? There are hints that the place has a mind of its own and is able to influence events and people, but there is so little time dedicated to this idea that actually, you are more prone to believing that Jud is simply an evil old man looking to screw around with his neighbor. It's one of the most frightening ideas in this story and it takes a backseat to countless other plot points that don't really go anywhere.There's so much going on it will make you want to run in front of a semi truck. We have the Creed daughter experiencing psychic visions (it wouldn't be a bad Stephen King movie without those), a friendly ghost that tries to influence Louis, back story between Louis and Rachel's father, Rachel's tragic past and family drama time. Each of these plot points end up hindering the story because they take valuable moments away from what would have been character development. There is a character introduced at the beginning of the film. She has a couple of scenes, dies and turns out to be completely pointless in the end. It's easy to see why she was included: her death is meant to begin a string of events that make Louis' actions during the climax of the film understandable. That sounds like a good idea, but when you don't care about the characters, it's impossible for the film to be effective.I really wanted to give this movie a shot, but I found so many things that bothered me about it. For example, Louis is a doctor so his wife nicknames him "Doc". In fact she almost always calls him "Doc". It's like the woman doesn't even know the name of her family members when you hear her say "Doc come get your son" and other similar phrases. She and her husband do not feel like a couple at all, not only because she nags him all the time, but because it feels like they have never spent any time alone together. Ironically, the film is simultaneously too empty and too full. It is full of useless plot developments that an unbiased screenwriter, one that understands that books and movies are like apple pies and orange marmalade would have cut. Books and movies are very different and can't be written the same way. In a book, having something like hallucinations, visions or ordinary objects turn against their masters can work because you're already visualizing the story in your head. Your mind is doing a lot of the work and when you've been sitting in bed reading for 3 chapters straight, not only does it naturally suck you in because you've been with the characters a long time, but you've gotten to be in their heads and you can actually imagine what is being described to you in a way that works. Movies only usually last 90 to 120 minutes; they're leaner and show you everything without having easy access to characters' thoughts. Stephen King is simply not able to understand this, which is why his screenplays do not work. It also doesn't help that there's some pretty wooden acting throughout. Maybe that was intentional. Bad acting for flat characters? It's a match made in movie hell. I will give credit to the special effects and makeup in the film, which are quite good. Also, for better or worse, Fred Gwynne gives a memorable performance. He comes off as a cooky old man more often than not, but there's something about him that grabs your attention. The rest of the film though, it's a really big disappointment. Compare this film to another one of King's novels turned into a movie, "Christine". Both have a pretty far-out premise, but "Christine", directed by John Carpenter works because the story is boiled down to its essentials. "Pet Sematary" is not; overall it's a big mess and you might remember it being scary and disturbing but that's only because you're remembering a few key scary scenes, which come at the very end of the movie and are actually better taken out of context. (On Dvd, June 6, 2014)
Heather M (es) wrote: Burt Reynolds - Enough said!
Leo B (mx) wrote: When a Rolling Stones journalist decides to write an article on health clubs in the 80's, he meets some resistance in a female aerobics instructor. A star packed film with a great soundtrack makes this 80's cult movie a must see...though the story leaves something to be desired. Watch at your own risk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ken D (mx) wrote: One of the cheesiest Van Damme flicks and Rodman's presence makes it even worse.